Actually yeah, I think this is spot-on. Volantaryism in general becomes a way more attractive proposition with super-powerful, super-cheap information tech. Although, as the means of production also go this route, capitalism becomes less attractive (at least for material goods; services are another story).
I meant market share held by the part of one of the litigants. If the penalty for bad practices is ostracism, how easy would it be to ostracize the entity that commands 50% (or even 20%) of the market? That'd be one hell of a system shock.
I don't see any real alternatives to the free market. There would be some pretty big changes in the structure though, and many of the huge corporations we see now could not exist without state support.
It would be tough to do. However, even partial ostracism is expensive. Even if only 10% of the clients move away from a behemoth like BP or Walmart they are looking at billions of dollars in losses. Its cheaper to lose disputes fairly and pay out.
Do you really think ostracism will be an effective enforcement technique? And if it is, isn't it an informally democratic enforcement technique? Why not just formalize the democracy and give it some more teeth and a few rules of due process?
And the state's interest there is in finding the truth. The interest of a private party connected to the case might not be. And in many cases, there might not be a private party connected to the case with sufficient incentive to start an investigation at all. The state is charged with investigating all crimes.
Very carefully guarded against by the setup of the judiciary and by judicial ethics.
Absolutely yes, ostracism is very powerful. Ostracism is social and economic isolation. Its not just we won't be friends with you. Its you can't shop here, you can't work here, and I won't buy from you. I like due process. If there is an appropriate way to make it stronger, I am okay with that. However, this does not justify the powers of a state.
The current courts are not very good at investigating all crimes fairly, especially when the criminals are police or politicians. The cases where where police brutality or murder goes unpunished come to mind. On the flip side, the cases where someone is prosecuted for a felony for recording police come to mind. The safeguards and judicial ethics don't seem to work very well. You can't just say that it shouldn't happen, and ignore the fact that it does happen systematically.
1: Have Fun!!! 2: Each round, except round 1 (signup round), will have a theme, and the contestants will design cards to match that theme. 3. Players may submit a new, original card, or any card[s] they have created, so long as they are the players own original design and the card[s] meet the challenge requirements. Last word on meeting these requirements and any penalties is up to the hosts. 4: Each round will have 4 days to submit cards and 3 days to to vote for the cards. 5: Judging is only done by poll and the player with the lowest number of votes will be eliminated. Voting will be public and open to the general public. You may vote for as many, or as few cards as you like (including yourself if you want). The host(s) have final say on the validity of a vote in the case of questionable votes. 6: Any player that doesn't submit a card for any reason will be eliminated. 7: If a player submits a card or cards that does not meet the challenge requirements, that player may receive a DQ and be eliminated. If possible, the player in question will be notified to try and correct the problem before the end of the round. If the mistake is not corrected or is not caught until after the voting has begun, then the hosts will decide if a DQ will be assigned. 8: If there's a tie for the lowest vote total, all those people get to stay in the game but they get a next to their name. Anybody who already had a :symb:, however, is out. Players that get a will keep it until he or she is eliminated or we reach the Top 7 bracket. Anybody with three or less votes in a single round will also receive a :symb:. Similar rules apply. 9: The game will continue until we have a single champion... our Design Idol. 10: If the winner of the last Design Idol returns to defend his or her title (he or she must now sign-up like everyone else), he or she will earn a beside his or her name. This means if he or she would earn a for a round, the falls off instead. Or, if that player would face single elimination, the will convert into a :symb:. If the goes unused by the time we reach the Top 7 Bracket, it will fall off. 11: The Top 4 of the last Design Idol get the right to "shotgun" a place on the new season. The same is true for hosts, only they get shotgun rights for two seasons. (So any hosts of Season VI can shotgun in VII and VIII). They still have to create a card for the first round, however.
New Rule: Renders may be submitted, but text is required. The text of the card will be copied and pasted into the poll with any links.
This round the challenge was tribal design. 4 cards for a tribe of your choice. These cards must be appropriate for printing in a tribal block. One must be a legendary creature that exemplifies the tribe's philosophy/mechanics and color identity. One must be a lord. One must be a regular critter. The final card must be a non-creature card with the tribal subtype.
Race tribes (ex. goblins), profession tribes (ex. soldier) and oddball tribes (ex werewolf, nightmare horror) are all good. The lord must enhance members of the tribe, but need not be a +X/+X. Drowner of secrets or Kinsbaile Cavalier would be ok.
Entries
Oculus
Amphin Mistweaver :2mana::symu:
Creature - Salamander Wizard {C}
Whenever you draw a card, you may have target Salamander creature be unblockable this turn. The more novel the spell, the more respected the caster.
1/3
Etchscale Elite :4mana::symr:
Creature - Salamander Warrior {C}
First strike
Whenever you draw a card, you may put a +1/+1 counter on Etchscale Elite. Each scale tells the story of a foe slayed.
2/1
Skirilis, Amphin Visionary :1mana::symr::symu:
Legendary Creature - Salamander Wizard {R}
At the beginning of your upkeep, look at the top X cards of your library, where X is the number of Salamanders you control, then put them back in any order.
Whenever you draw a card, you may put a 1/1 red Salamander creature token onto the battlefield. "For centuries, we have waited for the right moment to strike. Now, the time for patience is over."
