SILK ROAD Creator's Plea for Leniency.

[wachtwoord]

It simply isn’t acceptable to take by force from people to educate children, help the poor, build the roads, and protect us from crime.

 

As for the current system: Taxes are not theft: they have been voted for democratically by the population in most cases.

 

So the masses steal from the few. It's legalized theft.

 

It simply isn’t acceptable to take by force from people to educate children, help the poor, build the roads, and protect us from crime.

 

If you don't believe in democracy, well then nothing more to say.

 

 

Well I guess you're going to be silent then as democracy is terrible, As long as we're talking about the democracy in which everyone, contributing or not, smart or stupid has an equal right to vote. In such a democracy leadership will never be competent and always a mix of incompetent and bought.

[Jurgis]

All I'm asking is to be allowed to opt out.

 

You are welcome to opt out by moving to a place that follows your laws/morality/etc. You are not welcome to opt out by staying in the country and refusing to pay for the services that are provided by the government.

 

So the masses steal from the few. It's legalized theft.

 

Persuade others to adopt your laws and morality or create your own country.

Calling it "legalized theft" is just your opinion. It doesn't make it a fact.

 

As for the current system: Taxes are not theft: they have been voted for democratically by the population in most cases. If you don't believe in democracy, well then nothing more to say.

 

I suppose not.  Democracy is the system based on the theory "there are more of us than there are of you, so do what we say or else".  The political manifestation of might makes right.  Yes there are more people who think like you than who think like me, and yes the threat of violence from the majority is what keeps me paying my taxes.  Force is additive while things like intelligence, empathy, and morality are not.  It is the tragedy of the human condition.  You are stronger so for now you win.

 

 

Pray tell me how you are going to build your system without basing it on the force.

Completely free market? Free market is also based on force: force of money.

Empathy and morality? Whose morality? Yours? That's also a force. To quote you "You are stronger so ... you win".

 

Democracy is not ideal. But at current level of human development there is nothing better. Perhaps in the future we will have Borg, communism, libertarian super free market, but none of these work well currently or in near future.

 

Also clearly some democratic countries are more corrupt/lawless/messed-up-in-other-ways than others. So yeah, there is already some morality/intelligence/empathy embedded in the ultimate result.

[wachtwoord]

 

So the masses steal from the few. It's legalized theft.

 

Persuade others to adopt your laws and morality or create your own country.

Calling it "legalized theft" is just your opinion. It doesn't make it a fact.

 

 

Yes it does because it's true by definition. Asking me to convince others shows you do not understand. The fact that most people want something does not make it inherently right, neither logically nor ethically.

 

And create my own country? I'd love to, many have tried but nation states don't except. Read what happened to the last person that tried: http://www.foxnews.com/world/2015/05/10/liberland-president-arrested-by-croatia-for-trespassing-in-no-man-land/

 

 

Democracy is not ideal. But at current level of human development there is nothing better. Perhaps in the future we will have Borg, communism, libertarian super free market, but none of these work well currently or in near future.

 

 

Beneign dictatorship is already far superior to democracy. I agree that you cannot go much lower than communism, and the socialism we have in Europe is also referred to as democracy (and terrible might I add).

[Jurgis]

The fact that most people want something does not make it inherently right, neither logically nor ethically.

 

That's a philosophical and possibly ethical position you hold. You may think that your position is universal, but it's not.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism

 

Edit:

the socialism we have in Europe is also referred to as democracy (and terrible might I add).

 

In my opinion most of Northern European socialistic countries are pretty close to the best systems and places to live. If not for the weather and need to integrate into society, I'd love to live in Finland, for example. But that's just an opinion. :)

[wachtwoord]

The fact that most people want something does not make it inherently right, neither logically nor ethically.

 

That's a philosophical and possibly ethical position you hold. You may think that your position is universal, but it's not.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism

 

 

I'm saying it's not inherently right, neither logically nor ethically. You are saying it's inherently right (it holds for you so therefore it must hold for everyone).  Who's imposing their viewpoint on others.

 

Utilitarianism is stupid. I have very very often been the only person in a room with a certain conviction and the vast majority of the time I am right (in cases where this can be determined objectively). People disagreeing with me never invalidates my viewpoints (even if it's every single human being except me). Good arguments can. (also do you really believe most people have the ability to choose what is best for them? really?)

