Consent to coercion \ stacker news ~econ

682 sats \ 11 comments \ @Voldemort 24 Apr econ

Don't view the things in this post necessarily as my opinion, but rather my understanding. Interested in how ancaps view this.

In an anarchist society, two people can enter contracts where they consent to coercion. You will pay me to roof your house. Maybe we put sats in some storage where once an agreed upon firm deems my roofing job adequate they are released to me. There can be lots of details therein, such as if I don't complete it within a certain amount of time some security firm coerce me to finish the job.

Suppose I move to a development where doing so means I have to agree to the terms in the development's "constitution." Maybe it says if 75% of people vote to approve a thing we all have to pay for it even if I vote no. It also says anyone who breaks the rule will be forcefully removed from the development.

In both of these instances, I consent to coercion. This could handle a lot of situations people often think the government needs to facilitate.

I am not sure I understand how this framework could handle international crime or even local crimes done by businesses not under such a contract.

Suppose I have 100 units of currency to spend on business development. The marginal value of the first 50 is maximized on a new building, the next 25 are maximized on personnel, and the last 25 are maximized on nefarious activities. Maybe not even nefarious, but just spent on swaying the opinion of others to my benefit.

The possibilities are endless. Maybe some of the personnel I hire are from a development voting on using my services. Maybe I just literally give some people units of currency to vote a certain way. Maybe a firm in a different state pays them to vote no, hurting their competitors. If they are big enough, maybe they manipulate the currency market. I could go on an on. But the point is, unless my business has entered a contract where I consent to some sort of coercive action should I take such measures, what is my incentive to not take such actions?

To be clear, I am well aware this happens with the government. That is the point - I don't understand why this incentive would suddenly stop existing without the government. I am also aware smart people have written about and thought about these things. So for anyone informed, I'd be interested in your thoughts.

view all related items

100 sats \ 0 replies \ @Undisciplined 24 Apr

Your scenario is very Coasian, isn't it?

If a community agrees to bind themselves by a set of rules, we think of that as some sort of revealed preference for how those people want group decisions to be made. A business coming along and buying enough votes to get their project approved is just a way of compensating the community sufficiently for the costs of the project.

It's not on the outsider to be worried about whether a community's rules are fair. If those rules don't work for the community, then they can change them or move away. One way or another, there's endogenous pressure to align the community rules with the real preferences of the members.

100 sats \ 5 replies \ @javier 24 Apr

I'm a natural law expert, the natural law is this in the end:

You are responsible and liable to fairly compensate for objective damages caused to the property of others except when there is a voluntary mutual agreement in full knowledge of the conditions and risks.

Which means you have to both perfectly know and perfectly agree with the conditions and risks. If you don't, you don't enter into the contract.

Any questions?

21 sats \ 4 replies \ @DarthCoin 24 Apr

101 sats \ 3 replies \ @javier 24 Apr

It's another way to see the natural law, but yes.

Here are other forms, choose your one:

You have the right to free use of your property and agreement with other beings, as long as it is voluntary and in full knowledge of the conditions and risks, and if not, you would be fairly responsible and liable to compensate them.
You have the right to private property, to compensation for damage, and to fair, informed and voluntary contracting with other owners, as well as the obligation to use it without violating the property of others.
Love and let love with knowledge and wisdom, take responsibility for your mistakes and demand responsibility from others with complete justice.

Choose your one, all means the same.

0 sats \ 2 replies \ @DarthCoin 24 Apr

do you think statists will ever understand the natural law you've just explained?

21 sats \ 1 reply \ @javier 24 Apr

"Ever" probably, but not soon. They have to dissolve their cognitive dissonance first, which is a very hard task.

21 sats \ 0 replies \ @DarthCoin 24 Apr

2000 years of brainwashing is hard to wipe out... indeed.

221 sats \ 0 replies \ @k00b 24 Apr

I was into this stuff a very long time ago and I'm not sure, even then, I had anything intelligent to say.

The overarching hypothesis IIRC is that order would emerge and be distinct from the kind of government enforced order that we have now, and it kind of presumes different starting conditions (while it's debatable how different starting conditions could be). Yet, as you say, certain incentives remain regardless of how non-coercive certain bodies of people are in principle.

For me, when I play it out long enough, the resulting order looks a lot like governments. Given different starting conditions, where educated people are initially motivated to opt in and out of jurisdictions, and favor non-coercion, there's some hope these government-like governing bodies converge on something unlike the governments we have today. And to advocates of such ideas, given enough time the non-coercive bodies of people would be so much more productive they'd out-compete coercive bodies militarily and otherwise.

That's my memory of the whole thing at least. Anyway, I know you asked a more pointed question but that's where my mind goes when we discuss details of hypothetical anarchy, because I think it's all irrelevant if we can't determine the result is different - and I can't.

100 sats \ 0 replies \ @om 24 Apr

The perverse incentives exist right now, and "not even nefarious, but just spent on swaying the opinion of others to my benefit" actions are committed all the time by present day corporations. For example, there was a time when Microsoft tried to snuff out the open source movement. What did the goverment do? Nothing of course.

Maybe I just literally give some people units of currency to vote a certain way.

This actually happened with some DAOs. Many people here hate Ethereum but I don't. IMO experimentation that Ethereum does is very valuable, even if it's mostly in informing us what not to do.

The resistance of the anarchist society to vote bribing should and will be built and battle tested in a purely digital environment first, where the government can't prevent us from experimenting. The credibility of anarchy working in meatspace must be demonstrated in cyberspace first. (How are Ethereans doing on the DAO front? Not that well so far IMO but there's hope)

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @nym 24 Apr

Without the state it falls back to natural law.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Coinsreporter 24 Apr

Isn't zapping and downzapping creates the same scenario in some way?

Isn't writing anything at SN creates a consent to coercion?

Just saying.