2/2
Coralkeep Scriptures :2mana::symu:
Tribal Enchantment - Salamander {R}
Whenever Coralkeep Scriptures or another Salamander enters the battlefield under your control, you may pay :1mana:. If you do, draw a card. War stories and insights alike are highly treasured by the amphin. As their knowledge grows, so does the coral they record it on.
Twilight Kiwi
Tarex, the Tyrant-King :1mana::symb::symr::symg:
Legendary Creature - Dinosaur Warrior (R)
Protection from creatures with power less than Tarex's power
Sacrifice a creature: Tarex gets +1/+1 until end of turn. Those who assume he rules by strength alone fall swiftly to his cunning.
5/3
Trihorn Herdmistress :2mana::symb::symg:
Creature - Dinosaur Shaman (R)
Whenever you sacrifice a creature, you may put a +1/+1 counter on target Dinosaur. , Sacrifice a creature: Target creature's power becomes equal to the highest power among creatures you control until end of turn.
3/4
Bloodcrest Raptor :1mana::symb::symr:
Creature - Dinosaur Assassin (U)
First strike, haste
Whenever Bloodcrest Raptor attacks, you may destroy target creature with power less than Bloodcrest Raptor's power. None can escape the talons of the Tyrant-King's personal hunters.
2/1
Primal Stampede :3mana::symr::symg:
Tribal Sorcery - Dinosaur (R)
Creatures you control can't be blocked by creatures with power less than their power this turn. "When an army of ancient, towering monsters is charging at you, you get out of the way."
- Agzii, Mammrian survivor
Morguloth
Drolmar Prowler
Creature - Vampire Rogue (C)
Whenever Drolmar Prowler deals combat damage, you may draw a card.
1/1
Drolmar Ritual :1mana::symb:
Tribal Sorcery - Rogue (U)
Tap any number of untapped Rogue creatures you control.
For each creature tapped this way, target opponent discards a card and you draw a card.
Drolmar Mistress :1mana::symb::symb:
Creature - Vampire Rogue (R)
Other Rogue creatures you control get +1/+1 and have intimidate.
Whenever a Rogue creature enters the battlefield under your control, you may draw a card.
2/2
Drolmalina of the Dark :2mana::symb::symb:
Legendary Creature - Vampire Rogue (M)
Deathtouch
:symb::symb:: Target opponent discards a card and you draw a card.
3/4
Phyrexian Editor
Sower of Disloyalty :3mana::symu:
Creature - Djinn {U}
Flying
At the beginning of your upkeep, target opponent gains control of target creature you control. Tales of certain death on the front flow nightly from his curled, pernicious lips into the ears of terrified soldiers.
3/3
Djinn Tamer :1mana::symr:
Creature - Human Mystic {R} : Counter target triggered ability. If it is a triggered ability of a djinn, target opponent gains control of that ability instead. Activate this ability only during your upkeep. "They may be powerful, but they are not inscrutable. Djinns have desires and weaknesses like any other creature."
1/2
Thayl the Vainglorious :1mana::symu::symr::symg:
Legendary Creature - Djinn {M}
Flying , :symu::symr::symg:: Play the top card of your library without paying its mana cost. If you do, flip a coin. If you lose the flip, sacrifice two permanents. He grants wishes. Just not necessarily yours.
3/4
Oath of the Djinn :2mana::symr::symr:
Tribal Enchantment - Djinn Aura {U}
Enchant creature
You control enchanted creature. It has haste.
At the beginning of your upkeep, flip a coin. If you lose the flip, target opponent gains control of Trickster’s Oath. The word of a djinn is as ethereal as the parchment it's written on.
What substitute is there for arable land? Or antibiotics? Or rare-earth metals? Such goods are not easy to simply produce more of. That's the problem I'm talking about: scarcity of resources. By luck or by design you will have a few parties who control lots and lots of wealth in the form of such scarce resources... and that wealth translates into lots of power. So by default you have a game where a few players are in a perfect position to set the rules. In fact, even from the POV of an anarchist this sort of thing is exactly how and why states were created in the first place: in the beginning there were the have-mores and the have-lesses, and the have-mores created the state to calcify that status quo.
There are many substitute goods. Admittedly, the goods are not as good or as cheap often. Example, alternate fuels. Ethanol is less energy dense than gasoline and burning pure ethanol or e85 makes for a more expensive engine. Biodiesel is now more expensive than petrodiesel, but it still works. Every good has substitutes.
Now these are good possibilities, but they also assume a lack (or near enough) of asymmetrical information. If everyone had instant and unfettered access to trust ratings, other sorts of regulation might become unnecessary. Of course, we must remember that where anything is kept "on the books," there will be someone who would benefit from cooking those books.
I think that anarcho capitalism has become a lot more feasible recently because of techological developments. Suppose it was simply expected that everyone had a Facebook style "dispute wall." Anyone can write on anyone else's wall, but its labeled who has written. It also writes the same comment on your own wall. There are naturally some filters (applied by the readers of the wall) to cut out spam.
I agree that cooking the books is a problem. One way, probably not the best way, is to have multiple sets of books. All are kept by independant entities. By making the databases open to spider type programs, discrepencies and corruption can be found by simple comparisons. So cooking the books could be made very difficult. Any corruption would have to take place within multiple institutions simultaneously. In addition, there is the risk of people keeping solid records and showing how they were screwed over
Assuming this was a viable option; to what extent would market share play in this? I mean, we see how often people decide to boycott corporations and how often such measures are effective by themselves.