[Jurgis]

I am not imposing my position on you at all. You are welcome to hold any beliefs you want. The only thing I said is that others have different beliefs that may be as valid or invalid as yours. Claiming that your philosophical point of view is right as a fact - which you did - does not make it so.

[Jurgis]

OT. I don't want to get into long discussion about ethics and morality, but overall these are much more complicated subjects than "Utilitarianism is stupid" proclamations. For people interested in current professional thoughts on the subject, I'd suggest Coursera course - there's at least a couple ( Edit: this: https://www.coursera.org/course/practicalethics and this https://www.coursera.org/course/moralities - unfortunately, neither is currently running, perhaps they will schedule new sessions. ). They usually have reading lists with newer papers too. No, there are no easy answers and universally accepted truths. At best, you can see how complicated the subject is and perhaps pick up some things that click or just raise questions in your mind.

 

Peace.

[RichardGibbons]

Thanks rkbabang.  I thought that was a problem, and just wanted to be sure that I wasn't missing something glaringly obvious. Sorry that I forgot about your previous response....  It's just whenever we have these discussions, I just get hung up on the "government theft" rallying cry and get really confused why people think a libertarian Nirvana wouldn't have equivalent or worse theft. 

 

I don't think that the private army variant is useful.  For instance, it seems pretty horrible in Mexico. And if Bill Gates decides to build a big enough army, he can also choose to beat you and steal your money, turn you into a sex slave,  or get rid of the free market, and you really can't do anything about it. Because he has more money and a bigger private army.

 

It seems like such an obvious flaw in your "government theft" mantra that I find it kind of shocking that people say that.  I guess it's more of a motto to inspire an extreme emotional anti-government reaction, rather than anything with any substance behind it.

 

That said, I totally agree with you that governments have problems now as well.

[rkbabang]

Thanks rkbabang.  I thought that was a problem, and just wanted to be sure that I wasn't missing something glaringly obvious. Sorry that I forgot about your previous response....  It's just whenever we have these discussions, I just get hung up on the "government theft" rallying cry and get really confused why people think a libertarian Nirvana wouldn't have equivalent or worse theft. 

 

I don't think that the private army variant is useful.  For instance, it seems pretty horrible in Mexico. And if Bill Gates decides to build a big enough army, he can also choose to beat you and steal your money, turn you into a sex slave,  or get rid of the free market, and you really can't do anything about it. Because he has more money and a bigger private army.

 

It seems like such an obvious flaw in your "government theft" mantra that I find it kind of shocking that people say that.  I guess it's more of a motto to inspire an extreme emotional anti-government reaction, rather than anything with any substance behind it.

 

That said, I totally agree with you that governments have problems now as well.

 

You can't get rid of crime, obviously.  Even with all the police and force of government crime still exists.  Even in jails where people are kept in cells and guarded 24/7 crime still exists.  You can turn society into a high security prison and crime would still exist.  Calling someone else's ideas "Nirvana" is just trying to use ridicule by creating a straw man argument.  No one ever said we can get rid of crime.  When you say how would X (crime, education, roads, torts, etc) be handled you are making the implicit assumption that it is being handled well now, but in many cases it demonstrably isn't.  I don't think you can get rid of crime completely, it is about minimizing it the best you can and protecting yourself from it the best you can.  It is quite possible that private theft would increase in my ideal society, but I don't think the average person would loose over half of everything they produce to theft, the way they do now to taxation.  In our current society we loose very little to private theft and an enormous amount to public theft.  Would you pay an insurance company $900,000.00 to insure your $30,000 car from theft?  It just doesn't make sense.  I'm not envisioning an Nirvana paradise where people are good to one another, but I think children could be educated and roads could built without theft, and I think we could protect ourselves from private criminals (sufficiently, but not perfectly) without becoming criminals ourselves.  I have no problem with defensive force only the initiation of force. 

 

Yes calling government taxation theft is meant to be shocking.  But if you put your programming aside and think about it, it is only shocking that you have lived this long and never thought about it from that angle.  We are all so heavily trained to see things from only one point of view that simply calling the forcible taking of wealth "theft" becomes shocking when someone says it.  It is like saying "invading another country makes you an aggressor and war criminal, it is the people shooting back that are protecting their country from you" or simply "war is murder" it can be shocking to hear that if all you ever hear is "support the troops", "The troops are protecting your freedom", "Freedom isn't free" etc..  The reason for government run schools has nothing to do with education (there would be a huge market for education in a modern free society as everyone wants their children to be educated) and it has everything to do with installing these statist points of view into the minds of next generation.  Stand up, put your hand on your heart, and repeat after me "I pledge allegiance to the flag..."

