The Machinery Of Freedom: Illustrated summary

> However, in my experience they seem to try to vastly simplify many issues by waving their hands and talking about the non-aggression principle as if that automatically solves everything. The truth is, while there may be laws which are unjust, unfair, or plain silly, most of them were created to meet a need or solve a problem. This is very true, but it doesn't represent the views of all libertarians or even all anarcho-capitalists. For a much better approach to anarcho-capitalism—one that focuses primarily on economics and not on morality—check out David Friedman's writings and talks. Here's a basic introduction to his proposal of a polycentric legal system where the market produces all goods and services including law, law enforcement, arbitration (courts), and even national defense: ▶ this video . Along with Murray Rothbard's primarily moral/ethical/legal arguments (which seem slightly more prominent, and seem to be the ones you've encountered), Friedman's economic arguments make up the main "branches of anarcho-capitalism."

in “Silk Road 2.0: A concept of a distributed anonymous marketplace” · View on HN

No, we don't. A great talk and an illustration about how law and protection could work in a stateless society: ▶ this video by David D. Friedman (an economist AND a lawyer).

in “Freedom: The Big American Lie” · View on HN

Not OP, but we already have examples showing where communism lead. No amount of brainwashing will convince everyone to give up their property and their labor for the common good; you'll always need a totalitarian regime to enforce socialism / communism (for some, if not all). You can even see it in our modern mixed society, everything is a voluntary transaction - minus paying taxes to the government for the "common good". A few people willing to signal their virtue will say they're happy to pay for taxes. But why not just use voluntary donations to charity? They have the added benefit of being auditable by third parties (unlike the government, which polices itself) and they have arguably less bureaucracy than a government, increasing the amount available to help whoever you're helping. From my side, I'd love to try a society based on the Machinery of Freedom: ▶ this video One can dream

in “Why Do People Stay Poor? [pdf]” · View on HN

Your ignorance doesn't make me a troll, and your citations for "working very well" are laughable. Check my comment history, I've been here almost four times longer than you, with over ten times more karma than you, and have had the same view of political authority for the entire time. Your unfamiliarity with the dangers of political authority and the idea held by many people for the past half century that it must be destroyed doesn't change any of that. In fact in light of it, I'm probably also significantly older and better read on the associated topics than you. ▶ this video Mark my words; unless political authority is destroyed there is no future that isn't a dystopia once this technology is widely available and employed. It's quite depressing to see this venue spiral into the lack of critical thinking necessary to not see the blazingly obvious, irreconcilable and irreparable problem of allocating these powers to an agency that also has the unlimited undischargeable right to coercion, but I guess that's just the way the world is failing these days.

in “Brains are the last frontier of privacy” · View on HN

>The US government is abolished, but the legal system is preserved? Not how it works. I said this was a thought experiment to sort of isolate this one issue. It's how we (praxeologists of law) might give suggestions to the polycentric legal system rising from a previously state-ruled region. You might not have this misunderstanding but many do. Anarchy simply means a lack of rulers. It doesn't necessarily entail chaos and it certainly doesn't mean a lack of law. Anarchist libertarianism or anarcho-capitalism is distinguished from early leftist-"anarchism" by two main characteristics. The former is radically and uncompromisingly for free markets and anti-state, with a focus on sound legal theory (a combination of a set of static legal grundnorms , viz. the praxeological aspect or a set of laws reasonably suited to all humans, with room for free variation among groups/cultures understanding that personal ideology will shape jurisprudence). The latter—leftist-"anarchists" as you'll probably see protesting the next Gx Summit or depicted on the TV—make varieties of socialist or communistic ideological proposals which results in a total lack of consistent legal theory. As an ideology, "an-cap" is relatively new and our body of attendant legal writings already dwarves theirs. Where leftist-"anarchism" has been tried, it's failed to maintain civil order and the "leaders" have been nigh-indistinguishable from other despots. >There would be a vacuum and a brutal rush to reappropriate r

in “Google Launches Sidewalk Labs” · View on HN

While states dominate history, private law has proven successful. You could see the Law Merchant throughout Europe as one example or medieval Iceland, where civil order was maintained for longer than the US has existed so far, as another. [link] [link] Regarding your other concerns see points 8 & 6 here: [link] While I have some differences with this author, you could consider this video as well: ▶ this video

in “Innovation’s Dependence on Regulation” · View on HN

> But ultimately, fundamentally, pedantic games aside, if you want a bunch of people to work together closely, you're eventually gonna have to use some force against some bad actors. For starters, Anarchocapitalism isn't really a political system so much as one of the ways which using free market organisation alone, society might end up according to game theoretic principles of mutual self interest of individual actors. Anarchocapitalism is not about elimination of the use of force . It is about the elimination of A) Political authority as a concept, that is, there is no singular party vested with special privileges that all people are supposed to acknowledge and respect and B) Aggression as distinct from force. That is the initiation of force. For example, acting against someone because they don't want to pay a fee you decree by political authority that you owe them, despite the fact that they have no relationship or agreement with you in any way shape or form and have never accepted any form of service from you, which is both force and aggression (taxation). As opposed to forcible self defense from an attacker intent on causing you physical harm, which is force, but not aggression. (self defense) Holders of political authority throughout history have been heavy on the use of aggression as distinct from force, this is what anarchocapitalists mostly take issue with. They are not pacifists, force in self defense is perfectly acceptable. To recap, the original claim you were at

in “After Technology Destroys Capitalism” · View on HN

> This argument applies equally well to most things. Well you uncoverd the reason to why I belive, what I belive. > Evolution doesn't need biologists, but people who need to make decisions dealing with the consequences of evolution on epidemiology sure do! I agree but the question is not if we plan and make dicisions, the question is who makes the plan and dicisions for who. > Defending a country is a hugely complicated mess, and moving battleships over here is going to have ramifications over there. Policing society is difficult and complicated - we try to cut down on crime by targeting something over here, and it causes problems over there. > Clearly, we should call the whole thing off, and allow international affairs and society take care of themselves - all the way through invasions and murder? Well I actually agree that we should let society take care of that (Not trolling I actually agree). The most broken down version of such a, for a advanced economy would be this (20 min video): How to provide law and police without state: ▶ this video And a more practical discussion about order without goverment you can get here (lecture): [link] Stats of Anarchy (or self goverments) or something close to it is one of the hot subjects in development economics. About half of the world stats are failed or almost failed states, these are states that do not have the power to efficently do what a policy and law system would do in a first world country. So there most be something else going on

in “Milton Friedman's Thermostat” · View on HN

How private forms of several of the things you mentioned can work: "The Machinery of Freedom" by David Friedman ▶ this video

in “Remind HN: Vote” · View on HN