Less than you might think. As it would be expected that each party offering a choice of courts, no one court could become essential. Getting your disputes settled while boycotting the Acme court company would be like shopping in the modern US while boycotting Walmart. Sure its a little harder, but not impossible.
True; just because a system is (conditionally) imperfect doesn't mean it should be discarded, though.
When a system is fundamentally flawed there should be workarounds. Its not exactly a corner case. The flaw applies in all criminal cases, all tax cases, and many other cases.
Low taxes bring on recklessness, people don't know how to handle their own money in the latest generation. Individualism ends when the society needs resources to pay for it's own excesses. Low taxes are a privilege, not a right.
As opposed to the paragons of fiscal responsibility in Washington?
Why do the excesses of the government trump any conceivable use that an individual might have? You admit they are excesses, but then treat them as a given.
All this seems to be predicated on the assumption that all parties are interested in the just resolution of the dispute. But this, of course, is seldom the case. In a legal dispute, all parties are interested in the resolution in their favor. It's a state judiciary, instituted and funded by uninterested parties - to wit, the public - that is most likely to be just.
True. This is why I believe there would be significant sanctions for having disputes that you are refusing to resolve. Someone who was refusing to progress on a dispute would likely find themselves ostracized.
A state judiciary is not an uninterested party in many cases. The prosecution and judge in any criminal trial are paid for and appointed by the same organization. On any case the government is a party to, a government judge has a potential conflict of interest. I think that something like chose a court, if you want your adversary to be sanctioned for refusing to participate offer them at least 3 of the top 5 courts as a choice of venue.
I don't know if any of this has been fully covered in the past twenty-two pages, but here's my standard questionnaire for anarcho-capitalists:
1) How would AnCap-ism deal with the problem of scarcity? (The issue here is that scarcity necessarily implies an uneven distribution of finite resources, which leads directly to imbalances of power. The "free market" thought experiment assumes a sort of economic tabula rasa, which the real world ain't.)
All of these answers are best guesses on my part. As its an anarchy, I can't be sure what will happen.
Generally by trade. Scarcity is a problem for all systems, and most resources must be rationed. People will either buy what they want or use substitute goods. There will be a strong incentive to create more of scarce goods.
2) How would AnCap-ism deal with externalities? (To some extent you could have "clean-up crews" but other things are simply better left prevented—radioactive waste, e.g.)
By compensation and insurance. Those industries that have large risks generally require huge amounts of capital (ex. nuclear plants). Without limited liability for torts, people would be very cautious about investing in such industries. So that people aren't risking loses beyond their original investments, they would likely require that there be insurance to cover risks. The insurance companies have a huge stake in insuring that they don't end up paying for a meltdown or waste dumping. As such they would demand that there be safety guidelines and inspections.
3) How would AnCap-ism establish and enforce property rights? (Commercial judiciaries, perhaps, but how would they do it?)
Probably by something a trust rating, similar to a credit rating, and ostracism. If someone violates the rights of others, such as by defaulting on contracts they would quickly find themselves distrusted by everyone. No renting, no loans, no trades that require any measure of trust. Also, a good rating would be very valuable, and not to be risked lightly.
4) How would AnCap-ism guard against corruption? (Obviously it's very hard or impossible to prevent corruption totally, but how would one try?)
I assume you mean corruption of the judiciary. If you mean some other type of corruption, I'd be happy to answer that as well.
A good reputation and trust rating would be especially valuable for courts. This is combined with all disputes providing a choice of jurisdiction. If a court is found to sell verdicts, they will quickly stop being chosen to hear disputes. If there is a risk of corruption because of conflict of interest, people will chose different courts. For instance, I would never chose a court to hear a case if the other party was a judge or shareholder in that court.
Another possibility is agreeing upon an appeal court beforehand. I might agree to have a dispute heard in court A. At the same time, all parties to the dispute and court A may agree that the case can be retried in courts B&C. If both B&C disagree with the ruling, it may be overturned with costs to be born by court A.
This is very speculative, as it is the least tested part. We have examples of markets dealing with scarcity. We have examples of insurance. We even have a few examples of reputation working on larger scales. Competing jurisdictions is much less tested.
