[Game_Over]

Traktion, on 27 April 2012 - 12:42 PM, said:

Yes, it does help clarify your point, but you don't explain why you think this.

It isn't just about nukes being pointed at each other either. War is far more expensive than cooperation, even if you disregard the 'cost' of human life.



Pardon me, but I think I responded to your points in a detailed and explicit manner. I even provided support evidence through external links. You have yet to provide links, nor bother to refer to mine.

Credit scoring is ostracism in a group of more than 150. As is ex-communication in the Catholic church. Ebay uses ostracism in its ratings system, as do many other sites which form any form of ratings system. There are many other examples. If your 'decent body of research' refutes this, let's see it.

Incidentally, credit scoring transcends borders, as does religion and the Internet in general.



I assert that arbitration can work of any parties of any size. The parties who are not being judged (ie. everyone else) decides how much influence arbitration has, by deciding how much they respect the judgement. Where is your evidence to the contrary?

If one big organisation owns a bunch of courts, it doesn't mean that they will be respected. If they use them unfairly, it will just lead them to having a bunch of courts which no one trusts or cares about.

Even if the cost of war was 'cheap' (very unlikely), do you think everyone will just stand idly by, still using said organisation's services? Of course they wouldn't - they would call it inhumane, violent and shameful, then ostracise them, cutting off their income stream. Empire building just isn't seen as morally acceptable any more, even by nations who are wealthy enough to do it (arguably, the gap between rich and poor countries is too small to exploit too).

If such an organisation didn't care and wanted to wage war on the people by threatening them and stealing their stuff, then people would work to overthrow them. The state only functions now because most people are happy to submit to it. This wouldn't be the case where being ruled was seen as a violation of individual liberties (which seems to be where things are heading, IMO).

The whole of human history proves you wrong.

[tahoma]

Game_Over, on 27 April 2012 - 07:53 PM, said:

The whole of human history proves you wrong.

Actually, most of the current world proves him wrong.

Most of the worlds people hate their rulers, which is why said rulers need an aggressive security apparatus to stay in power and keep their so-called countries from descending into tribal pogrom. Look at Africa and the Middle East. Absolute tinderboxes without strong men in charge.

It's so fashionable to believe in the noble savage that people refuse to see otherwise.

[thecrashingisles]

Traktion, on 27 April 2012 - 08:30 AM, said:

All this stuff is very 'what if...' and you can think about all different ways this stuff could work. I'm sure there are many greater minds than mine who could think of better ways too, so these are just suggestions.

What if there were a group of people who wanted to operate a competing legal system in Britain. Let's call it Sharia. Presumably you would be 100% in favour since it would create some competition?

[Byron]

The main point is that Traktion is espousing his views as though they are a logical break from what has gone before, rather like Marx did in a different way.
Thing is, Traktion's ideas are not some sort of mouthdropping revelation of the inevitable, they are just another brand of politics.

[Traktion]

mfp123, on 27 April 2012 - 07:42 PM, said:

youre saying im trying to catch you out however im simply using your own principles of a stateless society and actually youre rejecting your own principles by using a means of justification to close your arguments.

you say tax is immoral and that the justification argument of why tax is ok, has to be kicked out the window because its simply about morals.

yet when i apply your own concepts in your stateless world, you start to justify how a stateless society can work.

you say laws shouldnt exist but then say a court can handle disputes. now dont forget the people sitting courts could not be legal experts, because there are no laws for them to make judgements on.

theyre just ordinary people passing their own opinions on everything and youre saying that this individuals opinions would hold weight.

and they are just opinions remember they are not professionals theyre not falling back on laws or rules or precedent its simply "what they think" yet you elevate them to a position of authority.

what you dont realise is that in your state free world, in order to make it work, you are actually starting to create formal channels by which things are done - i.e the building blocks of a state.

when we start from scratch with a state free world and then put arguments and scenarios to you, your responses and solutions start to mimic what a state does.

If a society can 'mimic what a state' does without using taxation and threats, that's fine by me.

I don't say that laws shouldn't exist either. I just think they should be defined from the bottom up, via the free market, rather than imposed from above. Common law came before legislation, not after it.

You say I am creating formal channels by which things should be done. Others say I don't explain how things should be done. I have only made suggestions of how things may be done, but it seems I am damned if I make suggestions and damned if I don't.

