RE: Capitalism Is War

You are viewing a single comment's thread from:

Capitalism Is War

in informationwar •  5 years ago 

Ok, I can see the appeal of "free-market-conflict-resolution", however, each "conflict-resolution-organization" (CRO) would also need an enforcement arm. For example, if party A subscribes to CRO#1 and party B subscribes to CRO#2 and they can't agree on which CRO should handle the case, each insisting that their personally subscribed CRO arbitrate their disagreement, then CRO#1 and or CRO#2 must resolve their conflicting conclusions, either by FORCE, or by mutually agreeing to another CRO#3 in order to resolve the dispute resolution between dispute resolvers (CRO#1 and CRO#2).

Ultimately a hierarchy of CROs would emerge, and perhaps some balance of power might exist between two or three CROs for some period of time, but eventually a single CRO would either coerce or FORCE the others into de facto submission, thus becoming the Supreme CRO, The Supreme Court so-to-speak, or, The Ultimate Arbiter Of The Law (TUAOTL).

A system like this already exists. Two parties can agree to an "out-of-court-settlement" by agreeing to a mutual arbitrator. A law firm is a de facto CRO and there is a "free-market" of these CROs. The CROs with the "best" reputations charge the most money for their services. This has the effect of insuring the wealthiest citizens get the most favorable outcomes.

Authors get paid when people like you upvote their post.
If you enjoyed what you read here, create your account today and start earning FREE STEEM!
Sort Order:  

A CRO that forces the others in submision is not a CRO anymore. It is what we have now, a violent state that forces everybody to pay for their so called protection. It has a monopoly, it makes arbitrary laws, with which it turns innocent people into criminals.

I think competition for the best service of protecting is better that a violent monopoly that you have to pay which has no obligation at all to protect you and you can't stop paying them.

But the believe in authority under the general population is the problem, not how things will be after the believe in slavery (and that slavery is a good thing) has stopt.

Thanks Peace

edit just curious What is the reason you decline payouts?

What mechanism would you propose to inoculate your utopia from an inevitable TUAOTL?

We are programmed from childhood, even in primitive tribal cultures, to "respect our elders" (parents, chieftains).

Individual helplessness isn't so much "brainwashing" (modern propaganda) as it is much more simply, a REAL-TRUE-FACT.

I have no mechanisms to propose that can guarantee utopia, such's mechanisms don't exist.
mechanisms to create utopias always create distopias

Yes we are programmed we grow up in a cult, but it's not so that you can not get out of that cult and see it for the susperstition/religion that it is. You can believe in (because you may be programmed to believe in) santa claus just as easy as you can believe in katholosism, scientology, statism, respect for the elders. But just as you can see that santa claus is a myth. you can see that the other crap is a myth too. Once you've seen it you can't go back. Why would you teach children to have respect for the elders parents chieftains (when there might be nothing respectable about them) just because they are called "elders parents chieftains"? I don't respect people because of their title. I only respect people who are non violent and for as long as they are that way.

I have no mechanisms to propose that can guarantee utopia, such's mechanisms don't exist.

Perhaps there are "better" mechanisms than we currently use?

Perhaps there are incremental "improvements" we could deploy?

But just as you can see that santa claus is a myth. you can see that the other crap is a myth too.

Perhaps we could "spread the word" about logical fallacies?

Perhaps we could mitigate the "damage" of bribes and bullies (through systematic, viral "education") that inherently subvert the sovereignty (rights) of individuals?

edit just curious What is the reason you decline payouts?

By voting for my "payout declined" comments and posts, you are supporting the highest-quality-community-approved-content of the top-earners!!!

When you vote for something that's "payout declined" your contribution goes directly into the "reward pool" which gets distributed to all the posts that make more than $20 steem, with the highest percentage of the pool getting distributed to the top-earners who are providing the highest-quality-community-approved-content!!!

So you're not contributing your steem to me, you're contributing your steem to whoever the whales decide "deserves" your steem (but I still get a small rep boost).

Why am I declining rewards?

Imagine a "democratic" system, where you could vote for your elected officials, but your vote only "counted" as much as you "invested" in the election system itself (election tokens)... Now that by itself sounds reasonably "fair".

bUT, now imagine that anyone with a larger "investment" in the election system could ERASE your vote?

Would you continue voting? Or would you just give directly to the candidate of your choosing?

Also, imagine steem without voting. Imagine they just Hard-Forked voting right out of the whole thing altogether.

What's left?

A lot of really awesome stuff, that's what!!

The delegation system is amazing (way better than pa.treon). The steem-token transfer system is amazing (way better than v.enmo or credit-cards or banks). The blogging system is amazing (way better than tw.itter or fa.cebuk). It's all super-awesome!!