[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / ausneets / f / fascist / had / hikki / kc / vichan / zoo ]

/liberty/ - Liberty

Non-authoritarian Discussion of Politics, Society, News, and the Human Condition (Fun Allowed)
July 2018 Transparency Report
Name
Email
Subject
Comment *
File
Password (Randomized for file and post deletion; you may also set your own.)
* = required field[▶ Show post options & limits]
Confused? See the FAQ.
Flag
Embed
(replaces files and can be used instead)
Oekaki
Show oekaki applet
(replaces files and can be used instead)
Options
dicesidesmodifier

Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webm, mp4, pdf
Max filesize is 16 MB.
Max image dimensions are 15000 x 15000.
You may upload 5 per post.


WARNING! Free Speech Zone - all local trashcans will be targeted for destruction by Antifa.

File: 4c894d3fd743d62⋯.png (445.5 KB, 1485x1057, 1485:1057, ClipboardImage.png)

 No.84413

Is zoning communism?

 No.84415

>>84413

When its not a voluntary structure similar to a home owners association.


 No.84514

>>84415

>home owners association

>voluntary


 No.84523

>>84415

Isn't zoning typically done by the government through contract?


 No.84524

>>84514

Yes anon, voluntary. The people who own houses all agree to start one, as a clause they state that anyone they sell the house to must also agree. Thus the system perpetuates. If you find the rules against your liking you don't get sold the house.


 No.84533

>>84413

Zoning is the devil.


 No.84534

>>84514

Also this.

>>84524

The issue is that you can be forced into the HOA whether you agree to it or not, and you can't opt out. HOAs are like Unions but about 10x worse.


 No.84538

>>84534

>The issue is that you can be forced into the HOA whether you agree to it or not

No you cant. The home owner(s) form one voluntarily. As part of the agreement they agree to only sell to others that agree. There is no force here.


 No.84539

>>84534

>HOAs are like Unions but about 10x worse.

There is nothing wrong with unions as long as they are not mandatory by law. If a business man agrees to only hire union workers when negotiating with a union then he fucked up.


 No.84555

>>84538

Which means you're forced to if you want that house


 No.84560

>>84555

>Which means you're forced to if you want that house

Anon yes, you can voluntarily choose to purchase a house with a home owners association. No one is stopping you from choosing such a location.


 No.84561

File: 6707dfc65826e4c⋯.gif (493.94 KB, 200x201, 200:201, are_you_serious_nigga.gif)

>>84555

>"no shirt, no shoes, no service"

<STOP FORCING ME INTO CONTRACTS I DON'T LIEK


 No.84567

>>84524

Not all contracts are enforceable, and this is not one of them for sure. read this https://mises.org/library/property-rights-and-theory-contracts


 No.84569

>>84555

>Which means you're forced to if you want that house

Correct. It wouldnt work for badly raised children who think that wanting something gives them the automatic right to have it.


 No.84570

>>84560

I think the main problem is that there is no opt out option for an HOA except when you sell the home. If the HOA voted for expensive amenities/services, your fees increase and may impair your ability to sell.


 No.84571

>>84570

Start your own Home owners association in a new area. Where nobody has to pay anything and every member gets free blowjobs. From you.


 No.84573

>>84571

Shouldn't you be able to declare independence from your HOA and be an enclave?


 No.84576

>>84573

In a privatized scenario, yes. The HOA has no legal grounds to compel you to join, you just lose out on any benefits of joining, which may include losing access to "shared" resources that are the property of the HOA. The exception is if the home wasn't sold to you but leased, and HOA membership was a prerequisite to keeping the lease. In that instance, the HOA or whoever holds the deed has a right to evict you.


 No.84578

>>84576

Does eviction violate the NAP?


 No.84582

File: 768d7e9584710ec⋯.jpg (60.88 KB, 603x645, 201:215, CIA_confused.jpg)

>>84578

>Does eviction violate the NAP?

I…Of course it doesn't. You no longer consent to someone occupying your property so you ask them to leave, it's pretty simple. If they refuse to leave they're the ones violating the NAP, unless you're violating the terms of contract (such as not refunding the tenants if they've paid for three months and they've only lived there for one).


 No.84583

File: 8c10dfc58f4c00d⋯.jpg (75.51 KB, 532x485, 532:485, tom hardy bane.jpg)

>>84582

What if you were to throw a man out of a plane, of course without shooting him first, because that would be ridiculous?


 No.84587

File: 56b2ba7e6d43f34⋯.jpg (1 MB, 1920x1200, 8:5, 583c1bd6e0adc1d688292dc0a4….jpg)

>>84583

Sounds good.


 No.84591

>>84567

Anon you constantly cite this one article on mises.org. That is ONE PARTICULAR LEGAL SYSTEM which is absolutely not the objective standard of AnCap or libertarianism. I might as well cite supreme court rulings.


 No.84594

>>84538

Except the way most of the HOAs formed was that they either used a "majority vote" in a region to force their reign on people who didn't want to be part of the HOA, or they intentionally got someone evicted from their house/got their house repossessed/harassed the owners until they joined. That's not "voluntary" you faggot.


 No.84595

Additionally it should be pointed out that membership in the HOA might be part of the contract, but the moment the HOA raises fees or increased the amount of power they have over you, it has become a form of involuntary servitude, and virtually all HOAs have done this and have been kept by government mandate long after the members of the HOA have asked, pleaded, and sued to get themselves away from the HOA.


 No.84596

>>84594

>>84595

That is to say, when the HOA updates their policies, raises their rates, etc. in a libertarian society, you can and should have the right to opt out under standard property rights. This clearly doesn't exist in current HOAs which is in-line with my whole point about HOAs being worse than unions.


 No.84598

>>84594

>n a region to force their reign on people who didn't want to be part of the HOA

Force? They cant force anyone to join a HOA if it does not exist.

>or they intentionally got someone evicted

They are not a bank they cant kick someone out of the house for not joining a HOA that is just starting.

>>84595

>it has become a form of involuntary servitude

Then sell your house and leave.

>you can and should have the right to opt out

Only if you required that as part of your agreement, otherwise you are to be held to your word.


 No.84695

>>84591

True, but it seems sensible and anon seeking for an answer might find such system suitable. You might never think that there is a third option, as it was for me.


 No.84697

>>84695

Another alternative is to simply have no enforceable contracts at all. That system would be interesting. Instead extreme testing and reputation systems.


 No.84701

>>84697

It would likely be as weak and unreliable as pacifist taken to extreme, though some practices like you described can be useful, for scenarios of little reliability or just as a general practice.


 No.84703

>>84701

So you don't believe a markets are capable of sorting out products and people without the threat of violence? I see.


 No.84705

>>84703

I believe presence of violence is nessesary for markets to keep going. You know, balance of power thing. The same way pacifists can only exist when there's someone to protect them, markets exist when noone can establish his rule over others, so he has to do trade to get something. Markets are no deus ex machina to solve all your problems.


 No.84733

>>84705

>markets exist when noone can establish his rule over others,

Anon not having contracts is a way to reduce the amount of force required not increase it.


 No.84735

>>84733

I'm talking about force present, not used. No enforceable contracts would allow for all kinds of fraud, no contracts that can be enforced means no lasting contracts at all, as they can be broken at any time without consequences. It would effectively prevent some form of stable markets from establishing, as everything is being a one-time deal, without productive long-lasting relationships. It also does not take into account cases like theft, along with other NAP violations.