I can only dump some of my thoughts here and you can take them or leave them, much like a state free society would.

[Traktion]

Game_Over, on 27 April 2012 - 07:53 PM, said:

The whole of human history proves you wrong.

That's not true. There are numerous examples where states haven't been present in any meaningful sense.

Additionally, this isn't about looking backwards. 400 years ago, the UK didn't have a democratic state. I'm sure the monarchy appeared to be the only way to rule one's subjects back before then too.

The Internet has given us communication tools beyond what has ever been provided. There is a wealth of knowledge, as well as forums for debate. Maybe society will remain the same and there will be no social change, but I doubt it.

IMO, the Internet will lead to far bigger social change than the printing press ever did. The printing press removed the monopoly over religious teaching, fuelled the industrial revolution and revived the democratic state in a modern form. To think the latter won't evolve into something new is rather short sighted (again, IMO).

[Traktion]

thecrashingisles, on 27 April 2012 - 08:24 PM, said:

What if there were a group of people who wanted to operate a competing legal system in Britain. Let's call it Sharia. Presumably you would be 100% in favour since it would create some competition?

Sure, why not? If people want to live by Canon Law, Sharia Law, Common Law etc, that is up to them. As long as they respect people who don't share their opinions, that's fine by me.

[Game_Over]

Traktion, on 27 April 2012 - 10:31 PM, said:

If a society can 'mimic what a state' does without using taxation and threats, that's fine by me.

I don't say that laws shouldn't exist either. I just think they should be defined from the bottom up, via the free market, rather than imposed from above. Common law came before legislation, not after it.

You say I am creating formal channels by which things should be done. Others say I don't explain how things should be done. I have only made suggestions of how things may be done, but it seems I am damned if I make suggestions and damned if I don't.

I can only dump some of my thoughts here and you can take them or leave them, much like a state free society would.

But if no one else agrees with you

then you are either a once in a generation visionary

or seriously deluded

[Game_Over]

Traktion, on 27 April 2012 - 10:40 PM, said:

Sure, why not? If people want to live by Canon Law, Sharia Law, Common Law etc, that is up to them. As long as they respect people who don't share their opinions, that's fine by me.

As if this would ever happen.

Tolerate the intolerant and guess what

once they have power

you either share their opinions or you get a bullet in the head.

[Traktion]

Byron, on 27 April 2012 - 08:27 PM, said:

The main point is that Traktion is espousing his views as though they are a logical break from what has gone before, rather like Marx did in a different way.
Thing is, Traktion's ideas are not some sort of mouthdropping revelation of the inevitable, they are just another brand of politics.

I wouldn't call them my ideas. Many better minds than mine have written and shared similar ideas with others over the years. What I write is mostly my take on them.

I do think that not giving one organisation a special status over others is an evolution of our social/political system though. Corporations already span nations and the Internet has removed borders in many practical senses.

For me, the abandonment of the nation state just doesn't seem that radical. I just don't think it is needed any longer. For me, watching how communities and organisations are evolving on the Internet re-enforce this view (along with a sprinkling of historical cases).

[Traktion]

Game_Over, on 27 April 2012 - 10:40 PM, said:

But if no one else agrees with you

then you are either a once in a generation visionary

or seriously deluded

Time will tell, I suppose!

[billfunk]

Traktion, on 27 April 2012 - 10:58 PM, said:

Time will tell, I suppose!

What do you actually do that is anarchist?

[Traktion]

Game_Over, on 27 April 2012 - 10:43 PM, said:

As if this would ever happen.

Tolerate the intolerant and guess what

once they have power

you either share their opinions or you get a bullet in the head.

I think with so many views freely mixing, due to advancing communications technology, the difference between 'them' and 'us' is getting smaller by the year. I often feel I have more in common with groups of people on the Internet, than I do with my neighbours.

I could be completely wrong and we could be headed for a huge war, as you suggest. I hope that we have progressed far enough as a species to avoid this, but who knows?

[Lepista]

billfunk, on 27 April 2012 - 11:04 PM, said:

What do you actually do that is anarchist?

What a dumb question. Why not ask a slave that has ideas about a slaveless state what he does that is not the action of a slave?

[billfunk]

Lepista, on 28 April 2012 - 07:30 AM, said:

What a dumb question. Why not ask a slave that has ideas about a slaveless state what he does that is not the action of a slave?

Face it. You two are dilettantes.