ENIGMA Development Environment

er, I usually add the revision as soon as it appears on the svn; wasn't aware I was supposed to be testing if it works or not before adding it. At any rate, since you mentioned that, I've tested the revisions and updated the irc channel topic accordingly. revision 201 works. revisions 202-203 do not compile. If you checked out 202-203, either wait for a newer, working revision to update again, or revert to r201. Or, heaven forbid, try and fix the problems yourself.

Sounds like a broken window fallacy.

You keep making these claims about how people will behave under anarchy, but you can't back them up. We at least have an idea about how people will behave under normal government, because it's how we're behaving now.

A single Empirical data does not prove that if you were to run the system over again, the same thing would occur. We can only say these things could occur. Likewise, my examples under anarchy are largely "this is what I expect to happen as a possible way of dealing with it". However, some other statements I make are a priori.
Also, you have totally brushed off my examples of anarchy that have occurred in the real world, and keep going with this assumption that anarchy is untested so we don't know how it would behave. In fact, it has been tested, a fair number of times, many of which I listed, and the behaviors are very similar to what I have enumerated. In Samolia, private defense insurance/agencies took the form of Families under Xaar (pronounced like "Hair"). They behaved in exactly the same way, except that "police forces" were actually a lot more polite - usually an elder intervening and people respecting his authority and decisions. Punishment was restorative rather than retributive (as we'd expect). When families took power, it was because the United Nations gave them the tools to do so. The UN decided to implement a democracy, so people voted for their favorite family, and then whichever family came out with the slightest majority got to abuse the other families. Prior to this, families which disagreed and would otherwise be a war, under anarchy, instead usually segregated themselves, while friendly families integrated.
During this time of anarchy, we also saw vast technological improvements which were unthinkable during government control, and outpaced development of many countries with highly functional governments.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchy_in_Somalia#Social_organisation

I'm not arguing pro-government

Yes you are! You may not call it pro-government, but "it works" is very much a pro-government stance, and it's the claim I'm countering.

Government is here, and therefore it is just it works for our way of life.

Government may be unmaintainable, but who says anarchy isn't?

I'm not saying anarchy isn't unmaintainable. All I'm saying is anarchy is preferable to government, especially when it comes to the efficient allocation of resources and minimizing conflict (a good start to minimizing it would be to not institutionalize it, like we do with government). I then go on to give examples of *possible* ways that it might go about doing that, and I defend how those particular systems will work and not crumble or get out of hand.

Government is here, and therefore it is just it works for our way of life.

It's unmaintainable. A famous and powerful economist once said, "In the long run, we're all dead". That is to say, what we're doing now is an unmaintainable fuck-over just to make the most of the moment, and then die later. I hardly see how anarchy leading to our destruction is a valid argument against anarchy when government essentially plans to lead to our destruction.

You don't know how people will behave until you see them, and even then it's not concrete. All your other conclusions follow from this claim, so you basically have no argument.

You've proven my point, and don't realize it! People are unpredictable. How can we regulate unpredictable behavior and tailor to unknowable desires and expect for this to be an efficient allocation of resources? Anarchy, on the other hand, is people putting money where their desires are. It is, a priori and a posteriori sound. All my other conclusions follow from this decidedly sound claim. Ever heard of Praxeology? Go read up on it.
Mises - Human Action : http://mises.org/books/humanaction.pdf

Implementability is not really my interest in regards to Anarcho-Capitalism. My interest is that it is an efficient allocator of resources which beats out any other system. It therefor improves the quality of life of people, and, as a bonus, gets rid of that pesky government which stops people from doing things they might otherwise find mildly enjoyable, like baking poison pies, whilst ensuring that there is some kind of defense mechanism in place to make sure that we're not taken advantage of by more likely occurrences.

Although I grant that implementation is an interesting subject, and often even open to debate amongst Anarcho-Capitalists themselves, it's beyond the scope of my intentions with it here. I merely wish to demonstrate that it is more desirable than government... not that it is more likely than government.

People are smart enough to think on their own;

People think. If they don't think, they're not people. As a person, you cannot demonstrate that you do not think, because in doing so, you are thinking.

People can correctly figure out who they trust in;

You've provided no tenable arguments to support that this is necessary. In order for people to not end with bad consequences, they need to not make bad decisions like who to trust in. I see no reason to take consequences away - I see every reason to keep consequences, because without them, what incentive do people have to figure out who they trust in? That said, people who make bad decisions reap bad consequences. I hardly consider that a failure of the system, and the opposite to be necessary for the system to work.

People/Society without regulation do not have any trend of self-destruction.

If they desire self-destruction, I see no reason to keep them from it. I think the free market would efficiently achieve that. I could visualize a place which I shall affectionately call Murder Park. This place is an area of land cordoned off such that nothing leaves the area. People who wish to kill and do otherwise destructive things may consent to the terms of the park (essentially, you cannot expect to survive in this place), and will thusly enter, and live out their wildest chaotic fantasies, collecting whatever loot they find, and, supposing they are alive in the end, can thusly leave with the loot they have found (or maybe they're just killed off anyways). It's a good safe efficient way to get rid of sociopaths, and they get to live the most exciting sociopathic life they could have dreamed of.