 No.84737

>>84733

Basically, that article from mises.org describes the system with least amount of enforceable contracts possible, as the cases where they are it involves NAP violation. You can push it further, saying that say the purchase was simply giving money, but this would lead to an impractical system where violence might be used even more often, because of immediately broken agreements, aside from such essential cervices as insurance or property protection. Though, such approach has its place on neutral territory, where only one-time deals are made anyway.

Basically, enforceable contracts exist as a compromise where you choose a third party to resolve conflicts(potential included), instead of either accepting losses or going for direct confrontation. It is even more important when economics is built on a larger scale, with big players and lots of resources involved.

I've described similar thing in post >>84725 , you might find it interesting.


 No.84738

>>84733

The bigger the economy, the more its actors are interconnected, and more essential these connections are for its function. It actually becomes even more complicated, and i'm either too tired now or stupid overall, or not enough educated and lezyprobably everything at once so i'll leave these complex economic problems for other ancaps on this board to figure out.


 No.84740

>>84735

>I'm talking about force present,

Potential for force will always be present in AnCap. The PMCs will be well armed. That does not mean that they should be kicking down someones door because they released a defective product or lied. Let advanced reputation systems take place and auditing agencies. Arbiters can still even exist. Arbitration STILL will happen. It just wont be enforceable. Even without it being enforceable it will still be enforced though.


 No.84741

>>84740

>That does not mean that they should be kicking down someones door because they released a defective product or lied.

Agreed, except it might be the PMC that did not do its work when it had to. Or a trader who took your money, but refused later to give goods ore services.

>It just wont be enforceable.

If there are no obligations based on the decisions of the court it is a useless waste of money to begin with, and you are only left with the options i described earlier. None of them is convenient, generally.


 No.84746

>>84741

>Or a trader who took your money, but refused later to give goods ore services.

Fine then. I am going to leave a bad yelp review. Because the economy is designed around this property things like that will actually matter.

> except it might be the PMC that did not do its work

Find a more trust worthy PMC.

>If there are no obligations based on the decisions of the court

There is no FORCE involved. There is certainly an obligation. They will be known as that person that ignored the arbiter they agreed to listen to.


 No.85082

i think its pretty nice in most cases as people usually cant build steel mills next to your house, but some cities are pretty autistic with it even though its just a fucking middle income suburb


 No.85091

>>84746

>I am going to leave a bad yelp review. Because the economy is designed around this property things like that will actually matter.

And now pretend that you have just spent a shitload of money on a deal to make your whole life prosperous for eternity. And it has taken all your current money. What will do for buying a bag of chips at a shop won't do for a transnational company contracts. Do not forget about the scale.

>Find a more trust worthy PMC.

Better luck next time!

>They will be known as that person that ignored the arbiter they agreed to listen to.

Oooooh, so scary. Really, even without anonymity in play this is plain stupid. Might as well go ignore property damage at all, pacifist shithead.


 No.85115

>>85091

>Really, even without anonymity in play this is plain stupid

Not only a non-argument but PMCs do not operate anonymously. Property damage that the PMC refuses to pay, will surely end with detrimental bad PR and/or heir bankruptcy. Also, there will be insurance agencies and fraternal societies that compensate damages. that a PMC refuses to recompense.


 No.85135

>>85115

>a non-argument

True, the claim is absurd, but i'll do it for you.

>PMCs do not operate anonymously

People operate anonymously, as there is no central system of identification, like passports.

>will surely end with detrimental bad PR and/or heir bankruptcy

And such a system therefore encourages all sorts of fraud. It surely helps for such a society to not be a bunch of thug-like tribes in constant war with each other.

>Also, there will be insurance agencies and fraternal societies that compensate damages. that a PMC refuses to recompense.

Except they neither will, even if they do establish, which is again, for these reasons, highly unlikely, as they have all the incentives to drop the business in a case of possible losses.

Also, you ignored my point about scale with your nod an argoomend.


 No.85197

>>85135

>People operate anonymously

But not firms, which PMCs are.

>And such a system therefore encourages all sorts of fraud.

Not when they risk bad PR and bankruptcy. What encourages fraud is the current military constitutions of the state.

>Except they neither will, even if they do establish, which is again, for these reasons, highly unlikely, as they have all the incentives to drop the business in a case of possible losses.

The existence of insurance agencies and fraternal societies covered losses disproves this.

>Also, you ignored my point about scale with your nod an argoomend.

Nowhere is scale mentioned in the post I am referencing, so how can I ignore it?


 No.85217

>>85197

>But not firms, which PMCs are.

And corps are made out of people, and people are the ones who stand behind ones.

>Not when they risk bad PR and bankruptcy. What encourages fraud is the current military constitutions of the state.

It encourages them to do a great fraud as fast as they can before they go bankrupt, if any. It is not the states' fault reputation is hard to get and easy to lose.

>The existence of insurance agencies and fraternal societies covered losses disproves this.

And how is that relevant? Ancap is not one, or are you denying anonymity of a person in ancap?

>Nowhere is scale mentioned in the post I am referencing, so how can I ignore it?

<What will do for buying a bag of chips at a shop won't do for a transnational company contracts. Do not forget about the scale.

It won't go away if you ignore it.


 No.85224

>>85217

Just because they are made of people, does not mean they are anonymous. Unless you can show me firms where the executives are anonymous?

>It encourages them to do a great fraud as fast as they can before they go bankrupt.

Not when they face restitution. If the state commits fraud on its people, they often do not provide restitution. And when they do provide it, it is minimal and funded by the very people they aggressed.

>And how is that relevant?

It is relevant to the recompense of damages from a PMC, Were you not paying attentiton?

>Ancap is not one, or are you denying anonymity of a person in ancap?

Ancap is not one what? Your secompsition is ambiguous. And how do insurance agencies and fraternal associations have anything to do with anonymity?

<What will do for buying a bag of chips at a shop won't do for a transnational company contracts.

How does this have anything to do with scale? This very statement makes no sense. Is English not your first language?


 No.85241

>>84413

garbage zoning laws can be attributed to delusional HOA leaders wanting their """"""""""investments"""""""""" (read: lipstick on a manufactured milled-pine trailer house) to continue constant growth. housing should not a thing to gamble with, and with many cities/regions/states banning Missing Middle Housing while grandfathering in historical-ass duplexes, it's woefully wasteful.

It's a complete waste meant to stymie market movement at worst, and clunky cruft in serious need of refactoring and rewriting at best (see also: Copyright & IP).


 No.85244

>>84582

What if I pay you my rent and then you suddenly decide you don't consent to me occupying your property anymore?


 No.85250

>>85244

did contract see such legal possibility?


 No.85258

>>85224

>Just because they are made of people, does not mean they are anonymous.

THEY are not, however personal responsibility of its owners is really non existent as they can easily get away with it.

>Not when they face restitution.

And the "no enforceable contracts" basically nullifies any of it. You can chase someone after he stole money from his corp after a great fraud in a state, as his identity is enforced by the state, while in ancap you cannot, or it is a lot harder to do so.

>And when they do provide it, it is minimal and funded by the very people they aggressed.

Doesn't it introduce enforceable contracts?

>It is relevant to the recompense of damages from a PMC

My whole point was that they can exist and easily emerge when the property rights are protected within the contracts, so the contracts are enforceable. Are modern insurance firms or fraternal societies like that?

>How does this have anything to do with scale

I'll rephrase then. What you think fits in your petty financial actions does not mean will be tolerated on a bigger scale, i.e. even if you don't mind losing your your property because of a broken contract, there are companies that cannot do such thing even if they wanted, as it would easily end their existence.

>Ancap is not one what?

Ancap is not a fraternal society, there is no association between its actors necessary.