 

[SharperDingaan]

The man offered a cheaper way to deliver better quality drugs - just WHAT was so wrong with that ?

 

1. Scandavian countries rountinely offer pharmacy grade narcotics to drug addicts, at fixed prices, & in some cases - even tax the product; no different to buying groceries from a Wallmart. It is OK for a government to do this, but not an individual?

2. More of the raw materials to make the product came from legal labs. Apparently the wrong people were making the money?

3. Product was distributed on-line via pickup, versus the street. We would rather have the gangs & associated viloence?

4. Crime was paying less than it used to. Crime, like every other industry, has disruptive change as well - but this is bad?

5. Unemployment went up. It would seem that a job as a criminal, is better than no job at all?

 

Yes, his system was co-opted by criminals - but the underlying deliveries continued (though of lesser quality).

 

But just maybe - the money trail couldn't be tracked as well as it used to be, and therefore the system had to go. We need a scapegoat; and as the lowest body on the pole, it's him. If he had been a corrupt global bank (riging LIBOR, etc) - there wouldn't be a scapegoat.

 

Ultimately, the man wasn't special enough - because he didn't rat on the others.

 

SD

[abitofvalue]

well looks like its a life sentence

[RichardGibbons]

Thanks rkbabang, I think I get where you're coming from.  I didn't mean to ridicule it by using the word "Nirvana". Rather, I just meant "the idealized libertarian state after all the messy transition stuff is through and it reaches a steady state", but Nirvana seemed a lot faster to type.

 

The thing I find most interesting about it is that it's pretty different than communism, but suffers from the same downfall, the idealized notion that people are better than they are.

 

In communism, it's expressed by the idea that people will work as hard as they can and share for the common good, though there's no real benefit for them. In Libertarianism, it's that people without any checks or balances on their power won't use that power to act in really horrific antisocial ways that bring them happiness, but bring misery to most of the rest of the population.

 

In fact, it seems much more fragile than communism, since I think in communism, if you were to get even 50% who worked as hard as they could, you'd probably have a decently functioning society. In libertarianism, you don't need many rich psychopaths at all before the whole thing breaks really badly.

 

Anyway, thanks for your thoughts. I think you're right that our governing systems are far from perfect. So, I find it interesting to hear people's solutions to these sorts of problems.

 

 

 

[wachtwoord]

 

The thing I find most interesting about it is that it's pretty different than communism, but suffers from the same downfall, the idealized notion that people are better than they are.

 

The only true premise is that people are inherently selfish and will act in their own best interest. That's it.

[ScottHall]

Do you guys think it's worthwhile to debate politics here? I very much doubt you'll change anyone's mind.

 

Anyway, as for Silk Road. Cool service, guy seems like sort of a jerk though. Locked up for life? That seems a little ridiculous.

[Hielko]

As for the current system: Taxes are not theft: they have been voted for democratically by the population in most cases. If you don't believe in democracy, well then nothing more to say.

 

I suppose not.  Democracy is the system based on the theory "there are more of us than there are of you, so do what we say or else".  The political manifestation of might makes right.  Yes there are more people who think like you than who think like me, and yes the threat of violence from the majority is what keeps me paying my taxes.  Force is additive while things like intelligence, empathy, and morality are not.  It is the tragedy of the human condition.  You are stronger so for now you win.

How do you think democracy got to be the system that is used in a large part of the world and the libertarian system that you would like to see doesn't exist? I'd say it is a dominated strategy that will always lose versus many other systems that can be used to organize society. Isn't the fact that you cannot successfully start your own libertarian society also the proof that the system cannot work?

 

How would the libertarian society for example maintain/defend itself against someone building an empire, and forcing everybody inside its influence circle to pay taxes? It would also need an army. But how could it create a sufficiently big enough army if not everybody would be required to pay for it? And how would stuff like property work? Can property exist if there isn't some central authority that can decide (and enforce!) who owns what? What would you do if your neighbor thinks murder is a fun hobby? Is there a law against that? Can he be forced to comply with the law? Who decides what the law is? If you have no money to buy protection is it fine that you get murdered? Can these problems be solved without recreating the systems that exist today?

[Otsog]

 

The thing I find most interesting about it is that it's pretty different than communism, but suffers from the same downfall, the idealized notion that people are better than they are.

