Negative vs. Positive Rights

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
81

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Dr. P,

Interesting questions. A few thoughts:

  1. The only way an “escrow” court could work is in small towns where commerce is extremely limited. Nearly every transaction would require a deposit on a theory that something in the deal could go sour, from small consumer goods to large capital purchases. I don’t think that would work as a practical matter since the Indistrial Age - look at every good you have in your home…to get some protection against bad craftmanship or basic non-performance, on everything from a toaster to a shipload of pork bellies, youd have to have money deposited with the court.

It’s also impractical because I can’t imagine would want to administer the deposited funds and track all that for every commercial transaction. That would be an enormous and expensive task.

[/quote]

Bitcoin. Funds would be guaranteed by the blockchain and those people running the bitcoin service would be paid transaction fees for their effort.

82

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
No one, and I mean no one, is going to put their personal assets on the line to run insurance.[/quote]

So you are telling me a pitcher’s arm can be insured but a lemonade stand cannot???

Is it me not paying attention to reality or you?

Insurance already exists for every type of actuarial calculation that can be made.

83

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
No one, and I mean no one, is going to put their personal assets on the line to run insurance.[/quote]

So you are telling me a pitcher’s arm can be insured but a lemonade stand cannot???

Is it me not paying attention to reality or you?

Insurance already exists for every type of actuarial calculation that can be made. [/quote]

You’re not even addressing my point. Either you’ve missed it, or are ignoring it because you know it destroys your argument.

Again: No one is going to risk their personal assets (you know, do business in the fantasy world you’ve been talking about where there is no personal liability protection) insuring. Period.

Insurance is lucrative because of the risk involved and based off volume. No one is taking that risk, nor convincing outside investors to take that risk, without personal liability protection.

84

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
In a free society people can contract with each other and those contracts can be upheld by private arbitration, credit and reputation agencies.[/quote]

In a free society a contract would be meaningless whether arbitration, credit, or reputation agencies exist or not. This is where the “free society” crowd loses it for me.

B1: I’ll sell you these 100 cars for $5MM.
B2: Agreed

B1: Delivers cars
B2: I’m not going to pay you.

B1: WTF? I’ll see you in arbitration

A1: B2 you owe B1 $5MM due immediately.
B2: Nah, I’m good go fuck yourself.

B1 & A1: Well shit…

Contracts in a “free society” will not be held up by private arbitration unless both parties submit to said arbitration and then agree with what the arbitrator rules. Never gonna happen…

This would equal about 1,000 steps backwards. No thanks. [/quote]

You don’t take the time to think things through.

If you agree to some contractual terms and then don’t comply with them your reputation and credit would be quickly ruined. In this technology age it would hurt very badly.

And its more like 1000 steps advanced from the backwoods of current government regulations.[/quote]

I don’t take the time to think things through? You live in fantasy land, but I don’t think things through, lol…

You are off your rocker, as usual.

85

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Dr. Pangloss wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

What if, in example 2, Larry still refuses to pay the remaining 99% of the purchase price even after the court ruling. He accepts the loss of the 1% and keeps the car. How would the court enforce the remaining value of the ruling? [/quote]

It would operate the same way it does now. Joe would have a judgement against Larry and if Larry didn’t pay up, Joe would have to initiate enforcement proceedings.[/quote]

I thought libertarians are against the initiation of force especially when its initiated by a government they deem illegitimate? I guess where I’m stuck is what would be the point of a commerce court if you still need the state and/or federal governments to enforce the ruling? [/quote]

You don’t need force or coercion. Being able to negatively affect ones reputation is a powerful motivator to honest business.

Let’s also assume the majority of people are honest and want to do honest business - if this were not the case where would we be? No amount of regulations can make people moral.[/quote]

Two honest businessmen can disagree, 100%, over a contract and, without the threat of force, tell each other to go fuck themselves.

Contracts, regulations, reputation agencies, etc… mean zilch without a mecahnism to enforce them.

