Apple example is good counterpoint. It's reasonable to not want to haggle as a simple merchant of goods. However, a refusal to haggle also implies a refusal to barter for non-currency goods (some society eventually has to try using a barter system rather than meme about its untested inconvenience), and if there isn't a central currency (probably impossible if it's a large scale society) then it implies they only accept one arbitrary currency. Though in both of those, merchant life stops being so simple.
You could be offering a cent too little for the apple because you're prepared to perform some small task in addition, like providing your own bag or maybe you'll just do a little dance to please them. Ultimately, the merchant should reserve the right to refuse to negotiate; to even hear your offers. That's because it could be a mistake to refuse it and mistakes must be permitted.
If a contract is fundamentally irrational or unreasonable
I'm realizing now that ensuring this is difficult. Should notaries be trained to detect such things? Leave it all to a judge later and hope for the best? Same deal with complexity and determining informed consent - it sounds like a mess. Maybe the ideal should be minimal complexity/difficulty for all contracts.
The simple solution is to have city- or state- level rulings for what rights may be signed away (even if temporary). But then what if you receive harm that lasts longer than the agreed timeframe? Calculating that is a disaster I've seen enough in real world law, so it's much better to avoid it where possible.
I'm struggling to think of an example now. How about this: an employer tries to get a guarantee from their employees that they will prioritize company assets over their own safety (they now have to fight all robbers). This sounds kind of reasonable for a security guard. Change the wording a little to get body guards. Both are desirable types of employment, but both have a real chance of permanent damages. Must the employer agree to some sort of damage calculation to make a settlement package? I would prefer to minimize beaurocratic workload where possible.
How can a thing be followed if it doesn't logically follow?
I probably should have specified, but by insane I meant more like signing away your intrinsic rights, such as agreeing to become someone's property. If something is impossible, like punching the sun, obviously that should be thrown in the trash. Human guinea pig is a job, I guess, but it's a really distasteful one.
and if there isn't a central currency (probably impossible if it's a large scale society) then it implies they only accept one arbitrary currency. Though in both of those, merchant life stops being so simple.
To be honest, central currencies aren't actually necessary from what we see from earlier time periods. Central currencies just provide standardization, but most of the time, people still saw "1 oz of gold = 1 oz of gold" as the standard, no matter who's face was on it. The question for the merchants was who was fucking with their own currency and filling it with copper.
I'm realizing now that ensuring this is difficult. Should notaries be trained to detect such things? Leave it all to a judge later and hope for the best? Same deal with complexity and determining informed consent - it sounds like a mess. Maybe the ideal should be minimal complexity/difficulty for all contracts.
Unless you're going down the Ancapistan route, it will require a legal or procedural apparatus. Which is why I favor Liberalism. The focus on procedure and the pride of an independent judiciary simply designed to deal with procedure is the way to get around this problem.
Must the employer agree to some sort of damage calculation to make a settlement package?
Sounds like a "Wares many hats" portion of a job application.
The purpose of a Laborer in a firm is to get guaranteed income while taking low risk; while giving reliable labor to the firm. So any sort of situation that would introduce more chaos and confusion to the laborer would require quickly increasing compensation. At some point, if the risk for the laborer gets too high, regular pay just becomes impossible. Instead, with a high enough risk, they are effectively taking on the same level of risk as the entrapanuer... and they are basically now in the same category. Which means that they are basically a part owner of the business, and will only profit when the business does (which might take some time).
But, that's the point of how the entrapanuer has to interact with the laborer. The laborer is accepting consistent pay, for consistent work, while taking minimal risk. the more risk a laborer takes, the more compensation they need. However you actually present that compensation package is up to the entrapanuer and the laborer.
most of the time, people still saw "1 oz of gold = 1 oz of gold" as the standard
Weren't there other trade metals? Was there an established conversion rate between gold and silver, for instance? I'm thinking of a situation where a merchant only accepts gold, even though silver has value as currency as well.
Unless you're going down the Ancapistan route, it will require a legal or procedural apparatus. Which is why I favor Liberalism.
I'd take whichever road led to solving the problem I have with people being unable to found their own society. The systems you describe sound like a possible route for the US to peacefully convert to, but while I might be happy in that society, I think others that are unhappy with it should have the option to go make a little nation off to the side somewhere. How to convince an existing nation to give up some of their land for this purpose? It could also be a source of experimental data to prove what systems can work and what cannot (as if governing bodies actually care).
Ancap seems like more of a disaster scenario. It should be a temporary system that occurs due to extreme instability. So while it would permit my goal, it's just temporary.
