I've found someone who dislikes public servants just as much as Johnny and also some empirical proofs regarding mafias in Europe

[daniels27]

Could we maybe keep this discussion with at least some arguments. I think we all‌ agree that:

• today's governments (maybe with the excetion of Pitcairn and Sark) overcharge for their‍ service
  
• those governments (especially since covid) have seen the advantages of protecting their own interests⁠ rather than the people's
  
• even western European "democracies" start to become states of the ruling⁤ parties trying to keep any sort of new idea or controversy out (take Germany where⁣ all established parties fail but still claim that AfD are all nazis and should be⁢ banned)
  

I think we all agree on that. We also agree on the fact that︀ @JohnnyDoe asked for an example of what the state could be good for. I am︁ trying to answer this and appreciate any fruitful discussion on based on that fact. I︂ am trying to find anything that the state did that indeed was good. You can︃ read my other posts in which I even criticise the Swiss government.

Now back to︄ the question. Non state legal systems indeed to exist. There are also systems where all︅ property is shared, it does work with hunters and scavengers and up to about 150︆ people in the society. Beyond that, it normally does not work as the incentive for︇ individual contribution is too low. For the same reason I would also speculate that private︈ legal systems simply won't work in large scale of todays world.

Now, let's take bitcoin.︉ It works. But now, let's develop bitcoin further. Let's introduce the rule that anybody with︊ more power has the authority over those with less power. Very quickly, the bigger players︋ would simply close down the smaller ones. That's the difference between a free market and︌ law enforcement. It is like Putin and Wagner, the one with more power kills and︍ takes it all.

That's why I do believe that any law enforcement does need legitimation︎ beyond its own power. You can see same with the UN/OECD/etc. they just form a️ huge cartel, forcing all states with low taxes to close down.

Now seeing like democracy‌ failed, would I believe that Google and Apple would be better players? Definitely not. They‍ would simply trying to get as much as possible and then raise prices. Or Rockefeller⁠ with his oil monopoly. Yes, he got rich.

And yes, I also disike public servants.⁤ But do you really believe that a private system of law enforcement would not eventually⁣ become a system where there is just one very powerful group controlling all? Like the⁢ Mafia?

 

[JohnnyDoe]

daniels27 said:
Could we maybe keep this discussion with at least some arguments. I think we all agree that:

• today's governments (maybe with the excetion of Pitcairn and Sark) overcharge for their service
• those governments (especially since covid) have seen the advantages of protecting their own interests rather than the people's
• even western European "democracies" start to become states of the ruling parties trying to keep any sort of new idea or controversy out (take Germany where all established parties fail but still claim that AfD are all nazis and should be banned)

I think we all agree on that. We also agree on the fact that @JohnnyDoe asked for an example of what the state could be good for. I am trying to answer this and appreciate any fruitful discussion on based on that fact. I am trying to find anything that the state did that indeed was good. You can read my other posts in which I even criticise the Swiss government.

Now back to the question. Non state legal systems indeed to exist. There are also systems where all property is shared, it does work with hunters and scavengers and up to about 150 people in the society. Beyond that, it normally does not work as the incentive for individual contribution is too low. For the same reason I would also speculate that private legal systems simply won't work in large scale of todays world.

Now, let's take bitcoin. It works. But now, let's develop bitcoin further. Let's introduce the rule that anybody with more power has the authority over those with less power. Very quickly, the bigger players would simply close down the smaller ones. That's the difference between a free market and law enforcement. It is like Putin and Wagner, the one with more power kills and takes it all.

That's why I do believe that any law enforcement does need legitimation beyond its own power. You can see same with the UN/OECD/etc. they just form a huge cartel, forcing all states with low taxes to close down.

Now seeing like democracy failed, would I believe that Google and Apple would be better players? Definitely not. They would simply trying to get as much as possible and then raise prices. Or Rockefeller with his oil monopoly. Yes, he got rich.

And yes, I also disike public servants. But do you really believe that a private system of law enforcement would not eventually become a system where there is just one very powerful group controlling all? Like the Mafia?
Click to expand...

When businesses have to earn customer loyalty, it keeps them honest. A company that treats people fairly and offers good value will thrive, while those that overcharge or cut corners will see customers walk away to better options.

Similarly, through networks of private mediators, insurers, and review systems, communities can handle conflicts smoothly without a central authority. Think of how online marketplaces use buyer ratings and dispute resolution to keep millions of transactions running smoothly.

Market forces naturally push back against exclusive control by any single group. Take security services: the moment one company starts overcharging or mistreating customers, people simply take their business elsewhere. Contrary to government-mandated systems, where citizens face penalties for non-compliance, much like victims of the pizzo. Success in the security industry depends on reputation and reliability, and forces companies to maintain high standards.