I'm arguing that enforceable property rights within the contract as described on mises.org is the bare minimum for the system of contracts to emerge. It can be that all contracts are enforceable, or some are, it really depends, but the minimal amount of force behind the contracts is still necessary, otherwise no such system can emerge, and you only have either a constant war with each other or tribalism of some kind maybe even ancom, and for me none of these options is suitable.


 No.85260

>>85244

Like the cellphone monopoly, you 'consented' to have the case arbited by their brother-in-law. Basically, you're fucked.


 No.85261

>>85244

That would fall under a contract bond. He could evict you, but he'd have to pay you back (at least proportionally) for the time you were not able to live inside the house/refund you your rent.


 No.85263

>>85091

>Do not forget about the scale.

I have not. Risk is proportional to amounts. Perhaps you will prepare sufficiently before giving your life savings to a scam artist next time.

>Better luck next time!

Yep

>Oooooh, so scary

I realize that you are too stupid do realize when you are being scammed or not but at least try and be imaginative.


 No.85264

>>85258

>as it would easily end their existence.

Then don't make deals that will end your existence. If this is such a fucking big deal do your homework before hand.


 No.85265

>I'm arguing that enforceable property rights within the contract as described on mises.org is the bare minimum for the system of contracts to emerge

No anon the bare minimum is you make a contract and stick to your word. If you say you will never say the word duck again you sure as fuck better never say the word duck again.


 No.85277

>>85265

I do not think what is the discussion about. It is whether a system with absolutely no enforceable contracts is possible, not whether you should keep your word and be nice or not. Gtfo with this "ought to" shit.


 No.85278

>>85264

>Then don't make deals that will end your existence.

It is not about making bad deals, but the deals to be upheld later. It is not about picking "trustworthy" contractor, but making contracts reliable no matter who contractor is. Why do you think contracts appeared in the first place, if people can just "stick to their words", you illiterate nigger?


 No.85279

>>85278

>but making contracts reliable no matter You know what else would make contracts more reliable? If mandatory execution was the result of violation.

>Why do you think contracts appeared in the first place

For the same reason NAP violating states did.


 No.85280

>>85279

Fuck *

> but making contracts reliable no matter who contractor is

You know what else would make contracts more reliable? If mandatory execution was the result of violation.


 No.85289

>Is zoning communism?

Does zoning create open-access means of production? Then no. Not even remotely.

Next question, is zoning NRx?


 No.85295

>>85279

>For the same reason NAP violating states did.

So maybe you think enforcing property rights is also statist? I'm saying that protection of transactions within the contract is no different from protection of property rights. You can break a contract with no consequences unless you received the payment, otherwise a refund is required, as without it it is the case of theft.

>>85280

>If mandatory execution was the result of violation.

What do you mean by that? Making all contracts enforceable? Then this is a very possible outcome in ancapistan. Does that mean having a 3rd party force actors to it from the beginning? Then it would not emerge, as both actors are not really interested in such an invasive even state-like maybe structure.

Do i think all contracts are enforceable? I think it is more a matter of practice than rights. If someone sold himself into slavery, he breaks all contracts and bonds between protection agencies and loses all property, so he really destroys options to opt out himself. On a legal level, for example between contractors of different PMCs, i think the minimal one from mises.org would fit very nice, as there's not much behind the contracts other than resources, generally.


 No.85301

>>85295

>So maybe you think enforcing property rights is also statist

Of course not. However I would say that property can only have a single absolute owner. Contracts are either voluntary in which case the contract is just a statement with no power, or they become involuntary in which case a contract is extortion. Either follow through with it or we steal from you.

>Then this is a very possible outcome in ancapistan

The ancapistan is just hyper statism. Fuck off back to /pol/


 No.85302

>>85258

>personal responsibility of its owners is really non existent

If that were so, we would not see manufacturer warranties, non-mandatory recalls, quality assurance, etc.

>And the "no enforceable contracts" basically nullifies any of it. You can chase someone after he stole money from his corp after a great fraud in a state, as his identity is enforced by the state, while in ancap you cannot, or it is a lot harder to do so.

Just because it is non-encforceable, does not mean that it is obligatory policy by tthe firm, as is evident from non-mandaotry recalls. Those who commit frtaud would have a difficult time doing business with others in an ancap world. One example of this are blacklists on suspected shoplifters whom fail to meet jsutice.

>Doesn't it introduce enforceable contracts?

The state often does not enforce its contracts dispute beign mandatory by law.

>Are modern insurance firms or fraternal societies like that?

Some are some aren't. The improtance ais that they offer redundancy in case the PMC fails to meet their obligation or unable/unwilling to recopmense.

>Ancap is not a fraternal society,

True, but it consists of free associations.

>What you think fits in your petty financial actions does not mean will be tolerated on a bigger scale

So basically, those who commit fraud will not be tolerated by others? That sounds like a system where non-enforcemal contracts can function well since there is a disencentive of being blacklisted.

> the minimal amount of force behind the contracts is still necessary, otherwise no such system can emerge

How so?


 No.85303

>>85278

> Why do you think contracts appeared in the first place

For clarification and to remove ambiguity.

People's memory alone is unreliable in large, complicated business transactions.


 No.85309

>>85301

>However I would say that property can only have a single absolute owner.

So you cannot lend property without forever giving it away, got it.

>The ancapistan is just hyper statism. Fuck off back to /pol/

Lel, you are just like an ancom who wants everything to be voluntarily, but without money, and you want to do whatever the fuck you want without responsibility for it. Are you the same anon who shilled "if there is violence is is not libertarianism" in another thread here?


 No.85310

>>85302

>If that were so, we would not see manufacturer warranties, non-mandatory recalls, quality assurance, etc.

I was talking about a system without any contract enforcement whatsoever, the current one is none of that.

>Those who commit frtaud would have a difficult time doing business with others in an ancap world.

Unless everyone is trying to pull off a fraud, sooner or later. Look at game theory and you'll understand, maybe.

>The state often does not enforce its contracts dispute beign mandatory by law.

The state monopolizes the contract enforcement under the law enforcement branch, if you did not notice.

>True, but it consists of free associations.

And how are these societies relevant to ancap? Ancoms communes too consist of free associations, so what?

>So basically, those who commit fraud will not be tolerated by others? That sounds like a system where non-enforcemal contracts can function well since there is a disencentive of being blacklisted.

No, those who make contract are interested in upholding it, so PMCs find themselves suitable for this niche, and so will offer these services along with protection of property. No "toleration" required, i'm not speaking about a special closed community, but ancap society in general.

>How so?

If there is no force behind it it can easily be broken the moment this action gives benefit. Basically the same way property rights are respected because of force behind them, not moral beliefs of other actors. Again, game theory explains it better.


 No.85311

>>85303

>People's memory alone is unreliable in large, complicated business transactions.

And why would that matter if the contracts were unenforceable? It is not like you would have to prove its points for a 3rd party to decide on its behalf, right?


 No.85312

>>85310

>I was talking about a system without any contract enforcement whatsoever,

And the examples I mentioned are part of that system.

>Unless everyone is trying to pull off a fraud,

But we do not see that in our current system of non-enforceable contracts.

>game theory

How does this prove that non-enforceable contracts result in more fraud?

>The state monopolizes the contract enforcement

Yes, but that does not mean that there is less fraud in state enforced contracts than unenforceable contracts. Why trust the state to enforce contracts when the state routinely fails to uphold its contracts?

>And how are these societies relevant to ancap?