I'm wasn't arguing against the existence of legal/procedural systems so much as I'm aware that the whole "worker's comp" thing we have is an embarassment. Whatever the fuck went wrong with all that, I want that to not happen more. One of the examples of it I've seen (boomer extended family with nerve damage) made it seem like you basically sign away your medical autonomy in exchange for having procedures paid for that don't help you. They actually hit upon a device that cured it during the process and then took it away because they wanted to do something else. Definitely something wrong with the incentive structure in there somewhere.
Weren't there other trade metals? Was there an established conversion rate between gold and silver, for instance? I'm thinking of a situation where a merchant only accepts gold, even though silver has value as currency as well.
Sure there's plenty, but I'm talking about a merchant seeing a bunch of different currency from different countries being brought to him in a market for goods, and deciding "How am I going to have the customer pay for this? I don't know what the exchange rate is. Oh wait, gold is gold."
How to convince an existing nation to give up some of their land for this purpose?
You don't. If we were dealing with non-Leftists, you'd be fine. But since we're dealing with Leftists, ceeding any ground to them is extremely dangerous. They'd rather die than lose power, and if you give them ground they will use it as a launching point for further attacks because expansion of their conquests is absolutely mandatory or their own survival.
As I've said before: I don't accept a "national divorce" because it's like letting go of the gun in an entangled gunfight. All it does is kill you.
The terrible truth is: the Left succumbs to arguments from power. It's why there were almost no third party Leftist voters in 2020. It's why the riots consolidated the Left, it didn't drive them apart.
If you take power, you tell them no, and you break their ability to steal from other people. The useful idiots will sort themselves out when you stop giving them shit, and the predators will destroy themselves by continuing to attack. Just don't ever let any of the predators into a position of power just because they seemingly changed their tune.
Ancap seems like more of a disaster scenario. It should be a temporary system that occurs due to extreme instability.
It actually offers the most stability. The problem is that it requires implementing a power vacuum, which is nigh-on-impossible to maintain. This is why Liberal Republicanism is a better choice: it constructs a kind of rigid honeycomb of low-density power, rather than a full vacuum.
You don't. If we were dealing with non-Leftists, you'd be fine. But since we're dealing with Leftists, ceeding any ground to them is extremely dangerous.
Wouldn't it be sufficient to keep them isolated in their reservation? Set a border and regulate who can cross that border. Have someone go check on them once in a while, take a report for data. Increase status checks when they make it to certain technological benchmarks, like iron forging or blackpowder. Maybe even confiscate phones and computers when they go in. Basically make Australia 2.0, but for unhappy people instead of criminals.
It might sound a little cruel, but I think it's legit. Keep entry voluntary and allow everyone inside to fail. Possibly don't allow them to come back, but make that stipulation known beforehand.
I doubt the hardcore leftists would really sign up, because that shouldn't sound like any kind of power to them.
And if no one signs up, the space can be used for sociological experiments that can't be done in a university (or on US soil). Though I guess it'd be a "black site" then, because experimenting on humans is seen as cruel.
It actually offers the most stability. The problem is that it requires implementing a power vacuum, which is nigh-on-impossible to maintain.
I don't understand. Isn't stability about the ability to maintain present balances? What makes it stable to you?
Apple example is good counterpoint. It's reasonable to not want to haggle as a simple merchant of goods. However, a refusal to haggle also implies a refusal to barter for non-currency goods (some society eventually has to try using a barter system rather than meme about its untested inconvenience), and if there isn't a central currency (probably impossible if it's a large scale society) then it implies they only accept one arbitrary currency. Though in both of those, merchant life stops being so simple.
You could be offering a cent too little for the apple because you're prepared to perform some small task in addition, like providing your own bag or maybe you'll just do a little dance to please them. Ultimately, the merchant should reserve the right to refuse to negotiate; to even hear your offers. That's because it could be a mistake to refuse it and mistakes must be permitted.
I'm realizing now that ensuring this is difficult. Should notaries be trained to detect such things? Leave it all to a judge later and hope for the best? Same deal with complexity and determining informed consent - it sounds like a mess. Maybe the ideal should be minimal complexity/difficulty for all contracts.
The simple solution is to have city- or state- level rulings for what rights may be signed away (even if temporary). But then what if you receive harm that lasts longer than the agreed timeframe? Calculating that is a disaster I've seen enough in real world law, so it's much better to avoid it where possible.
I'm struggling to think of an example now. How about this: an employer tries to get a guarantee from their employees that they will prioritize company assets over their own safety (they now have to fight all robbers). This sounds kind of reasonable for a security guard. Change the wording a little to get body guards. Both are desirable types of employment, but both have a real chance of permanent damages. Must the employer agree to some sort of damage calculation to make a settlement package? I would prefer to minimize beaurocratic workload where possible.