Looking at historical examples, decentralized systems have proven stable when allowed to develop freely. Medieval traders created their own framework of rules and dispute resolution that worked across borders, adapting over time to handle increasingly complex deals without central oversight. Modern equivalents exist in organizations like the BBB and credit monitoring services, which address business conduct through market incentives rather than legal force.

The structure of blockchain is a perfect modern example of how to enforce contracts without a central authority.

History shows that states, as monopolistic holders of force, always misuse power, both in authoritarian and in so called democratic regimes. See COVID. The theoretical monopolistic abuse by a private entity already applies at the n factor to the state. With the difference that without market pressures to enforce accountability, government actions remain without consequences.

Cartels cannot last long in a competitive market, as members have incentives to break ranks to capture a larger share of the market by offering better services at lower prices. Market forces alone, without state intervention, destroy cartels, as each entity has an interest in maximizing profit by undercutting competitors.

Market forces, along with people's ability to freely choose services and new technologies, naturally prevent any one group from gaining too much control in a system without central authority. Unlike dealing with organized crime, people can simply walk away from bad actors and find better options.

Toggle signature

@JohnnyDoe ”“ Your #1 Source for Guidance in Different Offshore Fields​

 

[void]

please don't take this personally, I'm tired and‍ sometimes frustrated, what @JohnnyDoe tried to explain in couple of last posts in this thread⁠ I did for years and it leads nowhere... this is not something to be discussed⁤ in a forum thread - all your questions were asked and answered thousands of times,⁣ all this proven and decided decades ago, there is ton of theory from Mises and⁢ Rothbard to HHH and many current authors, cryptoanarchy is just the last piece of puzzle︀ - you simply have to do your homework or let it go

 

[JohnnyDoe]

void said:
please don't take this personally, I'm tired and sometimes frustrated, what @JohnnyDoe tried to explain in couple of last posts in this thread I did for years and it leads nowhere... this is not something to be discussed in a forum thread - all your questions were asked and answered thousands of times, all this proven and decided decades ago, there is ton of theory from Mises and Rothbard to HHH and many current authors, cryptoanarchy is just the last piece of puzzle - you simply have to do your homework or let it go
Click to expand...

Deresponsabilization is what causes people to accept the state in exchange for freedom. It's a warm and comfortable blanket for the mind and the eyes.

Toggle signature

@JohnnyDoe ”“ Your #1 Source for Guidance in Different Offshore Fields​

 

[W Fish]

Ignorance is bliss

 

[daniels27]

I appreciate your profund reply for a fruitful discussion. As much as I wish it‌ was that easy, I think there still are certain areas where self-governance does not (yet?)‍ work.

Ok, let's take frodo92. This guy is about to︁ ripp off you unsuspecting mother, daughter, wife or girl friend:
Who told him to go and get lost? Nobody.︉ Yes, I understand that we are not here to tell him this. But if it︊ was 1900 and there was no internet, he could have asked anybody and 100% of︋ them would have told him to get lost.

Also, I totally understand that it is︌ not the place where reviews happen, there is of course trutpilot for this:
https://www.trustpilot.com/review/offshorecorptalk.com
Could we maybe ask you a favour and place a review for OCT there?

And honestly,︍ I personally do not think that consumers do have the power, they are ought to︎ have:

• It was not because of consumer pressure but because of the EU that phones️ and computers now have USB-C (I wish it was Mark Zuckerberg who made this but‌ unfortunately not)
  
• I always fear new EU regulations. But because they would harm my business,‍ but because they force competitors to spend $10 more on their production, making their products⁠ much better.
  
• It was not because of consumer pressure that fridges have magnetic closures. but⁤ governments banning anything that cannot be opened from inside after deaths of kids in a⁣ trash jard.
  
• You actually can electrocute youself with South American shower heads https://43bluedoors.com/2018/01/21/south-american-travel/ They are⁢ banned almost anywhere else for good reason, yet still they are cheaper to produce and︀ pretty much anywhere. Yes, it saves a couple of dollars. But unless you ban it,︁ people won't value their live more than just $10.
  

While I wish that consumers did︂ have more power, my experience does not entirely reflect this. Let's hope for changes to︃ the better, making the EU obsolete!

I do not want to get political, but if you look at the Spotify-Google-Apple battle over︈ app fees, I would state that there is a third dimension (supplier and customer beeing︉ only 2, the third one being platforms). And platform are like governments, once they have︊ power, the tend to abuse it. In 1900 without the internet, there were no platforms︋ and I would have agreed with you 100%.