Ancap is a system of voluntary transactions, so we can reasonably expect these associations

>No, those who make contract are interested in upholding it, so PMCs find themselves suitable for this niche, and so will offer these services along with protection of property

So if they are interested in upholding contracts, why must their contracts be enforceable?

>If there is no force behind it it can easily be broken the moment this action gives benefit.

A temporary benefit, perhaps, but at a price of customer loss due to poor PR.

>Basically the same way property rights are respected because of force behind them

How are property rights enforced?


 No.85313

>>85311

A written contract would aid the arbiter's decision more so than a verbal contract. It would also aid insurance claims for damages that PMCs fail to recompense.


 No.85314

>>84524

or buy all the houses in the neighborhood and abolish the hoa


 No.85315

>>85312

>And the examples I mentioned are part of that system.

Such a system does not exist, therefore we cannot see any.

>But we do not see that in our current system of non-enforceable contracts.

Current system? The current state of your imaginary system, or the one we actually see today? If latter, then the contracts are enforceable, asshat.

>How does this prove that non-enforceable contracts result in more fraud?

Without regulatory actors fraud would be a very effective strartegy, if not the dominating one.

>Why trust the state to enforce contracts when the state routinely fails to uphold its contracts?

No reason, except it is better that nothing, the same as protection, medical aid and anything else, you name it.

>Yes, but that does not mean that there is less fraud in state enforced contracts than unenforceable contracts.

It actually depends on a state, and we do not have info on amount of fraud in system based on unenforceable system because of lack thereof.

>Ancap is a system of voluntary transactions, so we can reasonably expect these associations

Even if they happen to emerge, this does not really proves anything, as ancap is a broader system than these.

>So if they are interested in upholding contracts, why must their contracts be enforceable?

To prevent their contractor from breaking it, are you stupid?

>A temporary benefit, perhaps, but at a price of customer loss due to poor PR.

And it can easily be worth it, and will be done, even with enforcement, which just helps to balance it out, the same way as markets do on broader scale.


 No.85316

>>85312

>How are property rights enforced?

Some guy comes to you and tries to take your bag. It is in his hands now. What do you do?

1. Punch him in the face and take it back. Basically you do the enforcement yourself.

2. Negotiate with him, using whatever you want, from money to threats leading to 1. Still mostly the same thing, just less violent and not as easily applied.

3. Ask your buddy to do 1. Now a 3rd party comes in play, and does the job for you. It is even more effective than 1, as you do not have to rely on your own abilities.

4. Hire a man to do 3 instead of your buddy. That's what PMCs are in ancap, you got it right.

Now, what was this all for, you ask. Well, in a single accident any of these options can be used with varying amount of effectiveness, but when you look at more actors within a system, you see that people are not willing to fight over each of claims of property, so they reach a consensus named property rights. It usually comes out naturally, even, when all or most actors are somewhat equal in power, so an equilibrium emerges, where you've got to make deals with people to gain any benefit. Not everyone is a perfect actor in such a system, with varying factors like wealth, power, knowledge etc, so conflicts are still likely to emerge. So, people are still facing violence, but not everyone is capable or willing to apply enough of it, so it is natural for someone to do it for them for a donation. These people are still basically the same as yourself or your buddies from position of force application, as they cannot do what you cannot do, in legal terms. If they protect your property, they do it the same way you would do it, just they do it better.

So, to answer your question, property rights are enforced by violent means in case of a conflict involving property claims, where consensus cannot be reached. You shoot a thief in the head as he got into your house, a PMC physically removes a customer who did property damage and refuses to pay from the shop or people from a village organize and defend it against a group of bandits trying to rob them.


 No.85317

>>85313

And there's still no point in doing that, even if you somehow find arbiter or waste your money on it, as all you are capable of is trying to damage their reputation with whining.


 No.85318

>>85317

>And there's still no point in doing that

Sure there is. They will be required to pay at the rule of the arbiter. Of course they could ignore it but this is a big no no.


 No.85320

Read about how the supreme court banned restrictive covenants making block busting possible and accelerating white flight. The federal housing administration and Housing and urban development are two of the most evil federal government agencies. They use their power to mandate existing communities make "affordable housing" and the subsidize the ever loving shit out of it with loans made to default. They build slums in the middle of white neighborhoods and your tax dollars subsidize it.


 No.85321


 No.85330

>>85318

>They will be required to pay at the rule of the arbiter. Of course they could ignore it but this is a big no no.

Oh, no, how can they do anything other than comply to your arbiter. It is impossible! How can anyone just ignore someone who has no leverage over their property whatsoever? Definitely a no no.


 No.85344

>>85330

>Oh, no, how can they do anything other than comply to your arbiter.

They can ignore them. And then their reputation will be destroyed. I don't think you actually believe in markets anon. Why don't you fuck off back to >>>/leftypol/. This bait is weak.


 No.85350

>>85344

If reputation can be destroyed that easily, there is no reason to build it up in the first place, as other competitors could do the same, so you end up with wasted resources and lots of fraud on the market.

>I don't think you actually believe in markets anon.

I don't think you understand that markets are no deus ex machina to create an utopia of your desires. I am arguing for the position on contracts based on mises.org, do they also not believe in markets?

>Why don't you fuck off back to >>>/leftypol/.

First was /pol/, now it is /leftypol/, can you already decide, asshat? Maybe it is you who got in the wrong place?


 No.85351

>>85315

>Such a system does not exist

This system does exist (e.g. non-mandatory recalls are part of this system).

>The current state of your imaginary system, or the one we actually see today?

You realize that more than one system can exist simultaneously, do you?

>Without regulatory actors fraud would be a very effective strartegy,

I asked for proof, not an assumption.

>No reason, except it is better that nothing, the same as protection, medical aid

How so? Medical aid is quite inefficiently handled by the state. You can see the results today compared to when lodges were prevalent.

>we do not have info on amount of fraud in system based on unenforceable system

Then you are making an unsupportive assumption.

>Even if they happen to emerge, this does not really proves anything,

Does not prove what? That non-enforceable contracts can exist? They have existed in the past, so why would it not exist in ancap?

>To prevent their contractor from breaking it, are you stupid?

Why would they break it if they are interested in upholding it? Personal attacks do not support your argument.

>And it can easily be worth it, and will be done, even with enforcement, which just helps to balance it out, the same way as markets do on broader scale.

Why would it be worth it at the risk of bad loss of business and destitution? Perhaps you could provide a cost-benefit analysis on why they would prefer to commit fraud in a non-enforceable contract more than an enforceable contract.


 No.85352

>>85316

1. An unenforceable contract is one that is valid but one the court/legal entity will not enforce. Thus punching someone in the face is not an enforcement of the contract (unless ordered to by the legal entity).

2. Negotiation is not an enforcement of a contract. Arbitration can lead to a settlement without the backing of a legal entity.

3 & 4. If the third party is a legal entity, then I agree, though PMCs are not legal entities (unless they become the state but good luck getting people to recognize their legitimacy).


 No.85353

>>85317

>as all you are capable of is trying to damage their reputation with whining.

That sounds like a good enough reason to create a written contract. Arguments (or what you call whining) are more effective when you have physical proof.


 No.85354

>>85350

The very fact that reputations can be destroyed easily is the primary incentive for quality control and good PR as competitors can take away market share just by having a slightly higher customer satisfaction rating.

>I don't think you understand that markets are no deus ex machina to create an utopia of your desires.

No one is arguing nor implying this. Stop strawmanning.

>I am arguing for the position on contracts based on mises.org

You are arguing for the position of unenforceable contracts? It sure doesn't seem that way from your other posts.