 

The only true premise is that people are inherently selfish and will act in their own best interest. That's it.

 

People are pretty damn good at not acting in their own best interest. That's basically Munger's entire thesis on human psychology.

[Otsog]

Here are the reasons relying on human self interest as the sole regulatory measure is doomed to fail:

 

1. Reward & Punishment Superresponse Tendency: The power that incentives and disincentives have on the actions of others cannot be overstated. Munger says this should be obvious but so many people don’t understand the how important incentives are for shaping people’s motivation to complete a task.

 

2. Liking/Loving Tendency: We ignore the faults of other people, products or companies that we admire.

 

3. Disliking/Hating Tendency: We also ignore the virtues of those things we dislike and distort the facts to facilitate that hatred while putting on blinders to other options and opinions.

 

4. Doubt/Avoidance Tendency: If we are unsure about a decision we try to quickly remove any doubt by making an ill-informed, quick decision.

 

5. Inconsistency-Avoidance Tendency: We have a reluctance to change. Eliminating bad habits is a rare trait.

 

6. Curiosity Tendency: There is not enough curiosity to learn, even though you receive so many benefits from a continuous learning process. Munger says, “the curious are also provided with much fun and wisdom once formal education has ended.”

 

7. Kantian Fairness Tendency: Life isn’t fair, but many can’t  accept his. Tolerating a little unfairness should be okay if it means a greater fairness for all. The example Munger uses is letting in other drivers on the freeway knowing they will reciprocate in the future.

 

8. Envy/Jealously Tendency: Self-explanatory, but Munger makes an interesting point that envy and jealously are surprisingly absent from most psych textbooks.

 

9. Reciprocation Tendency: We tend to want to return the favor when someone helps us, which can be a good thing at times, but it can also lead to poor decisions if you reciprocate business deals based on these minor favors.

 

10. Influence-From-Mere-Association Tendency: We can be easily manipulated by mere association. It can be a group of people, the quality of a product, advertising, etc.

 

11. Simple, Pain-Avoiding Psychological Denial: We have a habit of distorting the facts until they become bearable for our own views.

 

12. Excessive Self-Regard Tendency: We all think we’re above average. This is where overconfidence comes from. Munger says the greatest type of pride should be taking pride in being trustworthy to avoid developing an ego.

 

13. Over–Optimism Tendency: Greed.

 

14. Deprival–Superreaction Tendency: Loss aversion.

 

15. Social-Proof Tendency: This is when we tend to think and act like those around us. It’s the herd mentality.

 

16. Contrast-Misreaction Tendency: Our problem here is a misunderstanding of comparisons and missing out on the magnitude of decisions. This gets to Phillip Fisher’s point when he once said, “the stock market is filled with individuals who know the price of everything but the value of nothing.”

 

17. Stress-Influence Tendency: Adrenaline tends to produce faster and more extreme reactions. Some stress can improve performance but heavy stress often leads to dysfunction.

 

18. Availability-Misweighing Tendency: We overweight what’s easily available. A checklist or set of rules can help with this tendency.

 

19. Use-It-or-Lose-It Tendency: Too many learn a skill to simply cram for a test or presentation instead of trying to actually understand it fluently.

 

20. Drug-Misinfluence Tendency: Self-explanatory.

 

21. Senescence-MisinfluenceTendency: As we age there is a natural loss of certain skills and abilities. Continuous thinking and learning helps to slow the decay.

 

22. Authority-MisinfluenceTendency: Following orders just because someone says so.

 

23. Twaddle Tendency: Basically, spending too much time on nonsense.

 

24. Reason-Respecting Tendency: Some people just want the answers, not the reasons or a better understanding.

 

And finally Munger says there’s one more psychological issue which is the lollapalooza effect — the tendency to get extreme consequences when you combine a number of these misjudgements when trying for a particular outcome.

 

 

 

[wachtwoord]

Number 13: greed is why a Libertarian society works. And people that dont act in their own self-interest? They'll mostly die out or end up at the bottom of society in a generation or two as this system actually rewards good behaviour (instead of being parasitic on it such as our current one).

[Otsog]

How would society progress?  If everyone was acting in their own self-interest how would complex and long term areas like scientific research, medical care  and infrastructure be addressed?

 

[RichardGibbons]

Number 13: greed is why a Libertarian society works. And people that dont act in their own self-interest? They'll mostly die out or end up at the bottom of society in a generation or two as this system actually rewards good behaviour (instead of being parasitic on it such as our current one).