Some people are selfish;

This is a positive point in capitalism. In fact, philosophically, I would argue that there is no such thing as a self-less act. All acts are selfish. Giving gifts is selfish because you do it for a reason - even if that reason is that it makes you feel good - you are still getting something (a good feeling) from the transaction which you value more than the gift itself.

The ability to remain independent, that is, not being invaded by a nearby or newly created government;

I'd imagine if that were a real threat, the defense agencies would band against it, and then dissolve back to their separate selves once it is taken care of (because really, they were separate for good reasons to begin with, and those reasons will stay).

The possibility of allowing people and corporations to survive;

You mean companies. Also, the wording of this is ambiguous. There is no need to allow a company to survive. Inefficient companies dissolve. That's supposed to happen. People die when they stop trying to life. That's also supposed to happen. We don't need a mechanism in place to prevent bad things from being punished. That said, what you mean is that people need to be able to sustain if they try. Companies don't really matter, because companies aren't people. Sure, they provide good things for people, but worst case scenario, everyone's an individualist, and works their own land, keeps to themselves, and cooperates with nobody else. Companies don't need to exist.

Life comfort anywhere even remotely near of what we currently have.

I don't see why that's a need. If our "life comfort" is an unsustainable lifestyle, maybe we do need to take a step back and refocus our goals. 10 years ago, a housing boom comfort was one of the last comforts we needed to sustain. At any rate, I don't imagine it being much of a problem. Every government service that is currently in existence would simply need to be replaced by a free market alternative.

An army system, privately held of course since there is no government, based on trust and opt-in. Therefore, some kind of "voluntary tax".

Not sure why you'd need an army, other than to fend off governments. This need would be supplied by your private police force, which would team up with other private police forces if need be. The police force, or private defense agency, would be very much like a health system. Since it is voluntary, it is opt-in. There are multiple ways to pay, and "voluntary tax" is a strange and confusing term. You'd pay bills. You can pay dues (basically a periodical insurance bill), which means that when you need their services, they'd be available, free of charge or for a very low price. You can pay by request (e.g. you shout for help and the nearest cop helps out, and then charges you - your shout for help basically being your agreement to his terms of service, although some negotiation may occur - a payment only applies if you're not already a member or aren't covered). A third option is when they help a person who did not ask for help. This is when they send an optional bill to the person who was in trouble (e.g. perhaps they were unconscious). Considering they probably just saved that person's life, I think the person would at least consider paying. Also, some money would be collected from fines placed on criminals.
Again, there could be multiple of these companies floating around.

The big issue here is: is everyone smart enough to survive if left on their own?

If people aren't smart enough to run their own lives, who's to say someone's smart enough to run someone else's life? Whatever the case, I don't see a reason to put a safeguard in protecting people against themselves. It only gives them more incentive to be lazy. If people realize for once that they have to actually take care of themselves, or else maybe get hurt or wind up in trouble, then maybe people will finally start to try taking care of themselves, rather than thinking the gov't will handle everything for them and then wondering where all their freedoms went (hurr... derp?).

If any kind of anarchy system like what you're proposing was to be implemented, LOTS of people would be screwed up. I think some people actually *like* being manipulated, which I personally find disturbing.

I'm sorry that you personally oppose that some people may like some things in some systems? Does this somehow give you authority to run their lives for them or tell them what to do? I think it's disturbing that some people might actually favor going to Murder Park, but hey, it seems like a good way to get rid of the nutjob idiots so that the rest of us non-insane people can live our lives relatively peacefully.

The earth is limited in size;

And most of it is unoccupied at this time, except for arbitrary borders mandated by governments.
My argument isn't that you can run away and be happy and peaceful and utopia and bullshit. My point is that, you can run away in a way that is more rewarding than if you tried to run away under government systems (or whatever systems you claimed you had an escape pod in). My point is that if you think you have some kind of escape pod under government, you have more of an escape pod under Anarcho-Capitalism.

If two people disagree about global warming: one believes it exists and the other doesn't, the person who does believe will have a hard time.

Lawsuit? Granted, only applies if harm is done. A "hard time" is hardly a crime. I digress, I took this one out of context, but I wanted to communicate this point.

As for smart people living among dumb people, better services which perform better will have more money and thus will be able to advertise and cater better to dumb people. So, in a way, dumb people are already encouraged to take the better path. But in the end, a dumb person who sticks his head inside a lion's mouth is not an example of a failure of free markets or a failure of lions.