 No.85355

>>85350

Are you going to eat at a restaurant that knowingly poisons people? I sure as fuck am not going to. The same thing applies to everything else.


 No.85356

>>85350

>First was /pol/, now it is /leftypol/, can you already decide, asshat? Maybe it is you who got in the wrong place?

Both are statists. They both get the bullet.


 No.85357

>>85354

>The very fact that reputations can be destroyed easily is the primary incentive for quality control and good PR as competitors can take away market share just by having a slightly higher customer satisfaction rating.

Sure, because your competitors surely would miss the opportunity to lower your reputation, dumping down the expectations for all services along with the amount of fraud increasing.

>No one is arguing nor implying this. Stop strawmanning.

You are proposing some special magical market laws, so you might stop strawmanning yourself first.

>You are arguing for the position of unenforceable contracts? It sure doesn't seem that way from your other posts.

While i think that a system with all contracts being enforceable is possible, i think that the best fitted one is not it. It is the position of contracts being enforceable where breaking them would result in theft, the one described on the website and the one i'm arguing for.


 No.85358

>>85357

>You are proposing some special magical market laws, so you might stop strawmanning yourself first.

Bullshit. Everything about markets applies to private courts all the same. Court can be a fraud, court can lie, court can be bribed, etc. This is physical reality there is nothing that can ever change this except nihilistic selection pressure by the universe.


 No.85359

>>85356

And i've got nothing to do with any, while being different enough that being accused of both from the same person is a sign of namecalling.


 No.85360

>>85359

You are talking about using violence to to push involuntary contracts down peoples throats.


 No.85361

>>85358

>Bullshit. Everything about markets applies to private courts all the same. Court can be a fraud, court can lie, court can be bribed, etc. This is physical reality there is nothing that can ever change this except nihilistic selection pressure by the universe.

Sure, i agree, what has this to do with contracts being unenforceable? I think it helps mitigate these issues, as markets do.


 No.85362

>>85361

Every complaint you made about market dynamics applies to the court system. Adding a court system does not magically solve literally any of your complaints when applied to itself.


 No.85363

>>85360

>You are talking about using violence to to push involuntary contracts down peoples throats.

Strawman. I'm talking about situations where a pay was accepted, but the good was not served, or service not received. Then the money would be protected as the property of the previous owner.


 No.85364

>>85363

If you gave your money do someone else its their money not yours. You even said so yourself "previous owner".


 No.85365

>>85362

Can you address exact points? I do not seem to get what you are talking about.


 No.85366


 No.85368


 No.85369

>>85364

Except that the money was given on behalf of the contract, so if it is broken, the money is to be returned. That was the whole point of the whole article, did you even read it, nigger?


 No.85370

>>85369

>on behalf of the contract, so if it is broken, the money is to be returned.

I agree anon they should return they money. However they don't have to. If you are so worried go to an "exchange agency" where you transfer the money to the agency, and they manage the transaction.


 No.85371

>>85370

No, they have to, because otherwise it is the same as theft. No morals required.


 No.85372

>>85371

>because otherwise it is the same as theft

Its not theft. You transferred your property to them. If you attempt to take it back YOU are the thief. It is their property.


 No.85373

>>85372

So, renting is gifting again, right?


 No.85374

>>85373

No anon. When you rent a house to someone the land lord still owns the house. They can evict the tenant at any time. If you are concerned about eviction give your money to an arbiter organization that only pays the land lord after the time has been fulfilled.


 No.85376

>>85374

>When you rent a house to someone the land lord still owns the house.

The same way you still own the money, as you did not gift them. Can you stop being autistic?


 No.85377

>>85376

>he same way you still own the money, as you did not gift them.

No. You gave them the money. Its their money. Same thing with this arbitration organization I described. You transfer the money to the arbiter, its their money. Then they can transfer it to the land lord at the end of the month. If the land lord evicts you the arbiter can transfer your money back to you.


 No.85378

>>85377

>You gave them the money.

Then the rented house if the renter's house, as it was "given" to them.


 No.85379

>>85378

>Then the rented house if the renter's house, as it was "given" to them.

The only property transfer in a rental situation is from the renter to the land lord. The land lord promises to not physically remove them (but they can).


 No.85380

>>85379

if the landlord kicks them for a month he got paid for it IS breach of contract though


 No.85383

>>85379

No they can not, without refund unless. it is the whole idea of renting, idiot.


 No.85384

>>85380

>it IS breach of contract though

I agree. That's a shitty land lord. You should have transferred your money to an arbiter who pays them after services are rendered.


 No.85385

>>85383

>No they can not, without refund unless

The land lord never gave the renter the house. What retarded house owner would do that. The renter DID transfer his money to the land lord though.


 No.85386

>>85384

*unless = at least


 No.85387

>>85385

>The renter DID transfer his money to the land lord though.

The renter lended the money to the owner untill the contract is fulfilled. If the owner owns the money, the renter owns the house, asshat.


 No.85388

>The renter lended the money to the owner untill the contract is fulfilled

There is property transfer or there is not. There is no point in "lending" the land lord money because its not his money in that case. It is exactly equivalent to paying AFTER the rent is over. In which case the land lord simply would have you pay after (but you don't have to).


 No.85389

>>85385

Property rights do not immediately transfer upon possession, or may, but not have to. That's why lending, renting and all that temporary stuff is possible to exist.


 No.85390

>>85388

>There is property transfer or there is not.

Then there was no property transfer, just lending.

>its not his money in that case

he may use it the same way you use a lended item. You just have to return it later.


 No.85391

>>85389

>Property rights do not immediately transfer upon possession

They don't have to of course. You could simply "lend" the landlord a hammer. But its not his hammer and you reclaim it whenever and he cant do anything about it. When done with money this just means you did not actually pay and the land lord is in risk.

>Then there was no property transfer, just lending.

If you just lended him money then you have not paid and can scam him at any time.


 No.85392

>>85391

>When done with money this just means you did not actually pay and the land lord is in risk.

No, he is in posession of the money and the final transfer happens when the service is fully received, but if one wants a refund he can no longer use the services, and may have to pay for the services he already got, depending on the contract.

>If you just lended him money then you have not paid and can scam him at any time.

I see. You are just a little cowardice piece of shit who wants to scam people but not to face the consequences of it. Fuck you, i thought you were just stupid, now i dno't want any more arguing, as you are just a shill.


 No.85393

>>85392

>who wants to scam people

I want to eliminate violence to enforce shit that can be done otherwise.

>No, he is in posession

If I rent a hammer its not MY hammer.

>and the final transfer happens

Until the ownership of the money is transferred it can be taken back at any time

>but if one wants a refund he can no longer use the services

I agree thats how a land lord contract should work

>depending on the contract.

If you are worried about violation of the agreement use an intermediary.

You faggots always think if literally anything bad can happen that means we need to kick in peoples doors and get the guns out. There are non violent solutions here that work fine without the threat of navy seals.


 No.85394

>>85392

>as you are just a shill.

<anyone I don't like is a shill


 No.85400

>>85393

>I don't want to get hurt when i scam people so i'll shill a perverted concept of property rights hoping that it will protect my worthless ass.

Go bother someone else, pretentious pacifist coward.


 No.85401

>>85400

>pretentious pacifist coward.

Anon I believe in property. Nuclear weapons in the defense of property. Your contract system is involuntary theft. Involuntarily give us your shit or we will kick your door in!


 No.85402

>>85401

And because I believe in property (much more than the rest of you) I accept that slavery is part of that.


 No.85404

File: f6b12e7453d5e85⋯.jpg (107.04 KB, 450x800, 9:16, 3935692_orig.jpg)

>>85401

>Anon I believe in property.

