5 ms·

> (as there is no difference between a totalitarian government from an all-owning all-contracting corporation), even though they're easily tricked into condonin

> (as there is no difference between a totalitarian government from an all-owning all-contracting corporation), even though they're easily tricked into condoning them. Law works because everyone concent and choose to follow it. If you have such single non-violent corporation then there is nothing stops from people to just walk away.

mindslight 10y ago
If you reverse your sentences, you actually address your own point - > If you have such single non-violent corporation then there is nothing stops from people to just walk away. > Law works because everyone concent and choose to follow it ... with the implication that people could choose to walk away from specific laws, which they can but just require a sizable group to do so. Coming at it from the other direction, a non-violent corporation can still be coercive if it say owns all of the land and you must rent for a place to exist, or even if you own your land it owns all the roads you must sign a contract to travel. Would you feel better by just viewing USG as a corporation with a contract that you continue to consent to by not having left? The straightforward response is that a contract to use a road should be scope-constrained to the topic of road usage, and not say also preclude you from using drugs on your own property. But that's no longer as simple and universal as a belief in unlimited contracts.
- wav-part 10y ago
  > Would you feel better by just viewing USG as a corporation with a contract that you continue to consent to by not having left? Yes I agree. So lets assume we have someone who has monopoly on land (like USG) and who is non-violent (unlike USG). How do solve this: Trade Sanctions/Non Cooperation. Bitcoin is a similar development. > The straightforward response is that a contract to use a road should be scope-constrained to the topic of road usage, and not say also preclude you from using drugs on your own property. Agreed. > But that's no longer as simple and universal as a belief in unlimited contracts. Existence of unlimited contracts does not imply one have to agreed to one unreasonably. That is, think before agreeing to a contract (and arbitrator). Also note the contract to remove unlimited contracts would (probably) be unlimited itself.
  - mindslight 10y ago
    > who is non-violent (unlike USG). I assume you really mean non-aggressive (eg a libertarian would respect a masochist consenting to having violence done to them). Except we've moved the boundaries such that USG is actually non-aggressive (domestically, at least) - you've merely assented to a contract that says you will not use drugs, or USG may imprison you (this could be plausibly beneficial, say you wanted to avoid drugs and were worried about temptation). > How do solve this: Trade Sanctions/Non Cooperation. Bitcoin is a similar development. I fully agree, but this is besides the point I'm making. For example, you're actually implying these approaches are inapplicable because USG is not a corporation! > That is, think before agreeing to a contract (and arbitrator). Okay... So tomorrow, USG offers you an explicit contract by which remaining on its property (eg inside its borders), you agree to follow its detailed code incorporated by reference (currently called "laws"), as interpreted by its courts. You have a year to decide. At the end of the year, do you agree to this contract or do you leave?
    - wav-part 10y ago
      > I assume you really mean non-aggressive Yes. > Except we've moved the boundaries such that USG is non-aggressive (domestically, at least) - you've merely assented to a contract that says you will not use drugs, or USG will have the right to imprison you No, In Libretarian Land no one has right to imprison anyone for any reason whatsoever. This is a simple objective contract and I expect unanimous consent. But you can also have have two Lands one support giving up of this particular freedom as part of contract and one simply outlaws it. More choices the better (which also means few govts being true socialist states, is ok). Let the market decide. > For example, you're actually implying these approaches are inapplicable because USG is not a corporation! You would not need this with Libertarian Government (LG) because LG would be very minimal and limited. Even if LG does a bait-and-switch (possible) other LGs/Govts can trade war. I should point out I dont support there be one global LG but numerous smaller LGs. Depending on one single entity is risky irregardless of its intentions. > At the end of the year, do you agree to this contract or do you leave? Lets say I sign it. After 5 years relocate to another country B. Then USG claims I owe them citing the signed USC. But for USC to be enforcable, B also have to consent to it. That is, I dont pay just because I signed the contract but because the consequences would be worse if I dont.

mindslight 10y ago

If you reverse your sentences, you actually address your own point - > If you have such single non-violent corporation then there is nothing stops from people to just walk away. > Law works because everyone concent and choose to follow it ... with the implication that people could choose to walk away from specific laws, which they can but just require a sizable group to do so. Coming at it from the other direction, a non-violent corporation can still be coercive if it say owns all of the land and you must rent for a place to exist, or even if you own your land it owns all the roads you must sign a contract to travel. Would you feel better by just viewing USG as a corporation with a contract that you continue to consent to by not having left? The straightforward response is that a contract to use a road should be scope-constrained to the topic of road usage, and not say also preclude you from using drugs on your own property. But that's no longer as simple and universal as a belief in unlimited contracts.

wav-part 10y ago
> Would you feel better by just viewing USG as a corporation with a contract that you continue to consent to by not having left? Yes I agree. So lets assume we have someone who has monopoly on land (like USG) and who is non-violent (unlike USG). How do solve this: Trade Sanctions/Non Cooperation. Bitcoin is a similar development. > The straightforward response is that a contract to use a road should be scope-constrained to the topic of road usage, and not say also preclude you from using drugs on your own property. Agreed. > But that's no longer as simple and universal as a belief in unlimited contracts. Existence of unlimited contracts does not imply one have to agreed to one unreasonably. That is, think before agreeing to a contract (and arbitrator). Also note the contract to remove unlimited contracts would (probably) be unlimited itself.
- mindslight 10y ago
  > who is non-violent (unlike USG). I assume you really mean non-aggressive (eg a libertarian would respect a masochist consenting to having violence done to them). Except we've moved the boundaries such that USG is actually non-aggressive (domestically, at least) - you've merely assented to a contract that says you will not use drugs, or USG may imprison you (this could be plausibly beneficial, say you wanted to avoid drugs and were worried about temptation). > How do solve this: Trade Sanctions/Non Cooperation. Bitcoin is a similar development. I fully agree, but this is besides the point I'm making. For example, you're actually implying these approaches are inapplicable because USG is not a corporation! > That is, think before agreeing to a contract (and arbitrator). Okay... So tomorrow, USG offers you an explicit contract by which remaining on its property (eg inside its borders), you agree to follow its detailed code incorporated by reference (currently called "laws"), as interpreted by its courts. You have a year to decide. At the end of the year, do you agree to this contract or do you leave?
  - wav-part 10y ago
    > I assume you really mean non-aggressive Yes. > Except we've moved the boundaries such that USG is non-aggressive (domestically, at least) - you've merely assented to a contract that says you will not use drugs, or USG will have the right to imprison you No, In Libretarian Land no one has right to imprison anyone for any reason whatsoever. This is a simple objective contract and I expect unanimous consent. But you can also have have two Lands one support giving up of this particular freedom as part of contract and one simply outlaws it. More choices the better (which also means few govts being true socialist states, is ok). Let the market decide. > For example, you're actually implying these approaches are inapplicable because USG is not a corporation! You would not need this with Libertarian Government (LG) because LG would be very minimal and limited. Even if LG does a bait-and-switch (possible) other LGs/Govts can trade war. I should point out I dont support there be one global LG but numerous smaller LGs. Depending on one single entity is risky irregardless of its intentions. > At the end of the year, do you agree to this contract or do you leave? Lets say I sign it. After 5 years relocate to another country B. Then USG claims I owe them citing the signed USC. But for USC to be enforcable, B also have to consent to it. That is, I dont pay just because I signed the contract but because the consequences would be worse if I dont.