1: Have Fun!!! 2: Each round, except round 1 (signup round), will have a theme, and the contestants will design cards to match that theme. 3. Players may submit a new, original card, or any card[s] they have created, so long as they are the players own original design and the card[s] meet the challenge requirements. Last word on meeting these requirements and any penalties is up to the hosts. 4: Each round will have 4 days to submit cards and 3 days to to vote for the cards. 5: Judging is only done by poll and the player with the lowest number of votes will be eliminated. Voting will be public and open to the general public. You may vote for as many, or as few cards as you like (including yourself if you want). The host(s) have final say on the validity of a vote in the case of questionable votes. 6: Any player that doesn't submit a card for any reason will be eliminated. 7: If a player submits a card or cards that does not meet the challenge requirements, that player may receive a DQ and be eliminated. If possible, the player in question will be notified to try and correct the problem before the end of the round. If the mistake is not corrected or is not caught until after the voting has begun, then the hosts will decide if a DQ will be assigned. 8: If there's a tie for the lowest vote total, all those people get to stay in the game but they get a next to their name. Anybody who already had a :symb:, however, is out. Players that get a will keep it until he or she is eliminated or we reach the Top 7 bracket. Anybody with three or less votes in a single round will also receive a :symb:. Similar rules apply. 9: The game will continue until we have a single champion... our Design Idol. 10: If the winner of the last Design Idol returns to defend his or her title (he or she must now sign-up like everyone else), he or she will earn a beside his or her name. This means if he or she would earn a for a round, the falls off instead. Or, if that player would face single elimination, the will convert into a :symb:. If the goes unused by the time we reach the Top 7 Bracket, it will fall off. 11: The Top 4 of the last Design Idol get the right to "shotgun" a place on the new season. The same is true for hosts, only they get shotgun rights for two seasons. (So any hosts of Season VI can shotgun in VII and VIII). They still have to create a card for the first round, however.
New Rule: Renders may be submitted, but text is required. The text of the card will be copied and pasted into the poll with any links.
Last round, Jimmy Groove got the fewest points. Thanks for playing.
The remaining players are
Morguloth
Oculus
Twilight Kiwi
Phyrexian Editor
This round the challenge is tribal design. You must design 4 cards for a tribe of your choice. These cards must be appropriate for printing in a tribal block. One must be a legendary creature that exemplifies the tribe's philosophy/mechanics and color identity. One must be a lord. One must be a regular critter. The final card must be a non-creature card with the tribal subtype.
Race tribes (ex. goblins), profession tribes (ex. soldier) and oddball tribes (ex werewolf, nightmare horror) are all good. The lord must enhance members of the tribe, but need not be a +X/+X. Drowner of secrets or Kinsbaile Cavalier would be ok.
Which we go back to lacking specificity and start discussing segmented historical examples, and why anarchism is the sexy form of Marxism for the 21st century. I'm disparaging your ideology, because it has failed to achieve much or to add much to the debate when we place aspects into direct policy questions for the philosophy to answer. Much of the rejection comes from a philosophical stand point, combined with a lack of robustness on source material to debate the historical record. And as I have said to each anarchist that lacks a robust education in other ideologies, is that given enough time and energy a middling approach saying it was "both the individual the government and businesses" will come to the foray. Government is always a part of the problem, but to deny that it has no answers is to deny it's ability to open up human capacity by ensuring basic individual liberties.
What evidence do you have that I lack an education in other ideologies? Rejection does not show a lack of understanding. As for why I gave a simplistic argument, is it was sufficient to answer the claim that regulation and cheap money can prevent banking crises. A longer and more detailed answer would have been unnecessary.
The idea isn't to save people from the shock in the first place. It's to open up tools that are better than "Raise interest rates and force all leveraged entities into default", softening the impact of the shock on the economy.
Then why are the shocks lasting so much longer without getting much shallower?
Also, the Austrian school places far too much emphasis on interest rates as a cause for economic busts. In the US, irrational behavior, widespread misinformation, and poor incentivization is far more responsible than easy money for economic busts. "Interest rates" is a gross oversimplification of a complex issue whose root cause is "We done goofed".
All of those actually flow from interest rates to some degree. Interest rates determine what is a good investment. Is an investment of 1 million dollars that will return 50 thousand dollars a year a good investment? It depends on interest rates. If the interest rate is 2%, its a good investment. If 7%, its a bad investment. With artificially lowered interest rates bad investments look good. People fund bad investments with real capital (irrational behavior). Rating agencies and investment gurus recommend bad investments (misinformation.) Almost any capital project looks good, so production is pushed into highly capital intensive projects (perverse incentives). One of the reasons why building mcmansions looked great on paper was low interest rates.
Most of the regulation he's talking about - all of it, really - was enacted as a response to the great depression in the New Deal. The Federal Reserve bank was just a central way to manage gold and the issuance of money. England, the biggest economic power in the world in 1914, had a federal bank, along with France and a budding German bank. Englands national bank, however, wasn't enough to stave off financial crisis, and at several occasions they required loans of gold from France and other nations, which were repayed in kind when disaster struck those areas. The banks found it impossible to operate based solely on the amount of gold they had available as economies grew, and the value of money in circulation, while pegged to the gold standard, was invariably greater than the amount of gold they had on hand to support it.
Practically speaking, the best way to deal with modern economics is to start in the 70's after the gold shocks and Bretton Woods was unilaterally disolved by Nixon. In that time you had stagflation, as well as the S&L and dot com bubbles. In previous economic disasters, without looser currency and inflation as a manipulative tool, the prescription was to burn your bridges since you couldn't cover every debt and force a depression to get rid of debt.
Okay, I'll grant that under Nixon a new era started. The bad stuff of the 70's ended with a harsh recession under Carter and Reagan. Even discounting the dot com bubble, that's less than 30 years before the troubles we have now. The regulations to save us from the 20-30 year cyclic shocks don't.
Looser currency and inflation are hardly new tools. FDR closed gold redemption for US citizens and devalued the dollar in terms of gold.