<I want to eliminate violence to enforce shit that can be done otherwise.


 No.85405

>>85404

Yes anon those are perfectly in line. Property is one thing, contracts are another. Systems must be design around atomic property transfer. Anything else is NAP violation.


 No.85406

>>85405

>Systems must be design around atomic property transfer.

Because you said so? Suck my dick, you piece of shit.


 No.85407

>>85406

>Because you said so

Because everything else violates the NAP. If you are okay with aggression thats fine and all but then you can fuck off statist.


 No.85408

>>85407

>Property rights violation is nap violation, you statist!

Go fuck yourself, degenerate.


 No.85409

>>85407

>Property rights protection* is nap violation, you statist!

Go fuck yourself, degenerate.


 No.85410

>>85409

No its not. Property rights are to be defended absolutely. But if you give your property to someone else, its theirs, sorry bud!


 No.85442

>>85410

>I will ignore lending and renting because it hurts my agenda of enforcing pacifism through autistic property rights.

Being that autistic. You are even worse than commies with their personal property.

>But if you give your property to someone else, its theirs, sorry bud!

<Giving is the same as gifting.

>>85389

You are just repeating yourself.


 No.85983

>>85357

>dumbing down the expectations for all services along with the amount of fraud increasing.

How has market competition in general decreased service quality? Could you provide examples?

>You are proposing some special magical market laws

Which laws? How are they "magical"?

>the one described on the website and the one i'm arguing for.

Rothbard advocated enforceable contracts when the breaking of said contracts results in implicit theft, not ambiguous theft or broken obligations.


 No.85990

>>85983

>How has market competition in general decreased service quality? Could you provide examples?

Not market competition, but inability for a stable market system to emerge. Black markets are like this, lots of fraus, high prices and risks. It basically offers a loophole to mine money from indefinetely.

>Which laws? How are they "magical"?

IDK, some special market laws you pretended to exist to reinforce your position.

>Rothbard advocated enforceable contracts when the breaking of said contracts results in implicit theft, not ambiguous theft or broken obligations.

And how is taking money for a service without providing it not an implicit theft? You should reread the article, at least once before starting to spread your stupidity.


 No.85992

>>85442

>Ignore lending and renting

You mean formalize in a clear way.

>You are just repeating yourself.

<I will give someone something but i'm not really giving it to them but its still mine except its not really mine because its theirs


 No.85998

File: 6c301b4ec87f704⋯.jpg (22.26 KB, 255x249, 85:83, ca307a39ac5e884f77c920b250….jpg)

>>85992

>You mean formalize in a clear way.

You mean destroy it completely because of your stupid requests.

BTFO yourself already, retard. Seeking weak points throughout the thread will not help your autistic screeching.


 No.85999

>>85990

> Black markets are like this, lots of fraus, high prices and risks.

The irony in this is that black markets allocate resources more efficiently than regulated markets. Heroin prices decreased and purity increased despite increased government investment in crackdowns:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jacobsullum/2013/10/04/the-wasteful-war-on-drugs-is-doomed-by-economics-101/#634015f9cfdc

Silk Road had their own quality control and accountability features to deter fraud.

This is all moot by the way since we are talking about unenforceable contracts in a free market not a black market, which is a counter response to a regulated market.

>special market laws you pretended to exist to reinforce your position.

I'm advocating insurance agencies and arbiters. Neither of them are magical and exist in our current system.

>And how is taking money for a service without providing it not an implicit theft?

If it is knowingly done by the offending party (which is rarely the case), then yes, it is implicit theft. If the service provided is questionable and/or terms of contract ambiguous (most contract violations fall into this category), then it is not implicit.


 No.86000

File: a72000837fd226c⋯.jpg (21.15 KB, 632x303, 632:303, DdZpBeXU8AAfvqm.jpg)

>>85998

>You mean destroy it completely because of your stupid requests.

The IQ on this one. Wew lad. You really rebutted by shit with that Molyneux meme!


 No.86004

>>85999

>free market not a black market

Except they still function the same, just free markets are a bit freer.

>heroin prices decreased and purity increased

Except they are still inflated shit

>I'm advocating insurance agencies and arbiters. Neither of them are magical and exist in our current system.

Except the current the current system enforces contracts, which are required for arbiters to emerge as a stable market player. Are you stupid?

>knowingly done

Who the fuck care, you just pull out this thought crime card again proving you are just another socialist cuck shilling here.


 No.86005

File: 5e9ad3453c56927⋯.jpg (20.95 KB, 300x300, 1:1, OCPBwZdrmVs.jpg)

>>86000

You can start arguing any time.


 No.86014

>>86004

>Except they still function the same

No, not really. Black market isolation lacks the effective comparative advantage that free markets share.

>Except they are still inflated shit

No, I just provided evidence that prices decreased as the black markets became "blacker". Temporary increases can be seen when current infrastructure lacks the efficacy at mitigating risk from law enforcement, but long-term they can build the necessary infrastructure. You can see this in the design of Dutch fluyt to avoid Danish taxes assessed based on the area of the main deck by having their cargo hold built below the waterline.

>arbiters to emerge as a stable market player

Arbiters do not have enforcement power (at least not in my jurisdiction).

>Who the fuck care, you just pull out this thought crime card again proving you are just another socialist cuck shilling here.

Not an argument and borderline insulating. This is neither /pol/ nor /leftpol/.


 No.86015

>>86014

>Black market isolation lacks the effective comparative advantage that free markets share.

Except this advantage cannot emerge without contract protection.

>No, I just provided evidence that prices decreased as the black markets became "blacker".

Yeah, because more market regulation is what makes them better, idiot.

>Arbiters do not have enforcement power (at least not in my jurisdiction).

So when there is no enforcement power the arbiters are pointless, as any proofs will still hold no power. You already said that before.

>Not an argument and borderline insulating. This is neither /pol/ nor /leftpol/.

Sure, because thought crime is not a major point in socialist polices. You better get where you belong, you piece of shit.


 No.86016

File: 483e96c6c8efaa9⋯.png (407.07 KB, 709x709, 1:1, 440aab17350e5c9b1f2b686d51….png)

>>86005

Non arguments are to be responded with non arguments.


 No.86017

>>86015

>So when there is no enforcement power the arbiters are pointless

Being ruled against by a 3rd party arbiter is a much clearer violation than a simple 2 party contract disagreement without one.


 No.86020

>>86017

I never said that it is for arbiter to enforce contract. It's PMC's job.


 No.86021

>>86017

>Being ruled against by a 3rd party arbiter is a much clearer violation than a simple 2 party contract disagreement without one.

Also, its not a matter of agreement or disagreement. It's a matter of me killing you for stealing my money, or you giving it back to save your worthless life.


 No.86022

>>86021

>It's a matter of me killing you for stealing my money,

If you give your money to someone its their money not yours. You would be executed for violating the NAP.


 No.86023

>>86022

Again, your stupid ass parody on NAP will convince noone.


 No.86024

File: ffc8a437f133f08⋯.jpg (42.47 KB, 960x540, 16:9, DaVi7k2UMAALuWp.jpg)

>>86023

sure thing statist, this is all just larping anyways, ancap can never actually happen


 No.86025

>>86022

>You would be executed for violating the NAP.

Execution is a legal measure. In ancap there is no centralized legal system or central authority. By saying "execution" you already prove you're a statist shill, again.


 No.86026

>>86025

>there is no centralized legal system

>Centralized

Its called a decentralized legal system retard. Law still exists in ancap society.


