I'm going to shoot someone and claim they violated...

collapsedsquid

ranma-official asked:

I'm going to shoot someone and claim they violated the NAP, ancapistan: hacked

argumate answered:

*ancap screeching*

collapsedsquid

What if you invite them on your property, then suddenly uninvite them when they’re in the middle of it. Do you get to kill them immediately, or do they get a head start?

mitigatedchaos

Technically I think the official AnCap answer is the latter, but that doesn’t actually work since property rights cannot be used to derive the appropriate moral principle to obtain it.

Source: argumate the invisible fist

More you might like

shieldfoss

motherboard.vice.com

Why American Farmers Are Hacking Their Tractors With Ukrainian Firmware

dagwolf

A license agreement John Deere required farmers to sign in October forbids nearly all repair and modification to farming equipment, and prevents farmers from suing for “crop loss, lost profits, loss of goodwill, loss of use of equipment … arising from the performance or non-performance of any aspect of the software.” The agreement applies to anyone who turns the key or otherwise uses a John Deere tractor with embedded software. It means that only John Deere dealerships and “authorized" repair shops can work on newer tractors.
“If a farmer bought the tractor, he should be able to do whatever he wants with it,” Kevin Kenney, a farmer and right-to-repair advocate in Nebraska, told me. “You want to replace a transmission and you take it to an independent mechanic—he can put in the new transmission but the tractor can’t drive out of the shop. Deere charges $230, plus $130 an hour for a technician to drive out and plug a connector into their USB port to authorize the part.”

ranma-official

This is a very strange cyberpunk future

blackblocberniebros

No one ever thinks about the farmers and rural areas in the cyberpunk future.

ranma-official

No one ever thinks about the farmers and rural areas regardless of the cyberpunk future.

shieldfoss

How can they get away with this? Do they have a monopoly on tractors? Are their tractors just so much better that people will buy them even with this bullshit in place?

mitigatedchaos

Patents ensure that any tractor by a start-up competitor will likely be 20 years out of date, making a small run of new tractors you aren’t sure people will buy is prohibitively expensive, but also Capitalist competition isn’t as powerful as Hard Capitalists say it is or should be. Partially this is because Hard Capitalists assume that state interference is deeply unnatural and non-Capitalist, when in reality the state is necessary for Capitalism to exist, and the market incentivizes corporations to attempt to establish control of the state.

If there are few enough major tractor manufacturers, and tractors are absolutely vital to farming, then they can all start using restrictive EULAs all at the same time. As long as they limit their rent-seeking to something less than the cost of a whole extra tractor, they can all benefit from it without engaging in tight collusion. Farmers looking to violate the situation would have to do something like import tractors from Japan or Russia or something.

Source: dagwolf the invisible fist

ranma-official

Source: diarrheaworldstarhiphop the invisible fist

ranma-official

Socialist countries have a really bad track record of human rights abuses and a strange set of failings that are either specific to them or unusually prominent compared to the general zeitgeist, so you can draw decent conclusions like “don’t break systems a lot of people depend on, just cuz” and “freedom of press is actually really important” and “science shouldn’t be controlled by the state’s ideology ever”

instead people realize that Marx was wrong about something and the Soviet Union killed people and then go become tankies but for capitalism

isaacsapphire

I guess the real question is, “is it possible to avoid these known horrible bugs in Communism/socialism, or is it time to go look for something else and try to make that work?”

The vast majority of Communists I’ve encountered in person or online don’t seem to be trying to avoid the known problems. They either ignore/don’t know/pretend to not know about the historical issues, or they consider eg. genocide a feature rather than a bug.

ranma-official

It’s certainly possible to try avoiding these bugs, or dramatically improve the current social order, or to try and build some other system entirely, but then/instead you get people like @redbloodedamerica openly celebrating fucked up shit because capitalism is good and cool and therefore bonded labor is good and cool also, hence, tankies but for capitalism.

mitigatedchaos

Anarchists say they’re against it, but I’ve never seen them lay out how they would prevent it from happening except to claim they wouldn’t have a state - but Catalonia had death squads, perhaps not Stalin-tier death squads, but apparently it did have them. I think the way to socialism now, the way to actually convince people, is to stop telling people to embrace a Communist revolution and instead buy up a huge tract of land in a country with a weak central government and demonstrate a real, working, unoppressive, prosperous model.

I don’t actually think they have that model, so I don’t see myself supporting Communism over Boring Welfare Capitalism any time soon.

politics the invisible fist the red hammer the iron hand

ranma-official

mitigatedchaos

Well, NIMBYs killed microhousing in Seattle which was going to be the kinds of small, affordable apartments that people could actually afford to live in.