Lately with the banking crisis that we saw was basically just like the classical banking crisis's that used to pop up every 20-30 years in the 19th century that were able to avoid after government regulations. Most certainly government contributed to the crisis, however had the regulatory situation not been fundamentalists on capitalism we could have avoided it and perhaps saw something more similar to the Savings and Loan Crisis.
I disagree with your claim that the regulation has avoided these banking crises. I assume that we can start with the federal reserve system's creation in 1913. After this, there was the great depression in 1929. The depression ended and the economy got back onto a normal footing after world war 2. After this there was a crisis in the 1970s with stagflation, wage and price controls, and the closing of the gold window. Then there was the housing bubble, and the current economic problems. This is 3 major crises in a century, crises that lasted longer and were more severe than those before the regulation. There were also smaller bumps like the Savings and Loan problems and the dot com bubble. The idea of regulation preventing crises from happening every 20-30 years isn't standing up very well.
I know you say that regulation is fundamentalist on capitalism, and that is why it failed. If there is some fundamentally different regulatory regime, then it is untested and purely hypothetical.
One of the better arguments I have seen for "getting rid of government" have often come from localists, AnCappers don't approach much beyond what they accomplish. Some argue for more city states or confederations for protections rather than federalist institutions or having few federalist institutions such as what Ropke suggested to have small citiscapes that can employ as many people as possible through small time industry. Your ideology... has no proscriptive elements and is just anti-governance and capitalism worship on steroids. "Free markets" as we understand them aren't truly a "government" rather it's a type of thinking, a culture. That's what draws people back to the people in the 19th century they started businesses for the hell of it like how the Chinese are doing today or Israelis.
I have said very little about my ideology. Please do not make claims about what hasn't been stated.
I will admit that my ideology lacks proscriptive elements. Government is an inherently unjust and violent institution. This makes it unacceptable. However, I cannot demand people organize a specific way. I can only insist that people do not initiate force against each other. There are many possibilities, including the localist ones you mention. What people actually will chose cannot be determined beforehand.
Also, I am not anti-governance. I am anti-government. Government is one way of achieving the end of governance. Nor do I worship capitalism, much less modern capitalism.
Why an island rather than a gymnasium? Because landmasses are claimed by governments. If they could start their new society by buying up a few square miles of unsettled land in the western US or Canada it would be a lot easier. However, it is unlikely that the governments would be willing to give up that territory. Secession tends not to be allowed and governments almost always go to war rather than give up territory.
Yep, if I want to heat my house with kerosene, napalm, or plutonium, its nobody's business but my own, on Libertarian Island, woooooot!!! If I burn the island down, the community will take care of things, and I won't be invited back to Libertarian Island II.
I'm starting to like Libertarian Island. Is it true that nobody can stop me from just dumping used oil and broken mercury CFL bulbs into the ocean?
This does seem like a real concern. So, there is an incentive for the people putting together the island to prevent this dumping. The most obvious way is to have claims of ownership for local parts of the ocean. Dumping your oil that pollutes someone's water would be dealt with the same way that dumping trash on their land would be.
Debts can only exist with a contract. You have said they can opt out of the contract by leaving. However, if this is a valid debt then the contract applies even if they leave. Hence they can't opt out by leaving.
And yet people emigrate all the time. The American government doesn't at all threaten people to force them to stay in the country. You are arguing against a strawman.
They are unable to leave with their property. If they could leave with their property, this would allow Petoria. To leave requires relinquishing property they own. In addition, the US government does demand paying of taxes after emigration. People still leave, but there are sanctions for doing so.
This whole "Absence of a SINGLE world govt demonstrates the viability of AnCap" argument is laughable.
(1) all the PROSPEROUS people live under govt and pay taxes.
(2) how can AnCappers now claim that the lack of a government over the governments somehow proves that AnCap can work??? It's either disingenuous or flat out stupid to claim that the collection of world govts demonstrate the viability of AnCap.
Does the fact that Mexico, Canada and US coexist as separate govts, show that North America prove the viability of AnCap?
-
Put it another way: if The "AnCap island experiment" ends up with 3 democracies, 4 dictatorships, with about 1000 people each, with people paying taxes, using paper currency, and forming armies under each govt, with occasional wars and invasions between them, plus about 1000 people living in utter chaos & poverty in the peninsula of failed state... are you going to have the nerve to proclaim "Look! Ancap island is a success!! All the governments coexist with each other without a govt over them!" ???
No, of course it doesn't prove the viability of anarchocapitalism. All it does is answer the common objection that anarchy = war of all against all.
I don't see any real alternatives to the free market. There would be some pretty big changes in the structure though, and many of the huge corporations we see now could not exist without state support.
It would be tough to do. However, even partial ostracism is expensive. Even if only 10% of the clients move away from a behemoth like BP or Walmart they are looking at billions of dollars in losses. Its cheaper to lose disputes fairly and pay out.
Absolutely yes, ostracism is very powerful. Ostracism is social and economic isolation. Its not just we won't be friends with you. Its you can't shop here, you can't work here, and I won't buy from you. I like due process. If there is an appropriate way to make it stronger, I am okay with that. However, this does not justify the powers of a state.
The current courts are not very good at investigating all crimes fairly, especially when the criminals are police or politicians. The cases where where police brutality or murder goes unpunished come to mind. On the flip side, the cases where someone is prosecuted for a felony for recording police come to mind. The safeguards and judicial ethics don't seem to work very well. You can't just say that it shouldn't happen, and ignore the fact that it does happen systematically.