 No.86027

>>86024

As much a statist as you an ancap. If ancap will happen, it will be with enforceable contracts for the same reason ancom, as well as your variety of it fails.


 No.86028

>>86026

Contracts between individuals do not make a legal system, retard.


 No.86029

>>86028

POLYCENTRIC LAW

GOOGLE IT


 No.86030

>>86027

>it will be with enforceable contracts

No contracts are enforceable. There is only property exchange.


 No.86031

>>86029

No matter how you call it, it is not a legal system, especially not the one to verdict "executions", socialist cuck.


 No.86032

>>86030

In your dreams.


 No.86033

>>86031

>No matter how you call it, it is not a legal system

You are as bad as the left anarchists that call their state a non state.


 No.86034

File: 05c02332e4ebcf0⋯.jpg (182.39 KB, 1200x1200, 1:1, DVqQpnTXkAA1kkj.jpg)

>>86032

oh shit the reddit patrol got here!


 No.86035

>>86033

>You are as bad as the left anarchists that call their state a non state.

You are a left anarchist as you invite system for your whims instead of describing what works.


 No.86036

>>86035

>instead of describing what works.

I already described how a contractless property based society works.


 No.86037

>>86035

Invent*


 No.86038

>>86036

The same way ancoms describe working communes.


 No.86039

>>86038

lol no. ancomn don't have intermediary contract implementation agencies.


 No.86040

>>86039

Pff, they have workers cooperation. Basically a thing like "what if we all agree with it".


 No.86041

>>86040

> Basically a thing like "what if we all agree with it".

Lol no. Thats not how a contractless ancap society works.


 No.86042

>>86041

Yes, just like ancoms, except both do not work.


 No.86043

>>86042

Back to reddit statist


 No.86044

>>86043

The only thing you are capable of is screaming "back to reddit". You are the same as ancom with their "ancap is no anarchy"


 No.86045

>>86044

You are the one that came in with the non arguments

>it cant work

>hippy

>commie

>larper

>shill

LOL, I gave arguments above you have yet to respond to


 No.86046

>>86045

"It'll work, i promise!" are your words, not mine, retard


 No.86047

>>86046

I demonstrate to the entire board, look at this kid. He is incapable of a single point, not one argument.


 No.86048

>>86047

Lel, the one who argues for an imaginary system here is you.


 No.86049

>>86048

>NOOO U

LOL


 No.86050

>>86049

This gets kinda boring, you kept repeating your pointless claims before, now you cannot do even that, BTFO.


 No.86051

File: 977449b3a74607d⋯.jpg (40.22 KB, 633x348, 211:116, DSBvh3WVwAAYADB.jpg)

>>86050

You are really high IQ I can tell. You're arguments are great. You really BTFO me with that one!


 No.86067

>>86015

>Except this advantage cannot emerge without contract protection.

Proof?

>more market regulation is what makes them better

Black markets DO NOT have regulation. Your argument suggests a price increase from the lack of enforceable contracts, yet there is no evidence of such in the example I provided.

>So when there is no enforcement power the arbiters are pointles

Then why do some parties seek non-binding arbitration? Why do firms use ADR's instead of litigation for post-acquisition disputes?

>Sure, because thought crime is not a major point in socialist polices

I do not see how thought crime applies to this discussion. However, you might as well return to one of these two boards if you keep using insults, where such practices are acceptable there. Insults only detract from your points in this thread, and will not positively influence any reader here.


 No.86070

>>86067

>Proof?

Fraud is nash equilibrium.

>Black markets DO NOT have regulation.

Black markets are markets which are hunted by the state, does this count as regulation for you?

>Then why do some parties seek non-binding arbitration?

Some do, most don't.

>I do not see how thought crime applies to this discussion.

"If he PLANNED to break the contract, then its stealing".

Judging by intentions instead of actions is the very principle of thought crime.

>will not positively influence any reader here.

Unless the reader leaving is a benefit, which is the case with a demagogue.

Anon, you're not that bad, actually. You are for now reasonable, i respect that.


 No.86088

>>86070

>nash equilibrium

But how can equilibrium exist if competitive strategies continuously change? The only way I can see this happening in a market is when there is a monopsony or monopoly present.

>Black markets are markets which are hunted by the state, does this count as regulation for you?

Not really because the government is not regulating their conduct (taxes, licenses, safety inspections).

>Some do, most don't.

If some do, then arbiters are not pointless.

>If he PLANNED to break the contract,

How can you tell? Do you read minds? Implicit theft does not mean intentional theft.


 No.86094

>>86088

>But how can equilibrium exist if competitive strategies continuously change?

Equilibrium will emerge, sooner or late, unless the rules change, swapping strategies does not prevent it, just takes more time. See the tests on extended prisoner's dilemma.

>Not really because the government is not regulating their conduct (taxes, licenses, safety inspections).

Does not banning count as regulation? Monopolies are created by banning all other actors, here the government is the only actor, but it is no different from other cases.

>If some do, then arbiters are not pointless.

It is not enough for them to become a regular market player, which harms their authority as well.

>How can you tell? Do you read minds? Implicit theft does not mean intentional theft.

<If it is knowingly done by the offending party (which is rarely the case), then yes, it is implicit theft.

<knowingly done

Your words, not mine.


 No.86186

>>86094

>Equilibrium will emerge

But it hasn't yet, and likely will not as strategies continue to evolve.

>extended prisoner's dilemma

Any case studies regarding this (i.e. proof)? I remember a documentary on algorithms used on iterated Prisoner's Dilemma (Tit-for-Tat) – the best ones being cooperative but also retaliatory. Collaboration among sellers to commit fraud though ends up either in betrayal or another competitor taking market share, like with the Phoebus cartel.

>Does not banning count as regulation?

Yes, for that particular market. However, the black market often operates outside that market.

>It is not enough for them to become a regular market player

Proof?

>Your words, not mine.

Not sure where you are getting at regarding this. Implicit theft is known by the offending part, but it does not mean that it was intentional. If I sold you a product that later (after numerous customer reports of defects) turned out to be a lemon, then it was not my intention to sell it to you, but now I have knowledge that I sold you a product that I did not promise.


 No.86200

>>86186

>But it hasn't yet, and likely will not as strategies continue to evolve.

There's no such system today, so we cannot observe the developement of such strategies irl today. Again, all markets we have today have contract enforcement, except for black markets, which are a place of fraud, extremely high prices and robbery.

It has no place to emerge in the world today. Also, you do not seem to understand how nash equilibrium works. The more nash equilibrium strategies are in play, the more beneficial it is to pick it, so unless the system is completely random(which it is not) or the rules change.

>Any case studies regarding this (i.e. proof)? I remember a documentary on algorithms used on iterated Prisoner's Dilemma (Tit-for-Tat) – the best ones being cooperative but also retaliatory.

Tit for tat proved most effective when there was infinite number of rounds, when it is finite, the "always betray" quickly emerged.

>Collaboration among sellers to commit fraud though ends up either in betrayal or another competitor taking market share, like with the Phoebus cartel.

Tit for tat is ineffective in the system you describe, as you are incapable of taking revenge, only quit the game, already taken losses. This property protection is the principle that allows tit-for-tat not to get completely out of play when facing aggressive strategies, so that long-lasting cooperation between actors can emerge and last.

>However, the black market often operates outside that market.

Banning markets is regulation, but black markets are outside that regulation?

>Proof?

They are not part of regular practices within the system, so they will remain in the same filed as with other rare services, such as artists, which means they will be expensive and rare. They do not have a function that is necessary in your system, so it will be more of a luxury, rather than a regular service, as if it was conventional free market ancap model. People rarely wish to pay extra if it does not help them in return, which would be the exact case with these.