A fragmentation of the population or;

As an economy flourishes, quality products become cheaper. Imagine, if you will, if the star trek food-generation machine that's onboard the Enterprise, could be produced at a penny a piece. Idiot Joe makes a contract with me, because I like to take advantage of dumb people. He'll attempt to mow my lawn, and in exchange, I'll give him a shiny penny. We both agree to the transaction, and the job is done (very poorly, I might add), and I pay him fair and square. He now is able to buy that food-generation machine, and probably never starve again. This is a futuristic example of dumb people living quality lives under anarcho-capitalism. My point is, as products become cheaper, they become more affordable to the dumb/poor, and thus bring up the quality of life of them. Even though they will still technically be the poorest 1%, they can live quite comfortable lives as the economy starts to prosper. Also, heaven forbid someone actually charitably takes care of some dumb people (by 'take care of', I mean like a mother cares for a child, not like the mafia 'takes care of' undesired people)...

for the system to work on a scale big enough to support companies, then some kind of organization would be necessary

I don't see how this big enough requires a government. Suppose individualism. Now suppose two people get together and start up a company - maybe one of them handles the finances and advertising, and the other one handles the jobs. Is this not an example of how a very small system is big enough to support a company? It is organization, but on a very small scale - that is to say, the company is the organization.

Anarchy, on the other hand, is untested.

Do you have anything to support this claim? I have pre-medieval iceland as an anarchy. I have modern day Somalia as an anarchy (and a flourishing one, I might add) until the UN decided that anarchy is bad and Somalia needs a government. Colonial America was practically an anarchy, and probably would have stayed so if we hadn't established a constitution and given Madison quite as much say in matters. At any rate, the lassaiz-faire capitalism there really helped us take off.
There was a pirate nation during times of slaver that would free slaves and give them the option to join the pirate nation. They were anarchy, and largely peaceful except when retributing rights violations (e.g. slavery).
China has a fantastic anarchic black market. The government there essentially serves as a mafia, more so than a government.
There's tons of literature and philosophy supporting and documenting anarchy and anarcho-capitalism. Government philosophy is mostly supported on 2 grounds. 1) It's here, and therefor it is just, and 2) Fuzzy logic that is full of holes, but stupid people apparently buy into.

In order for anarchy to work, I think one of the best ways would be for people to finally accept that they own themselves. That's it. And the word is spreading. Who knew you could educate stupid people?

Quote from: IsmAvatar on April 20, 2010, 04:23:48 pm

Well yeah, that'd be great, if I knew what arguments to call g++ with to compile an enigma game...

...it's the same for MinGW and the native Linux GCC?

That'd also be great, if I knew the arguments for any of those. I follow the instructions that Josh provides in "Things that are broke" (http://enigma-dev.org/forums/index.php?topic=486.0). Basically, open the .cbp file and click "Compile" in C::B.

Ok, my C::B can now compile simple c++ files. How can I help?

That's up to you. If you want, you can open my gm6 file with LGM and compile it into an exe so that windows users can play my game.

Total freedom is a contradiction. If I have total freedom, then that includes the right to restrict other people's freedom.

I guess you've never heard of libertarianism, or the non-aggression axiom, or Property Rights Theory, or Negative Rights. You have the freedom to do whatever you want with your own stuff. That's total freedom. When we introduce a second party - another person, you can do whatever you want as long as it doesn't violate their rights, and vice versa. This is called property rights, non-aggression, and negative rights. If I want to bake a poisoned apple pie, that's my right. If someone wants to buy my poisoned apple pie, that's their right. If I poison a pie and don't inform the customer, then I have a free market lawsuit on my hands (handled by private courts).

At any rate, if you're opposed to monopoly abuse, the last thing I'd expect you to support is a state intervention. The state is the biggest monopoly and the biggest monopoly abuser. They are also the ones who keep setting up monopolies where none would exist. They have absolutely no incentive to act otherwise. They have every incentive to keep abusing that power. Especially when people are idiots, so they decide they need to regulate our own behaviors and our own minds because we can't take care of ourselves.
Private Cartels are the same story as monopolies. They usually form because of government regulations preventing competitors from entering into the market. Take for instance medicine. There is a quote "private cartel" in the medical industry - both in drug companies (subsidization, intellectual property, and FDA regulations) and in medical practice (Doctor Licenses, Certification, Entrance Exams) which keep prices high and competition low.

If the government was as competent as UL labs, then why not have mandatory "UL labs-like" certification for products?

What incentive does the government have to be as competent as UL labs? Even in the auto industry, another great example. There's government regulations and tests on car safety, but even the redistributors don't trust those regulations, and go with a private regulator (I can't recall its name off the top of my head).

cartels prevent him/her from entering the market by putting him/her in a situation of disadvantage(through price inflation/deflation, etc.)

Inflation/deflation is a government invention from Fiat currency. In a free market, money would also be printed by private banks or such, and would almost exclusively be backed (meaning you can trade it in for a specific item - e.g. gold/silver). And if you don't trust bank money, you can just use the gold/silver directly, or barter. Your example is another example of government intervention and regulation causing a "market failure".

I don't think Zimbabwe is a good economy. I actually think it sucks. But I think Zimbabwe's problems do not demonstrate that "Partially regulated markets" are bad. It shows that *their* market works badly.

News report, Zimbabwe was doing fantastic market-wise until Mugabe took over. He put all kinds of market regulations in place, and the economy tanked. Now that he's sharing control with Tsvangirai, and they've been working to cut back on all that regulation, the market is starting to pick up again. You'd be hard pressed to say that that's a market working badly and regulation had nothing to do with the badness of it.