4 ms·

> 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 w

> 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
    > no one has right to imprison anyone for any reason whatsoever Sorry, I chose the wrong word and have since adjusted it. Not "right", but mere "option" - based wholly on the contract you signed specifically agreeing to such. > because LG would be very minimal and limited This has no bearing on what I'm saying, since in this example USG is a corporation. There can also be a perfect LG that simply enforces the contract you signed with USG, or you can just imagine dutifully holding yourself to the contract. > Lets say I sign it... Then USG claims Don't add another hypothetical twist. If you sign the contract and stay, how would your basic situation differ from what it currently is (assuming you are currently in the US) ?
    - wav-part 10y ago
      > There can also be a perfect LG that simply enforces the contract you signed with USG, Thats not possible. LG would only enforce its own very minimal, objective & limited constitution. As a corporation within LG, USG would have to make USC enforcable without help from LG. > or you can just imagine dutifully holding yourself to the contract. Only if its in my interest to do so. > If you sign the contract and stay, how would your basic situation differ from what it currently is Its not. I am probably missing something, mind writing the whole question in one form again ?
      - mindslight 10y ago
        > LG would only enforce its own very minimal, objective & limited constitution. As a corporation within LG, USG would have to make USC enforcable without help from LG In general libertarian thought, the government enforces contracts between private parties. What you're describing sounds more like anarcho-capitalism. > Only if its in my interest to do so. In Libertarian thought, following contracts is a moral requirement. I have no disagreement with what you're asserting here - actually I think it's a good check against overbearing contracts. But we have to share a context in order to have a discussion. The tenets you're describing aren't libertarianism, at least in the US sense of the word. My entire point here is to help US-thinking libertarians avoid falling into the trap where their philosophy is bastardized to justify replacing government with all-powerful corporations.

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
  > no one has right to imprison anyone for any reason whatsoever Sorry, I chose the wrong word and have since adjusted it. Not "right", but mere "option" - based wholly on the contract you signed specifically agreeing to such. > because LG would be very minimal and limited This has no bearing on what I'm saying, since in this example USG is a corporation. There can also be a perfect LG that simply enforces the contract you signed with USG, or you can just imagine dutifully holding yourself to the contract. > Lets say I sign it... Then USG claims Don't add another hypothetical twist. If you sign the contract and stay, how would your basic situation differ from what it currently is (assuming you are currently in the US) ?
  - wav-part 10y ago
    > There can also be a perfect LG that simply enforces the contract you signed with USG, Thats not possible. LG would only enforce its own very minimal, objective & limited constitution. As a corporation within LG, USG would have to make USC enforcable without help from LG. > or you can just imagine dutifully holding yourself to the contract. Only if its in my interest to do so. > If you sign the contract and stay, how would your basic situation differ from what it currently is Its not. I am probably missing something, mind writing the whole question in one form again ?
    - mindslight 10y ago
      > LG would only enforce its own very minimal, objective & limited constitution. As a corporation within LG, USG would have to make USC enforcable without help from LG In general libertarian thought, the government enforces contracts between private parties. What you're describing sounds more like anarcho-capitalism. > Only if its in my interest to do so. In Libertarian thought, following contracts is a moral requirement. I have no disagreement with what you're asserting here - actually I think it's a good check against overbearing contracts. But we have to share a context in order to have a discussion. The tenets you're describing aren't libertarianism, at least in the US sense of the word. My entire point here is to help US-thinking libertarians avoid falling into the trap where their philosophy is bastardized to justify replacing government with all-powerful corporations.