>Not sure where you are getting at regarding this.

I do not get what you are trying to say. From what you've written before, you'd tolerate the usual stance on contracts only in cases where the seller is knowingly breaking the contract, or committing fraud, is that right?


 No.86250

>>86200

>Banning markets is regulation, but black markets are outside that regulation?

<Blackmarkets are actually highly regulated because they are illegal

holy fuck


 No.88297

>communism is when gubmint do stuff

>grug no gub mint


 No.88328

>>86200

>There's no such system today, so we cannot observe the developement of such strategies irl today

We have had non-enforcable contracts in the past (e.g. polycentric law societies) and most transactions today are settled through arbitration (customer service departments exist for settling transaction complaints made by customers).

>Tit for tat proved most effective when there was infinite number of rounds,

Tit for tat was not tested on an infinite number of rounds.

>long-lasting cooperation between actors can emerge and last.

Proof? I can’t think of one “long-lasting” cooperative venture that did not have some kind of violation by one of its actors.

>Tit for tat is ineffective in the system you describe, as you are incapable of taking revenge, only quit the game, already taken losses.

Tit for tat does have revenge implementation. How can one quit “the game” IRL without killing oneself? You will still have to deal with various societal actors.

>Banning markets is regulation, but black markets are outside that regulation?

Black market often operates outside the legal market. Regulation concerns itself with the legal market.

>They are not part of regular practices within the system

You still have not provided proof, only assertions.

>From what you've written before, you'd tolerate the usual stance on contracts only in cases where the seller is knowingly breaking the contract, or committing fraud, is that right?

I’m just clarifying the definition of implicit and intentional. Rothbard, in that article, only mentions implicit theft.


 No.88339

>>88328

>most transactions today are settled through arbitration

Most transactions today are protected by state. Do not start that sophism again.

>Tit for tat was not tested on an infinite number of rounds.

Not literally, but it dominates other strategies if given enough time, and not being dominated by "never cooperate".

>I can’t think of one “long-lasting” cooperative venture that did not have some kind of violation by one of its actors.

Then you're pretty bad at thinking. Try some more.

>How can one quit “the game” IRL without killing oneself?

By stopping all interactions with other actors in a given game? You can only stop interacting with a stealing corp in your system, which already leaves you with a direct loss.

>You will still have to deal with various societal actors.

And dealing with them is another game.

>Black market often operates outside the legal market. Regulation concerns itself with the legal market.

But some regulations have place in black market, the ones which govt can enforce. This is the reason black markets are not very effective. Even though govt cannot ban them completely, its actions still limit markets effectiveness in a way. Whether these regulations make a market less effective than a legally regulated one depends on the regulations themselves.

>You still have not provided proof, only assertions.

I provided example of detective agencies. You can also search the % of business deals these parties are connected with. I'd be surprized if it's higher than 0,5%, which counts as much as companies' leaders promises, being nearly as reliable.

>I’m just clarifying the definition of implicit and intentional.

What you said is that that for action to be theft it should be done knowingly, even if it was not intentional. I say this is bullshit, as thoughts, knowledge or intentions cannot be measured reliably, are part of thought crime policies, create loopholes and lead to abuse. it does not matter what subjective criteria you will shill for to protect yourself while thieving, your sophistry will not be tolerated.

What libertarians mean by implicit theft is direct interaction with someones' property without his permission, as compared to lowering prices on something using market.


 No.88355

>>88339

>Most transactions today are protected by state

Not really. Many of my transactions are note even defendable in a court of law if a violation occurs (i.e. not enforceable) since they lack any evidence of said transaction (e.g. farmer's markets, yard sales, bake sales, household maintenance services, volunteer work, etc.). Many of the transactions that are protected by the state are useless bringing to a small claims court for violations as the compensation is not worth the court fees. You also ignore polycentric law systems and the efficacy of their use of non-enforceable contracts.

>Not literally, but it dominates other strategies if given enough time

Exactly, which shows the efficacy of non-enforceable contracts.

>Then you're pretty bad at thinking.

Apparently so are you since you fail to provide examples.

>By stopping all interactions with other actors in a given game?

You mean stop all transactions with society? You might be able to stop an occurrence of a game by not dealing with the actor, but it would be a pretty lonely existence not interacting with society itself. Also, still waiting for that proof .

>And dealing with them is another game.

What other game? Are you talking about occurrences of the game?

>This is the reason black markets are not very effective.

Define "effective". Black markets are pretty effective at meeting demand for customers.

>But some regulations have place in black market, the ones which govt can enforce

Which regulations are these? Could you cite some examples?

>I provided example of detective agencies

How are detective agencies proof that non-enforceable contracts are pointless?


 No.88358

>>88355

>Many of my transactions are note even defendable in a court of law if a violation occurs

Yet the bigger it gets the more of them are, up to the point of ALL OF THEM. You could build hunters/gatherers commune, even ancoms could, it's a lot harder to create a system capable of technological development.

>Exactly, which shows the efficacy of non-enforceable contracts.

Not really. There's no way to "defy" in your system, just leave and accept losses, so if you play you'll have to play "always trust" no matter what.

>You mean stop all transactions with society?

No, "society" as a concept is one of the hugest bullshit things in human history, but in this example i view every pack of interactions with each actor as a different game, unless others are directly involved to be counted as actors. I.e. you play a game with a corp, or not play, or play another one etc.

>Apparently so are you since you fail to provide examples.

Trade deals, lending, renting, investment, education, employment, anything really. Any deal that is not completed immediately. How could you not be able to think of it yourself?

>Define "effective". Black markets are pretty effective at meeting demand for customers.

Allocating resources, allowing competition, offering good services for reasonable price, doing what markets do. Black markets are shit in many ways: quality control, reliability, price management, ease of communication, they all suck, that's why you rarely see even so highly regulated things such as alcohol on black markets, unless it's connected to a figure within a legal market, such as a dishonest shop owner. Though this is already too abstract, we should compare some specific market, as the amount of govt regulation(read: how hard it is trying to hunt it down) varies greatly.

>Which regulations are these?

Like, imprisoning its actors, or confiscating goods, or controlling its actors through other means, like with police and drugs, whether for profit, drug addicts or statistics for their job history. There are plenty of ways.

>How are detective agencies proof that non-enforceable contracts are pointless?

Listen, i never argued that non enforceable contracts are pointless. I just argued that making all contracts that way would result in highly unstable and fragile system. Extremely often enforcement of any kind is not even possible. Still as bets grow, people become more willing to protect their investment(not exclusively monetary, btw) through various means, which actually helps them, as well as those who deal with them, if they play honestly. Try to understand that property rights themselves are not some holy grail or god, they exist and are enforced because of individuals that rely on them and protect their interests with their force through them. The way i view the enforceable contracts is as individual agreements protected by both sides' protectors. It's not some kind of "implied contract" or anything that makes some things enforceable, it's just a generally accepted position. Some christian commune will crucify you for making an abortion, and they will not care about NAP or anything else when they do. The way it will generally come to be through evolutionary means is that protection services might offer a an agreement involving both actors' PMCs, who organize and form it in a way that if you break contract terms you either have to pay a refund or your protection will end and you'll have to face other actor and his PMC on your own. It raises issues like misinformation about previous broken contracts, but they can be fixed before the contract or within it.


 No.88438




[Return][Go to top][Catalog][Nerve Center][Cancer][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[]
[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / ausneets / f / fascist / had / hikki / kc / vichan / zoo ]