Yeah, that’s one of the problems with the whole “but that isn’t REAL Capitalism! We need to deregulate!” things. The regulatory capture that corrupted the existing process will also corrupt its dismantling unless you fix it, and Capitalism pays people to subvert public ownership of the state.

the invisible fist politics

ranma-official

obiternihili

“People are dying of starvation”

“Well if you dirty statists just let us sell rotten food there wouldn’t be a hunger issue”

shieldfoss

Government is just another word for the bleach we pour over donated food so the homeless can’t eat it together.

ranma-official

very interesting

anyway remember when in grapes of wrath they poured kerosene on oranges to not reduce prices as people starved

shieldfoss

Yes I do remember the part in Grapes of Wrath where the farmers followed the legally empowered Agricultural Adjustment Administration’s directives to destroy food.

“The Roosevelt Administration was tasked with decreasing agricultural surpluses,” to quote Wikipedia quoting Douglas.

ranma-official

Huh, it turns out that that act was forced into existence by large farmers and food processors, who financially benefit from people starving! All while these people horribly exploited their workers to the point of starvation and viciously rebelled against the “socialistic” resettlement program!

Turns out that these bastards love to see people die. Huh.

mitigatedchaos

It’s important to remember that the Market™ pays people to subvert public ownership of the State.

This demand originates within the market and then subverts any state not adequately designed to resist it. Paring back the state doesn’t actually get rid of the demand, and may, depending on circumstances, make the problem worse.

Which is why we should design better states.

Source: obiternihili the invisible fist the iron hand

ranma-official

theunitofcaring

The solution to this, of course, is to just give low-wage workers money instead of making laws that try to force their employers to do it. No one should have to live on the money they can bring home from $9/hour? Agreed! Give them money.

ranma-official

What will happen as a result is, of course, that companies will routinely underpay their employees, effectively outcompeting companies that pay fair wages purely on the taxpayer’s dime, which is by the way what already happens when people who work are paid low enough to be eligible for welfare.

This is a fact.

Factual solutions only. No pandering.

wirehead-wannabe

Do you actually disagree with any factual statement Kelsey is making here? All I see are value disagreements about “underpaying” and “fair wages.”

ranma-official

A factual statement is what I said.

When companies underpay the employees and you pay those employees instead, you reward companies for underpaying employees.

The correct course of action is to force companies to pay fair wages to employees. The incorrect course of action is to provide companies with more market incentives for not doing so.

That is a factual statement also.

A value judgement would be if you’d disagree with me that people like me are not literal subhumans (which is by the way the universal opinion of people who endorse underpaying as much as possible).

mitigatedchaos

It depends - do we have individuals paying the low wage workers and not a subsidy to all low wage workers by the State? Then the problems with the libertarian plan will ruin it, that’s how the economics works. Do we have state action instead? Then the leverage of all low wage workers will be increased by other economic effects.

Source: theunitofcaring the invisible fist the iron hand policy

mitigatedchaos

Here, bonus hot take @ranma-official might agree with:

Actually, employees burning out or dying is an externality.

The company profits from the temporary boost in productivity while destroying the future economic value of up to an entire lifespan, denying other companies and the economy as a whole future production. As employers do not own employees, this creates a Tragedy of the Commons situation, justifying the existence of state interference. (etc)

shieldfoss

“Externality” is not just a word that means “bad thing” you buffoon, you fool,

mitigatedchaos

Ssssh, I’m trying to sneak ultracaps into admitting employment laws may potentially be Good.

mitigatedchaos

Anyhow, the purpose of this hot take is to point out that while it is in the interests of every company to induce burnout and risk death if they can pass the costs of dealing with that onto someone else to get more productivity - families, society, the state, other future companies - much like it is in the interests of every company to emit pollution if they can do the same, it is in fact economically destructive in ways that may not be adequately represented, and, while not an explicit subsidy, could have effects like one.

If one dude would generate three million dollars in economic activity over his life but dies one third of the way through his career, two million dollars of economic activity is not generated. This is very often due not to being genuinely suicidal for the job but due to a mismatch in negotiating leverage.

Considering what a spectacular waste of resources this is, it could make sense to require employee death insurance to ensure that the costs - to everyone else - of getting dudes killed is reflected in the price of goods and services. (After all, the State spent a lot of money educating that guy, his family spent a lot of money raising him, humans depend on generations, etc, so goods from Sparky’s McDeath Factory should only be chosen over Reasonably Cautious Joe’s Factory goods if they really do present enough of an advantage to outweigh this.)