Oh my reputation suffered, big fucking deal, I just took you for $5MM, sucker… I’ll buy a new reputation.

86

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Dr. Pangloss wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

What if, in example 2, Larry still refuses to pay the remaining 99% of the purchase price even after the court ruling. He accepts the loss of the 1% and keeps the car. How would the court enforce the remaining value of the ruling? [/quote]

It would operate the same way it does now. Joe would have a judgement against Larry and if Larry didn’t pay up, Joe would have to initiate enforcement proceedings.[/quote]

I thought libertarians are against the initiation of force especially when its initiated by a government they deem illegitimate? I guess where I’m stuck is what would be the point of a commerce court if you still need the state and/or federal governments to enforce the ruling? [/quote]

You don’t need force or coercion. Being able to negatively affect ones reputation is a powerful motivator to honest business.

Let’s also assume the majority of people are honest and want to do honest business - if this were not the case where would we be? No amount of regulations can make people moral.[/quote]

Two honest businessmen can disagree, 100%, over a contract and, without the threat of force, tell each other to go fuck themselves.

Contracts, regulations, reputation agencies, etc… mean zilch without a mecahnism to enforce them.

Oh my reputation suffered, big fucking deal, I just took you for $5MM, sucker… I’ll buy a new reputation. [/quote]

Don’t worry, people will just magically insure him for those losses, because you know… fantasy land.

87

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Dr. P,

Interesting questions. A few thoughts:

  1. The only way an “escrow” court could work is in small towns where commerce is extremely limited. Nearly every transaction would require a deposit on a theory that something in the deal could go sour, from small consumer goods to large capital purchases. I don’t think that would work as a practical matter since the Indistrial Age - look at every good you have in your home…to get some protection against bad craftmanship or basic non-performance, on everything from a toaster to a shipload of pork bellies, youd have to have money deposited with the court.

It’s also impractical because I can’t imagine would want to administer the deposited funds and track all that for every commercial transaction. That would be an enormous and expensive task.

[/quote]

Bitcoin. Funds would be guaranteed by the blockchain and those people running the bitcoin service would be paid transaction fees for their effort.[/quote]

Blockchain will be broken. How will you guarantee the funds?

88

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Dr. Pangloss wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

What if, in example 2, Larry still refuses to pay the remaining 99% of the purchase price even after the court ruling. He accepts the loss of the 1% and keeps the car. How would the court enforce the remaining value of the ruling? [/quote]

It would operate the same way it does now. Joe would have a judgement against Larry and if Larry didn’t pay up, Joe would have to initiate enforcement proceedings.[/quote]

I thought libertarians are against the initiation of force especially when its initiated by a government they deem illegitimate? I guess where I’m stuck is what would be the point of a commerce court if you still need the state and/or federal governments to enforce the ruling? [/quote]

You don’t need force or coercion. Being able to negatively affect ones reputation is a powerful motivator to honest business.

Let’s also assume the majority of people are honest and want to do honest business - if this were not the case where would we be? No amount of regulations can make people moral.[/quote]

Two honest businessmen can disagree, 100%, over a contract and, without the threat of force, tell each other to go fuck themselves.

Contracts, regulations, reputation agencies, etc… mean zilch without a mecahnism to enforce them.

Oh my reputation suffered, big fucking deal, I just took you for $5MM, sucker… I’ll buy a new reputation. [/quote]

Don’t worry, people will just magically insure him for those losses, because you know… fantasy land. [/quote]

And of course the insurance company will just pay out claims because, you know, charity and all that…

89

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
No one, and I mean no one, is going to put their personal assets on the line to run insurance.[/quote]

So you are telling me a pitcher’s arm can be insured but a lemonade stand cannot???

Is it me not paying attention to reality or you?

Insurance already exists for every type of actuarial calculation that can be made. [/quote]

You’re not even addressing my point. Either you’ve missed it, or are ignoring it because you know it destroys your argument.