See my point above, without today's possibilities, I would agree. But we are not‍ 1900, we have airplanes, high speed trains and all of that needs universities and research.⁠ And then comes this:
(This was taken from an interview with ex-CEO of︃ Nestlé, Peter Brabeck-Letmathe)

Yes, but only as︅ long as the big players have no possibity to harm smaller players (see my last︆ post). It is like in Gold Rush, if you can kill you competitor, you will.︇ Bitcoin does not offer this option. That's why it works,. If you have a bitcoin︈ for law enforcement, the winner will take all.

I agree 100%. But how do you want to ensure any︋ private party does not start to exploit the rest of the population? If you were︌ the head of a company offering X that everybody needs, what would prevent you from︍ buying/eliminating/killing all competitors to rule the supply alone? There have been plenty of exaple in︎ history, from the British supplying opium to Chinese citizens "at their own will" to Rockefeller️ flooding China with underprices oil to wipe out competitors, etc.

Again, you are missing the marketplaces. They are like governments⁣ taking advantage of both customers and suppliers. In 1900 with small scale economies, this problem⁢ did not exist and neither did the problems of governments and citizenships exists. Everybody with︀ will and money was free to move.

If you︄ look at the current market of countries to live in, I would say that it︅ worked pretty well until the UN came and started to act as a "marketplace" of︆ countries imposing rules onto the countries in an act to undermine interest of all individuals.︇
I do understand all those theories and I totally agree that up until like 1950,︈ it would have worked. But at the cost of not having the latest technology (airplanes,︉ internet, mobile phones, etc.). But with todays techonogy, I see two problems for which I︊ am not entirely convinced (even if I wish so) that private actors would solve:

• Certain technological advances require infrastructure and education which requires large scale coordination (nobody will invest in︋ an airport/road/etc. if he cannot control demand, in other words only if you are in︌ close relation with city planners, you will invest).
  
• We need to bear in mind that︍ the reason why governments have so much power is the cartel/marketplace of the UN. Let's︎ replace all countries with private actors, sooner or later, they will stop the battle and️ form a cartel/marketplace like the UN. There still is a need for a higher democtratic‌ institution which prevents such things from happening. Countries are meant to in competition with each‍ other for lowering taxes and better services. (And why we praise Switzerland so often here:⁠ All 26 cantons are in fierce competition for lower taxes, while federal taxes are fairly⁤ low.)
  

I am not taking︃ it personally. I am here for a fruitful discussion and would appreciate if you could︄ contribute a bit more profund than profanity.

 

[void]

one can fruitfully discuss if it's efficient and this is not the case... look⁠ at your TLDR post in this threads, we can spend ours on every paragraph

one example
the problem is you work with so many (wrong) implicit assumptions and existence of entities︀ and processes that would never ever survive in a free market - I don't blame︁ you, people are designed this way on purpose
free market is like free speech... both︂ are either absolute or don't exist at all

 

[tacokai]

The only way I can see for you to protect your⁣ property (house, car, boat, valuables) if there were no legal system is by arming yourself⁢ to the teeth with firearms, surveillance cameras, fierce dogs, and possibly a fire-breathing dragon at︀ your front door.

The world would collapse; just look at how well things are going︁ in Spain where anyone can occupy a house that has not been inhabited for 3︂ months, provided the owner has not evicted them within that period. It’s lawless and outrageous!︃ And you want to implement this system in the rest of the world, ha, no︄ thanks.

 

[W Fish]

Legal system is one thing and applying force is another. People⁤ can very well establish a legal system (basically game rules) without governments. Look around -⁣ most game rules are established this way. Some games are way older than goverments.

Now applying force to a wrongplayer - you can outsource this to someone who does it⁢ better. Like you do NOT have to fix yout teeth or do surgery on yourself.︀ 😉

But it is even easier than this:
- In such a world it is just︁ more economical to behave. Even the biggest bully who might be stronger than anybody else︂ and theoretically could take stuff away from others, could and would be taken down by︃ next 2-3 guys.
- Ii is mostly in the interest of the ones who have︄ more, that there are no people running around hungry and trying to take stuff from︅ othrers. So they will take care of that voluntarily. Usually by sharing not by applying︆ force.

This is a good example of corrupt government legistlation. Without that︋ the owner with a couple of buddies would just kick them out. Or get somebody︌ do it.

cheers,

 

[void]

the only way I can see you keeping your health is⁤ to become a physician, surgeon, dentist, pharmacist, ... or you can maybe pay a doctor⁣

 

[JohnnyDoe]

daniels27 said:

• It was not because of consumer pressure but because of the EU that phones and computers now have USB-C (I wish it was Mark Zuckerberg who made this but unfortunately not)

Click to expand...