It also matters why people get killed. Some jobs are just more risky, but without labor protections it’s likely often because some power-tripping bastard did something stupid and ignored obvious warning signs. People might die but at least let’s not be stupid about it.

the invisible fist

ranma-official

mitigatedchaos

Putting in disaster gouging laws is not really the virtuous thing, because

Any cop you have out enforcing the anti-gouging law could instead be either pulling dudes out of flooded houses, trucking in water, handing out waters, or guarding supply points
It isn’t going to actually increase the amount of drinkable water entering the zone
Not every random trucking water in but charging for it is going to charge $42 a bottle. If someone charges some lesser amount, it may also still cover their fuel costs and time off work to get out there

This policy is more of a looking good than doing good thing. It lets the politicians get away without actually doing anything, spending any money, or successfully bringing more water into the zone. (It also costs resources to keep all these laws on the books.)

Having supply depots already nearby as part of a multi-layered civil defense system capable of responding to a broad range of emergencies is the actual virtuous policy, the tough one that we can’t actually have because reasons.

I know @collapsedsquid suggested that having supply depots would be defeated because tax breaks for the wealthy, but that isn’t the only factor.

Any money spent on civil defense depots with stockpiled water filters would also have to contend with complaints that it was depriving resources from any other groups - for instance, from education, healthcare, etc. It might even get accused of being racist for being connected to some distant probability-calculated need rather than the immediate needs of the local community. (Tho that last one can be reduced somewhat by giving the ¾ shelflife MREs over to homeless shelters.)

ranma-official

there are already cops who are protecting from vague looters rather than pulling dudes out of flooded houses, does that mean we need to abolish private property?

It isn’t going to actually increase the amount of drinkable water entering the zone

it will prevent the thing where people with spare cash go to a supermarket, buy out the entire stock of water, and then resell it at much higher prices after the disaster.

mitigatedchaos

Well, looting non-essential items will harm people afterwards, and there are reports of some people shooting. Though if I could allow people to loot water bottles from abandoned houses without all sorts of secondary consequences, I would.

What I’m thinking is that we won’t get a law that’s written intelligently, but one that also prohibits guys from buying out all the waters in a store in a neighboring county, putting it all in a pick-up truck, and driving it in to the disaster area to sell. And we should want someone to do that, even if it gets sold for $10 a bottle, since it increases the available water.

Venezuela, which is pretty messed up right now, keeps trying to legislate prices on things like bread, and it isn’t helping there.

Source: mitigatedchaos the invisible fist

ranma-official

Source: klubbhead the red hammer the invisible fist

Here, bonus hot take @ranma-official might agree with:

Actually, employees burning out or dying is an externality.

politics the invisible fist quasi-shtpost

Why American Farmers Are Hacking Their Tractors With Ukrainian Firmware

LMAO RIP IN FUCKIN PIECE

THERES MORE

So the ether whales, in triggering a flash crash, fucking murdered two morons who LOST EVERYTHING in their amateur trading habits

POWERUPDATE:

THESE TWO WERE PART OF 800 (maybe more) RICH, BLUE WHALE INVESTORS WHO GOT FUCKING OBLITERATED WHEN SOMEFUCK WITH FAT FINGERS ACCIDENTALLY SOLD DOWN $3 MILLION OF ETHEREUM, TRIGGERING A CASCADE OF AUTOMATIC EMERGENCY STOCK DUMPS, ALL THE WAY DOWN TO TEN CENTS PER ETHEREUM

LITERALLY CRYPTOCURRENCY HISTORY ON PAR WITH THE HACKING OF MT. GOX

That $320,000 worth of ethereum just sold for $100

5 minutes later, the price is back to $300 and your $100 of ethereum can only buy you back one third of an ethereum.

See, that’s what the app is perfect for.

More you might like

Why American Farmers Are Hacking Their Tractors With Ukrainian Firmware

LMAO RIP IN FUCKIN PIECE

THERES MORE

So the ether whales, in triggering a flash crash, fucking murdered two morons who LOST EVERYTHING in their amateur trading habits

POWERUPDATE:

THESE TWO WERE PART OF 800 (maybe more) RICH, BLUE WHALE INVESTORS WHO GOT FUCKING OBLITERATED WHEN SOMEFUCK WITH FAT FINGERS ACCIDENTALLY SOLD DOWN $3 MILLION OF ETHEREUM, TRIGGERING A CASCADE OF AUTOMATIC EMERGENCY STOCK DUMPS, ALL THE WAY DOWN TO TEN CENTS PER ETHEREUM

LITERALLY CRYPTOCURRENCY HISTORY ON PAR WITH THE HACKING OF MT. GOX

That $320,000 worth of ethereum just sold for $100

5 minutes later, the price is back to $300 and your $100 of ethereum can only buy you back one third of an ethereum.