 

Yeah, that's the problem. If I'm a power hungry psychopath, it is in my best interest to thieve, enslave, murder, and rape.  The libertarian society would reward this sort of behavior (because if I'm a powerful psychopath, the optimal self-interest path for any individual is to run away and hide. Survival, not self-sacrifice, is in their self-interest.)

[RichardGibbons]

Do you guys think it's worthwhile to debate politics here? I very much doubt you'll change anyone's mind.

 

Yeah, your premise is wrong.  The goal of debate is rarely to change minds. It's entertainment and a tiny bit of learning.  I've accomplished both those goals.

[wachtwoord]

How would society progress?  If everyone was acting in their own self-interest how would complex and long term areas like scientific research, medical care  and infrastructure be addressed?

 

Because it's in their own best interest?

[Otsog]

You really need to define self-interest for me because you are using it like it's a deus ex machina. If everything magically worked out "because self-interest", then the ideal governance structure would already be in place.

 

[yadayada]

Rkabang read 'better angels of our nature'

 

There the author explains quite well why violence is at all time lows (per 100k people) throughout the world.

 

Basically you need a reasonably strong government, because of game theory. If you have two groups, and no third (mostly) independent group that has power over these two groups, those two groups will start to worry about each other. They will think, can the other group be trusted? Will they use violence?

 

Now let's say one person in one group (group 1) steals something from the other group (group 2). Now since there is no punishing authority, group two has to take measures in their own hands. Otherwhise they look weak to group one, and more stuff might be stolen, or worse. So they resort with violence, or they just simply think, well now we need to steal something back! There is a strong sense of fairness built in most humans.  Or group one might worry that group two will do something bad to them, so they preventively attack group two to make them weaker.

 

If you look at societies without a strong authority to keep the peace, there was often LOT's of violence. More then the most violent parts in the world today. This is also the reason why England became so powerful. They were the first proper leviathan in a ocean of anarchistic societies without a strong rule of law. This is also why it is 'the people vs' in the US. It has to be a powerful third party to dole out justice.

 

But now let's say the same thing happens again between group one and two, but now with a government. Group two will go to the police, and it will get resolved. And they will not be forced (by laws of game theory) to take measures in their own hands. Because it does not make sense to do so.

 

This is also why there is more violence with poor people and in ghetto's. Often the police does not come there, and they have to rely on themselves. And you cannot look weak in such a situation, so you have to strike back. And that often results in spirals of violence.

 

So this magical libertarian self interest, will actually hurt a almost anarchistic society more then it helps (just look at ancient history).

 

 

 

Now as for regulations, I have my own theory on this, and that is: regulate on transparancy. Regulate everything the same way we regulate cigarettes, and set up boards of randomly chose intellectuals to judge this!

 

You want to put some shady pink slime thing in your burgers? Put a big warning label up where people can see it (just like cigarettes). A bank wants to make risky investments? They will send all their customers a letter where in clear language without small print and legal speak (here is where the randomly chosen judgement of intellectuals comes in) the bank explains exactly the risks. Now you can do away with most of these complicated rules, just regulate in transparancy instead. So that the only thing that is not allowed (and harshly punished) is fooling or misleading your customers. Cuts a lot of regulatory costs and i think it will work better then having millions of rules that can bend in place.

 

And groups of randomly chosen intellectuals will judge wether this went right, and not dusty old bureacrats that can be bribed easily. And if this get's violated, proper punishments need to be given out ofcourse. Not just some fine.

[Jurgis]

Do you guys think it's worthwhile to debate politics here? I very much doubt you'll change anyone's mind.

 

Yeah, your premise is wrong.  The goal of debate is rarely to change minds. It's entertainment and a tiny bit of learning.  I've accomplished both those goals.

 

I think that the risk of introducing politics into this board is that people start fighting, split into politics-based camps and discussions in other threads deteriorate because of attached political labels. It is a real risk, I know another board where this happened. Of course, as long as it is entertainment and learning, it's fine. But beware

 

2. Liking/Loving Tendency: We ignore the faults of other people, products or companies that we admire.

 

3. Disliking/Hating Tendency: We also ignore the virtues of those things we dislike and distort the facts to facilitate that hatred while putting on blinders to other options and opinions.

 

These show up a lot in political discussions.

 

This being said, I have to +1 RichardGibbons and I liked/learned quite a bit from Otsog's and yadayada's posts.

 

Peace