I probably should have specified, but by insane I meant more like signing away your intrinsic rights, such as agreeing to become someone's property. If something is impossible, like punching the sun, obviously that should be thrown in the trash. Human guinea pig is a job, I guess, but it's a really distasteful one.
To be honest, central currencies aren't actually necessary from what we see from earlier time periods. Central currencies just provide standardization, but most of the time, people still saw "1 oz of gold = 1 oz of gold" as the standard, no matter who's face was on it. The question for the merchants was who was fucking with their own currency and filling it with copper.
Unless you're going down the Ancapistan route, it will require a legal or procedural apparatus. Which is why I favor Liberalism. The focus on procedure and the pride of an independent judiciary simply designed to deal with procedure is the way to get around this problem.
Sounds like a "Wares many hats" portion of a job application.
The purpose of a Laborer in a firm is to get guaranteed income while taking low risk; while giving reliable labor to the firm. So any sort of situation that would introduce more chaos and confusion to the laborer would require quickly increasing compensation. At some point, if the risk for the laborer gets too high, regular pay just becomes impossible. Instead, with a high enough risk, they are effectively taking on the same level of risk as the entrapanuer... and they are basically now in the same category. Which means that they are basically a part owner of the business, and will only profit when the business does (which might take some time).
But, that's the point of how the entrapanuer has to interact with the laborer. The laborer is accepting consistent pay, for consistent work, while taking minimal risk. the more risk a laborer takes, the more compensation they need. However you actually present that compensation package is up to the entrapanuer and the laborer.
Weren't there other trade metals? Was there an established conversion rate between gold and silver, for instance? I'm thinking of a situation where a merchant only accepts gold, even though silver has value as currency as well.
I'd take whichever road led to solving the problem I have with people being unable to found their own society. The systems you describe sound like a possible route for the US to peacefully convert to, but while I might be happy in that society, I think others that are unhappy with it should have the option to go make a little nation off to the side somewhere. How to convince an existing nation to give up some of their land for this purpose? It could also be a source of experimental data to prove what systems can work and what cannot (as if governing bodies actually care).
Ancap seems like more of a disaster scenario. It should be a temporary system that occurs due to extreme instability. So while it would permit my goal, it's just temporary.
I'm wasn't arguing against the existence of legal/procedural systems so much as I'm aware that the whole "worker's comp" thing we have is an embarassment. Whatever the fuck went wrong with all that, I want that to not happen more. One of the examples of it I've seen (boomer extended family with nerve damage) made it seem like you basically sign away your medical autonomy in exchange for having procedures paid for that don't help you. They actually hit upon a device that cured it during the process and then took it away because they wanted to do something else. Definitely something wrong with the incentive structure in there somewhere.
Sure there's plenty, but I'm talking about a merchant seeing a bunch of different currency from different countries being brought to him in a market for goods, and deciding "How am I going to have the customer pay for this? I don't know what the exchange rate is. Oh wait, gold is gold."
You don't. If we were dealing with non-Leftists, you'd be fine. But since we're dealing with Leftists, ceeding any ground to them is extremely dangerous. They'd rather die than lose power, and if you give them ground they will use it as a launching point for further attacks because expansion of their conquests is absolutely mandatory or their own survival.
As I've said before: I don't accept a "national divorce" because it's like letting go of the gun in an entangled gunfight. All it does is kill you.
The terrible truth is: the Left succumbs to arguments from power. It's why there were almost no third party Leftist voters in 2020. It's why the riots consolidated the Left, it didn't drive them apart.
If you take power, you tell them no, and you break their ability to steal from other people. The useful idiots will sort themselves out when you stop giving them shit, and the predators will destroy themselves by continuing to attack. Just don't ever let any of the predators into a position of power just because they seemingly changed their tune.
It actually offers the most stability. The problem is that it requires implementing a power vacuum, which is nigh-on-impossible to maintain. This is why Liberal Republicanism is a better choice: it constructs a kind of rigid honeycomb of low-density power, rather than a full vacuum.
Wouldn't it be sufficient to keep them isolated in their reservation? Set a border and regulate who can cross that border. Have someone go check on them once in a while, take a report for data. Increase status checks when they make it to certain technological benchmarks, like iron forging or blackpowder. Maybe even confiscate phones and computers when they go in. Basically make Australia 2.0, but for unhappy people instead of criminals.
It might sound a little cruel, but I think it's legit. Keep entry voluntary and allow everyone inside to fail. Possibly don't allow them to come back, but make that stipulation known beforehand.
I doubt the hardcore leftists would really sign up, because that shouldn't sound like any kind of power to them.
And if no one signs up, the space can be used for sociological experiments that can't be done in a university (or on US soil). Though I guess it'd be a "black site" then, because experimenting on humans is seen as cruel.
I don't understand. Isn't stability about the ability to maintain present balances? What makes it stable to you?