The rules.
1: Have Fun!!!
2: Each round, except round 1 (signup round), will have a theme, and the contestants will design cards to match that theme.
3. Players may submit a new, original card, or any card[s] they have created, so long as they are the players own original design and the card[s] meet the challenge requirements. Last word on meeting these requirements and any penalties is up to the hosts.
4: Each round will have 4 days to submit cards and 3 days to to vote for the cards.
5: Judging is only done by poll and the player with the lowest number of votes will be eliminated. Voting will be public and open to the general public. You may vote for as many, or as few cards as you like (including yourself if you want). The host(s) have final say on the validity of a vote in the case of questionable votes.
6: Any player that doesn't submit a card for any reason will be eliminated.
7: If a player submits a card or cards that does not meet the challenge requirements, that player may receive a DQ and be eliminated. If possible, the player in question will be notified to try and correct the problem before the end of the round. If the mistake is not corrected or is not caught until after the voting has begun, then the hosts will decide if a DQ will be assigned.
8: If there's a tie for the lowest vote total, all those people get to stay in the game but they get a
Anybody with three or less votes in a single round will also receive a :symb:. Similar rules apply.
9: The game will continue until we have a single champion... our Design Idol.
10: If the winner of the last Design Idol returns to defend his or her title (he or she must now sign-up like everyone else), he or she will earn a
11: The Top 4 of the last Design Idol get the right to "shotgun" a place on the new season. The same is true for hosts, only they get shotgun rights for two seasons. (So any hosts of Season VI can shotgun in VII and VIII). They still have to create a card for the first round, however.
New Rule: Renders may be submitted, but text is required. The text of the card will be copied and pasted into the poll with any links.
This round the challenge was tribal design. 4 cards for a tribe of your choice. These cards must be appropriate for printing in a tribal block. One must be a legendary creature that exemplifies the tribe's philosophy/mechanics and color identity. One must be a lord. One must be a regular critter. The final card must be a non-creature card with the tribal subtype.
Race tribes (ex. goblins), profession tribes (ex. soldier) and oddball tribes (ex werewolf, nightmare horror) are all good. The lord must enhance members of the tribe, but need not be a +X/+X. Drowner of secrets or Kinsbaile Cavalier would be ok.
Entries
Oculus
Creature - Salamander Wizard {C}
Whenever you draw a card, you may have target Salamander creature be unblockable this turn.
The more novel the spell, the more respected the caster.
1/3
Etchscale Elite :4mana::symr:
Creature - Salamander Warrior {C}
First strike
Whenever you draw a card, you may put a +1/+1 counter on Etchscale Elite.
Each scale tells the story of a foe slayed.
2/1
Skirilis, Amphin Visionary :1mana::symr::symu:
Legendary Creature - Salamander Wizard {R}
At the beginning of your upkeep, look at the top X cards of your library, where X is the number of Salamanders you control, then put them back in any order.
Whenever you draw a card, you may put a 1/1 red Salamander creature token onto the battlefield.
"For centuries, we have waited for the right moment to strike. Now, the time for patience is over."
2/2
Coralkeep Scriptures :2mana::symu:
Tribal Enchantment - Salamander {R}
Whenever Coralkeep Scriptures or another Salamander enters the battlefield under your control, you may pay :1mana:. If you do, draw a card.
War stories and insights alike are highly treasured by the amphin. As their knowledge grows, so does the coral they record it on.
Twilight Kiwi
Legendary Creature - Dinosaur Warrior (R)
Protection from creatures with power less than Tarex's power
Sacrifice a creature: Tarex gets +1/+1 until end of turn.
Those who assume he rules by strength alone fall swiftly to his cunning.
5/3
Trihorn Herdmistress :2mana::symb::symg:
Creature - Dinosaur Shaman (R)
Whenever you sacrifice a creature, you may put a +1/+1 counter on target Dinosaur.
3/4
Bloodcrest Raptor :1mana::symb::symr:
Creature - Dinosaur Assassin (U)
First strike, haste
Whenever Bloodcrest Raptor attacks, you may destroy target creature with power less than Bloodcrest Raptor's power.
None can escape the talons of the Tyrant-King's personal hunters.
2/1
Primal Stampede :3mana::symr::symg:
Tribal Sorcery - Dinosaur (R)
Creatures you control can't be blocked by creatures with power less than their power this turn.
"When an army of ancient, towering monsters is charging at you, you get out of the way."
- Agzii, Mammrian survivor
Morguloth
Creature - Vampire Rogue (C)
Whenever Drolmar Prowler deals combat damage, you may draw a card.
1/1
Drolmar Ritual :1mana::symb:
Tribal Sorcery - Rogue (U)
Tap any number of untapped Rogue creatures you control.
For each creature tapped this way, target opponent discards a card and you draw a card.
Drolmar Mistress :1mana::symb::symb:
Creature - Vampire Rogue (R)
Other Rogue creatures you control get +1/+1 and have intimidate.
Whenever a Rogue creature enters the battlefield under your control, you may draw a card.
2/2
Drolmalina of the Dark :2mana::symb::symb:
Legendary Creature - Vampire Rogue (M)
Deathtouch
:symb::symb:: Target opponent discards a card and you draw a card.