Again: No one is going to risk their personal assets (you know, do business in the fantasy world you’ve been talking about where there is no personal liability protection) insuring. Period.

Insurance is lucrative because of the risk involved and based off volume. No one is taking that risk, nor convincing outside investors to take that risk, without personal liability protection. [/quote]

Insurance IS personal liability protection!!!

90

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Dr. Pangloss wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

What if, in example 2, Larry still refuses to pay the remaining 99% of the purchase price even after the court ruling. He accepts the loss of the 1% and keeps the car. How would the court enforce the remaining value of the ruling? [/quote]

It would operate the same way it does now. Joe would have a judgement against Larry and if Larry didn’t pay up, Joe would have to initiate enforcement proceedings.[/quote]

I thought libertarians are against the initiation of force especially when its initiated by a government they deem illegitimate? I guess where I’m stuck is what would be the point of a commerce court if you still need the state and/or federal governments to enforce the ruling? [/quote]

You don’t need force or coercion. Being able to negatively affect ones reputation is a powerful motivator to honest business.

Let’s also assume the majority of people are honest and want to do honest business - if this were not the case where would we be? No amount of regulations can make people moral.[/quote]

Two honest businessmen can disagree, 100%, over a contract and, without the threat of force, tell each other to go fuck themselves.

Contracts, regulations, reputation agencies, etc… mean zilch without a mecahnism to enforce them.

Oh my reputation suffered, big fucking deal, I just took you for $5MM, sucker… I’ll buy a new reputation. [/quote]

Don’t worry, people will just magically insure him for those losses, because you know… fantasy land. [/quote]

And of course the insurance company will just pay out claims because, you know, charity and all that… [/quote]

What do you not understand about negative credit and reputation?

Insurance companies are held to the same standards as those they insure by credit rankings and reputation agencies.

You guys are ignoring the fact these things already exist in the market to help protect consumers.

91

So what does government regulating business have anything to do with the fact that people are sometimes defrauded of their property? It’s not like the regulations stop it from happening in the first place.

There are private institutions that have been helping manage business risk ever since the market stared demanding it.

92

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Contracts, regulations, reputation agencies, etc… mean zilch without a mecahnism to enforce them.

Oh my reputation suffered, big fucking deal, I just took you for $5MM, sucker… I’ll buy a new reputation. [/quote]

In the information age you will never have the reputation you want. There is no anonymity. You will be blacklisted. People will not work for you; they will not contract with you. You will never get a loan. You will be financially shut down.

We don’t need guns. We have computers.

93

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
No one, and I mean no one, is going to put their personal assets on the line to run insurance.[/quote]

So you are telling me a pitcher’s arm can be insured but a lemonade stand cannot???

Is it me not paying attention to reality or you?

Insurance already exists for every type of actuarial calculation that can be made. [/quote]

You’re not even addressing my point. Either you’ve missed it, or are ignoring it because you know it destroys your argument.

Again: No one is going to risk their personal assets (you know, do business in the fantasy world you’ve been talking about where there is no personal liability protection) insuring. Period.

Insurance is lucrative because of the risk involved and based off volume. No one is taking that risk, nor convincing outside investors to take that risk, without personal liability protection. [/quote]

Insurance IS personal liability protection!!![/quote]

You are beyond parody at this point.

You’re completely ignoring the elephant in the room, which is my entire point.

There won’t be a single insurance company if said company’s ownership isn’t shielded from personal liability beyond their investment.

How many times this has to be explained before you stop ignoring it remains to be seen.

94

I fully understand why people shit on ancaps all the time.

95

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Dr. P,

Interesting questions. A few thoughts:

  1. The only way an “escrow” court could work is in small towns where commerce is extremely limited. Nearly every transaction would require a deposit on a theory that something in the deal could go sour, from small consumer goods to large capital purchases. I don’t think that would work as a practical matter since the Indistrial Age - look at every good you have in your home…to get some protection against bad craftmanship or basic non-performance, on everything from a toaster to a shipload of pork bellies, youd have to have money deposited with the court.