190 Billion Euros per year (this is the EU budget) to come up with USB-C rules. That's 422 Eur per every single EU citizen. For telling them which cable to use. 😡
Can you name any other great achievement of the EU?

Meanwhile, they haven't been able to legislate about the daylight saving time, despite citizens having clearly stated that they want it abolished.

Toggle signature

@JohnnyDoe ”“ Your #1 Source for Guidance in Different Offshore Fields​

 

[daniels27]

Exactly this. Look at the US with their second amendement.

As I mentioned I wish Mark Zuckerberg was︁ the one who did it. I definitely trust him more than the EU. For every︂ one good rule they made, there are 1000 that are utter bulls**t and completely useless.︃ But I need to be fair here and acknowledge that the market did fail and︄ while I do not appreciate it, I can understand why the EU is doing it.︅

 

[daniels27]

Yes. And we both agree that free market and free‍ speech is desirable. But there have been numerous publications, debates, conferences, etc. and most of⁠ them concluded with the fact that free market can only be limited in order to⁤ prevent the planet from a collapse. If you are not convinced, you may want to⁣ join COP29 in Baku next week. I am pretty sure your solutions will find very,⁢ very open ears if they are only marginally feasible.

 

[void]

on whose payroll are the authors and‌ speakers?
carps never drain their pond...

 

[W Fish]

Bitcoin fixes this. 🙂

 

[daniels27]

Payroll of (limited) free speach. As I wrote you many times, I‍ also hope it would work.

 

[daniels27]

How does bitcoin fix this? Free‌ is free. And if you have been around for a while, you probably would know‍ me well enough and you would know that I am the first one here to⁠ promote liberal ideas and free markets. My posts are entirely a reflection of reality I⁤ see every day. Take it as an input to think about.

 

[W Fish]

With FIAT the cost of money for government⁣ is practically zero. So they can finance whatever propaganda at zero cost.
Wont happen with⁢ solid money.

 

[daniels27]

Bretton Woods would fix this too.

I have read all your arguments. The world⁠ was a place without countries back in the days. It was what we all want⁤ it to be: a entirely and absolutely free market. And then over millennia, countries as⁣ we know them emerged. What is the difference between a country and a company in⁢ a completely free market? All countries could as well be companies competing in a completely︀ free market. The competition was playing pretty well for centuries until countries started stronger collaboration︁ (or conspiracy against mankind) when the UN/OECD was founded.

As much as I condemn the︂ UN. I must also state for a fact, that in the aftermath of the second︃ world war, there was reason to found the UN (which was the prevention of human︄ extinction by nuclear weapons).

@JohnnyDoe @W Fish @void countries are a result of a free︅ market. Free market is older than any country, still many are suffering from them every︆ day. Now, please tell me: If we eradicate all countries what would prevent the new︇ players in society from eventually becoming what countries are today?

 

[void]

the issue is that there is no common reality, everyone has totally legit‌ subjective version of it and especially interpersonally incomparable preferences - whatever goal you base on‍ your preferences and involuntarily involve others is doomed to fail

you are correct that the relations between countries resemble the free⁢ market the most of all the cases in physical world nowadays - what you're missing︀ is the fact that people don't voluntarily work for these companies (aka countries), they are︁ kept as slaves

countries are the result of ubiquitous power projection and competition over limited resources... those︄ who are winning this game are (temporarily) happy and the rest is suffering as you︅ say - this is not any different from other species and you can observe the︆ permissionless fight on every level of scale - yet humans are special as they are︇ the only living species (let's put aside why and how) capable of complex abstraction and︈ projection of its functioning from the material to the mental realm. In other words, people︉ are able to understand that it is economically more profitable to come to an agreement︊ than to fight for every sandwich - that's the key to our dominance in nature︋ - but this biological success is so great that a sufficient surplus (capital) is created,︌ which enables exploits such as replacing the market with collectivism and public interest because in︍ the short term it looks more efficient and stable - this is not thermodynamically sound︎ and as we can already see around us today an endless evolutionary regulation will push️ back and such a species will degenerate and collapse - unfortunately the time scale of‌ such a process is completely different from the length of a human life and that's‍ why it's so hard to realize that - freedom is NOT better for everyone... it⁠ is better for the species, but not for every single individual

bitcoin is the first⁤ thing in history that allows to transform thermodynamic energy into digital form unreachable to the⁣ adversaries using real world power and has the potential to move the power projection game⁢ to the fair ground in cyberspace and prevent physical suffering