3/4
Phyrexian Editor
Creature - Djinn {U}
Flying
At the beginning of your upkeep, target opponent gains control of target creature you control.
Tales of certain death on the front flow nightly from his curled, pernicious lips into the ears of terrified soldiers.
3/3
Djinn Tamer :1mana::symr:
Creature - Human Mystic {R}
"They may be powerful, but they are not inscrutable. Djinns have desires and weaknesses like any other creature."
1/2
Thayl the Vainglorious :1mana::symu::symr::symg:
Legendary Creature - Djinn {M}
Flying
He grants wishes. Just not necessarily yours.
3/4
Oath of the Djinn :2mana::symr::symr:
Tribal Enchantment - Djinn Aura {U}
Enchant creature
You control enchanted creature. It has haste.
At the beginning of your upkeep, flip a coin. If you lose the flip, target opponent gains control of Trickster’s Oath.
The word of a djinn is as ethereal as the parchment it's written on.
There are many substitute goods. Admittedly, the goods are not as good or as cheap often. Example, alternate fuels. Ethanol is less energy dense than gasoline and burning pure ethanol or e85 makes for a more expensive engine. Biodiesel is now more expensive than petrodiesel, but it still works. Every good has substitutes.
I think that anarcho capitalism has become a lot more feasible recently because of techological developments. Suppose it was simply expected that everyone had a Facebook style "dispute wall." Anyone can write on anyone else's wall, but its labeled who has written. It also writes the same comment on your own wall. There are naturally some filters (applied by the readers of the wall) to cut out spam.
I agree that cooking the books is a problem. One way, probably not the best way, is to have multiple sets of books. All are kept by independant entities. By making the databases open to spider type programs, discrepencies and corruption can be found by simple comparisons. So cooking the books could be made very difficult. Any corruption would have to take place within multiple institutions simultaneously. In addition, there is the risk of people keeping solid records and showing how they were screwed over
Less than you might think. As it would be expected that each party offering a choice of courts, no one court could become essential. Getting your disputes settled while boycotting the Acme court company would be like shopping in the modern US while boycotting Walmart. Sure its a little harder, but not impossible.
When a system is fundamentally flawed there should be workarounds. Its not exactly a corner case. The flaw applies in all criminal cases, all tax cases, and many other cases.
As opposed to the paragons of fiscal responsibility in Washington?
Why do the excesses of the government trump any conceivable use that an individual might have? You admit they are excesses, but then treat them as a given.
True. This is why I believe there would be significant sanctions for having disputes that you are refusing to resolve. Someone who was refusing to progress on a dispute would likely find themselves ostracized.
A state judiciary is not an uninterested party in many cases. The prosecution and judge in any criminal trial are paid for and appointed by the same organization. On any case the government is a party to, a government judge has a potential conflict of interest. I think that something like chose a court, if you want your adversary to be sanctioned for refusing to participate offer them at least 3 of the top 5 courts as a choice of venue.
All of these answers are best guesses on my part. As its an anarchy, I can't be sure what will happen.
Generally by trade. Scarcity is a problem for all systems, and most resources must be rationed. People will either buy what they want or use substitute goods. There will be a strong incentive to create more of scarce goods.
By compensation and insurance. Those industries that have large risks generally require huge amounts of capital (ex. nuclear plants). Without limited liability for torts, people would be very cautious about investing in such industries. So that people aren't risking loses beyond their original investments, they would likely require that there be insurance to cover risks. The insurance companies have a huge stake in insuring that they don't end up paying for a meltdown or waste dumping. As such they would demand that there be safety guidelines and inspections.
Probably by something a trust rating, similar to a credit rating, and ostracism. If someone violates the rights of others, such as by defaulting on contracts they would quickly find themselves distrusted by everyone. No renting, no loans, no trades that require any measure of trust. Also, a good rating would be very valuable, and not to be risked lightly.
I assume you mean corruption of the judiciary. If you mean some other type of corruption, I'd be happy to answer that as well.
A good reputation and trust rating would be especially valuable for courts. This is combined with all disputes providing a choice of jurisdiction. If a court is found to sell verdicts, they will quickly stop being chosen to hear disputes. If there is a risk of corruption because of conflict of interest, people will chose different courts. For instance, I would never chose a court to hear a case if the other party was a judge or shareholder in that court.
Another possibility is agreeing upon an appeal court beforehand. I might agree to have a dispute heard in court A. At the same time, all parties to the dispute and court A may agree that the case can be retried in courts B&C. If both B&C disagree with the ruling, it may be overturned with costs to be born by court A.
This is very speculative, as it is the least tested part. We have examples of markets dealing with scarcity. We have examples of insurance. We even have a few examples of reputation working on larger scales. Competing jurisdictions is much less tested.
The rules.
1: Have Fun!!!
2: Each round, except round 1 (signup round), will have a theme, and the contestants will design cards to match that theme.
3. Players may submit a new, original card, or any card[s] they have created, so long as they are the players own original design and the card[s] meet the challenge requirements. Last word on meeting these requirements and any penalties is up to the hosts.
4: Each round will have 4 days to submit cards and 3 days to to vote for the cards.