It’s also impractical because I can’t imagine would want to administer the deposited funds and track all that for every commercial transaction. That would be an enormous and expensive task.

[/quote]

Bitcoin. Funds would be guaranteed by the blockchain and those people running the bitcoin service would be paid transaction fees for their effort.[/quote]

Blockchain will be broken. How will you guarantee the funds? [/quote]

How can it be broken? In the last 5 years it still has not been.

That is the nature of distributed systems - greater than 50% of the computing power would need to be compromised for the blockchain to fail. Because of how people are incentivized by it to remain honest it would be very difficult to gain such a computing advantage in the first place.

Right now people are using bitcoin for escrow and it is proving very efficient.

https://www.google.com/search?q=bitcoin+escrow

96

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Contracts, regulations, reputation agencies, etc… mean zilch without a mecahnism to enforce them.

Oh my reputation suffered, big fucking deal, I just took you for $5MM, sucker… I’ll buy a new reputation. [/quote]

In the information age you will never have the reputation you want. There is no anonymity. You will be blacklisted. People will not work for you; they will not contract with you. You will never get a loan. You will be financially shut down.

We don’t need guns. We have computers. [/quote]

You can’t be serious.

Whatever, man. Lol… Thanks for the $5MM.

97

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
There won’t be a single insurance company if said company’s ownership isn’t shielded from personal liability beyond their investment. [/quote]

Yet somehow insurance arose in the market before the invention of the concept of the “limited liability corporation”. Someone took ALLLLLLLLL the risk upon himself to do exactly this.

Please explain this phenomenon.

The buck always stops somewhere and so we are back to where I started: in the current model of corporatism the buck stops at the taxpayer.

98

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Dr. P,

Interesting questions. A few thoughts:

  1. The only way an “escrow” court could work is in small towns where commerce is extremely limited. Nearly every transaction would require a deposit on a theory that something in the deal could go sour, from small consumer goods to large capital purchases. I don’t think that would work as a practical matter since the Indistrial Age - look at every good you have in your home…to get some protection against bad craftmanship or basic non-performance, on everything from a toaster to a shipload of pork bellies, youd have to have money deposited with the court.

It’s also impractical because I can’t imagine would want to administer the deposited funds and track all that for every commercial transaction. That would be an enormous and expensive task.

[/quote]

Bitcoin. Funds would be guaranteed by the blockchain and those people running the bitcoin service would be paid transaction fees for their effort.[/quote]

Blockchain will be broken. How will you guarantee the funds? [/quote]

How can it be broken? In the last 5 years it still has not been.

That is the nature of distributed systems - greater than 50% of the computing power would need to be compromised for the blockchain to fail. Because of how people are incentivized by it to remain honest it would be very difficult to gain such a computing advantage in the first place.

Right now people are using bitcoin for escrow and it is proving very efficient.

https://www.google.com/search?q=bitcoin+escrow[/quote]

5 whole years, whoa look out that shit is definitely uncrackable.

In your fantasy land where bitcoin via Blockchain becomes the backbone of commerce there’ll be a little more incentive to crack it, don’t you think??

99

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Contracts, regulations, reputation agencies, etc… mean zilch without a mecahnism to enforce them.

Oh my reputation suffered, big fucking deal, I just took you for $5MM, sucker… I’ll buy a new reputation. [/quote]

In the information age you will never have the reputation you want. There is no anonymity. You will be blacklisted. People will not work for you; they will not contract with you. You will never get a loan. You will be financially shut down.

We don’t need guns. We have computers. [/quote]

You can’t be serious.

Whatever, man. Lol… Thanks for the $5MM. [/quote]

Whatever! Not only am I serious it is already happening.

Your hypothetical situation assumes I would be dumb enough to make such a transaction without escrow in the first place. You would not get one cent from me (besides a modest down payment for good faith) if you did not fulfill your contractual obligation.

I win.

100

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
I win.[/quote]

No you really don’t.