5: Judging is only done by poll and the player with the lowest number of votes will be eliminated. Voting will be public and open to the general public. You may vote for as many, or as few cards as you like (including yourself if you want). The host(s) have final say on the validity of a vote in the case of questionable votes.
6: Any player that doesn't submit a card for any reason will be eliminated.
7: If a player submits a card or cards that does not meet the challenge requirements, that player may receive a DQ and be eliminated. If possible, the player in question will be notified to try and correct the problem before the end of the round. If the mistake is not corrected or is not caught until after the voting has begun, then the hosts will decide if a DQ will be assigned.
8: If there's a tie for the lowest vote total, all those people get to stay in the game but they get a
Anybody with three or less votes in a single round will also receive a :symb:. Similar rules apply.
9: The game will continue until we have a single champion... our Design Idol.
10: If the winner of the last Design Idol returns to defend his or her title (he or she must now sign-up like everyone else), he or she will earn a
11: The Top 4 of the last Design Idol get the right to "shotgun" a place on the new season. The same is true for hosts, only they get shotgun rights for two seasons. (So any hosts of Season VI can shotgun in VII and VIII). They still have to create a card for the first round, however.
New Rule: Renders may be submitted, but text is required. The text of the card will be copied and pasted into the poll with any links.
Last round, Jimmy Groove got the fewest points. Thanks for playing.
The remaining players are
Morguloth
Oculus
Twilight Kiwi
Phyrexian Editor
This round the challenge is tribal design. You must design 4 cards for a tribe of your choice. These cards must be appropriate for printing in a tribal block. One must be a legendary creature that exemplifies the tribe's philosophy/mechanics and color identity. One must be a lord. One must be a regular critter. The final card must be a non-creature card with the tribal subtype.
Race tribes (ex. goblins), profession tribes (ex. soldier) and oddball tribes (ex werewolf, nightmare horror) are all good. The lord must enhance members of the tribe, but need not be a +X/+X. Drowner of secrets or Kinsbaile Cavalier would be ok.
Deadline is Saturday at 1:00 am eastern.
What evidence do you have that I lack an education in other ideologies? Rejection does not show a lack of understanding. As for why I gave a simplistic argument, is it was sufficient to answer the claim that regulation and cheap money can prevent banking crises. A longer and more detailed answer would have been unnecessary.
Then why are the shocks lasting so much longer without getting much shallower?
All of those actually flow from interest rates to some degree. Interest rates determine what is a good investment. Is an investment of 1 million dollars that will return 50 thousand dollars a year a good investment? It depends on interest rates. If the interest rate is 2%, its a good investment. If 7%, its a bad investment. With artificially lowered interest rates bad investments look good. People fund bad investments with real capital (irrational behavior). Rating agencies and investment gurus recommend bad investments (misinformation.) Almost any capital project looks good, so production is pushed into highly capital intensive projects (perverse incentives). One of the reasons why building mcmansions looked great on paper was low interest rates.
Okay, I'll grant that under Nixon a new era started. The bad stuff of the 70's ended with a harsh recession under Carter and Reagan. Even discounting the dot com bubble, that's less than 30 years before the troubles we have now. The regulations to save us from the 20-30 year cyclic shocks don't.
Looser currency and inflation are hardly new tools. FDR closed gold redemption for US citizens and devalued the dollar in terms of gold.
I disagree with your claim that the regulation has avoided these banking crises. I assume that we can start with the federal reserve system's creation in 1913. After this, there was the great depression in 1929. The depression ended and the economy got back onto a normal footing after world war 2. After this there was a crisis in the 1970s with stagflation, wage and price controls, and the closing of the gold window. Then there was the housing bubble, and the current economic problems. This is 3 major crises in a century, crises that lasted longer and were more severe than those before the regulation. There were also smaller bumps like the Savings and Loan problems and the dot com bubble. The idea of regulation preventing crises from happening every 20-30 years isn't standing up very well.
I know you say that regulation is fundamentalist on capitalism, and that is why it failed. If there is some fundamentally different regulatory regime, then it is untested and purely hypothetical.
I have said very little about my ideology. Please do not make claims about what hasn't been stated.
I will admit that my ideology lacks proscriptive elements. Government is an inherently unjust and violent institution. This makes it unacceptable. However, I cannot demand people organize a specific way. I can only insist that people do not initiate force against each other. There are many possibilities, including the localist ones you mention. What people actually will chose cannot be determined beforehand.
Also, I am not anti-governance. I am anti-government. Government is one way of achieving the end of governance. Nor do I worship capitalism, much less modern capitalism.
This does seem like a real concern. So, there is an incentive for the people putting together the island to prevent this dumping. The most obvious way is to have claims of ownership for local parts of the ocean. Dumping your oil that pollutes someone's water would be dealt with the same way that dumping trash on their land would be.
Debts can only exist with a contract. You have said they can opt out of the contract by leaving. However, if this is a valid debt then the contract applies even if they leave. Hence they can't opt out by leaving.
They are unable to leave with their property. If they could leave with their property, this would allow Petoria. To leave requires relinquishing property they own. In addition, the US government does demand paying of taxes after emigration. People still leave, but there are sanctions for doing so.
No, of course it doesn't prove the viability of anarchocapitalism. All it does is answer the common objection that anarchy = war of all against all.