2
gunteh 2 points ago +2 / -0

Follow up question: if an ancap world looked closer to South Africa (or most of Africa, for that matter) than North America, is it still the ideal?

I think it’s really hard to look at ancap without considering the possibility that not everyone will be able to afford weapons and won’t gang up on each other Purge Style.

5
gunteh 5 points ago +5 / -0

A private group appointed by the Executive Branch of the US Gov...that’s the very definition of crony Capitalism.

3
gunteh 3 points ago +3 / -0

Well, I answered the second part in another post, but if you’re looking for your line in the sand, it’s not coming anytime soon.

Besides, why have a line in the sand when you’re probably going to be the last person with guns when that line is finally crossed? If you’re waiting for someone else to give you instructions, you’re never going to get instructions. The truth is a lonely road.

We’re all boiled to a degree, that’s why nobody fights for the injustices of the past.

3
gunteh 3 points ago +3 / -0

First off, none of this is legal advice. This is also assuming non-criminal behavior, so the book is clear on what to do with actual lost or stolen guns. Also keep in mind that if you’re trying to do something by the book, that it means exposing yourself (you’re putting yourself out there for legal ramifications. If you lie and get caught, you deserve what you get). According to the ATF, here’s their recommendations for lost or stolen firearms:

Reporting for Non-FFLs

ATF does not take reports of stolen firearms from private citizens:

If you are an individual needing assistance in obtaining a serial number for a firearm, ATF is unable to assist private citizens in locating serial numbers as there is no national registration system. One of the following options may assist you:

  1. Contact the firearms dealer where you purchased the firearm.

  2. If the firearms dealer is out of business and your inquiry is in reference to a stolen firearm, contact your local police department. It is possible they will submit a request to the National Tracing Center for a Records Search Request assuming the circumstances are connected to a bona fide criminal investigation.

  3. Contact your state firearms registration office if your state has one.

First, call your local law enforcement agency to report the theft or loss. Contacting the local law enforcement authorities is essential to the quick recovery of firearms taken in a crime.

3
gunteh 3 points ago +3 / -0

I don’t get what you’re trying to ask here. Are you asking for methods to cover your tracks and “disappear” your private property, or are you asking about where to draw the line in the sand on tyranny?

1
gunteh 1 point ago +1 / -0

I'm curious who "owned" the island before the government took it over. That's the one mistake this hippie sounding guy made, which was to not own the island before the government took it over.

1
gunteh 1 point ago +1 / -0

Well, you want to live with flexible definitions that fit your feelings, go ahead. I'd rather cut through the fat.

1
gunteh 1 point ago +2 / -1

That I agree on mostly, although if we focused on promoting healthy families, government would become redundant at best. The government has become more "necessary" as families have eroded their moral fiber and faith-based and non-profit groups have abandoned their civic duty to their communities.

2
gunteh 2 points ago +2 / -0

I think you're on the right track, and it sounds like your family dynamic is a healthy one, but what about unhealthy (dysfunctional/abusive/co-dependent) families? If we should fight against abusive government, should we allow fight against dysfunctional family structures that have rape, abuse, and starvation?

0
gunteh 0 points ago +1 / -1

I know plenty of dysfunctional families where those do happen, and a few governments where it doesn't happen at all, so your definition doesn't hold water unless you can apply to all families and all governments.

2
gunteh 2 points ago +2 / -0

Because McDonalds has a quid pro quo with Taylor. Theres a contract document that allows Taylor to to profit and scratch corporates back, which replaces lost sales revenue from ice cream sales, which is marginal in the McDonalds franchise. The issue is the owners are on the hook for repair costs, that dont factor into McDonalds sales commission, so from corporates eyes they see it as marginal at best. However, for the franchise owner, the costs have to be weighed with revenue, and therefore many stores have refused to clean or maintain their ice cream machines due to the extra costs, becoming a health hazard for the general public from unsanitary ice cream machines. Theres a domino effect here thats being completely ignored by only focusing on the McDs corporate bottom line.

Ive probably mentioned it before, but in case I havent (either on this thread, or in general) but I dont believe its the monetary value thats the primary problem here. Its the principle of the matter. Price fixing and monopolistic contracts are bad for the private sector, as well as the franchise owners and the general public. If I were a franchise owner, Id be pissed off that I wasnt given informed consent on this problem that clearly exists to benefit a few at the expense of others.

2
gunteh 2 points ago +2 / -0

If you were a franchise owner, and you lost money every month because of bureaucracy/red tape, would you think it's a perfect solution and there's no need to change it?

1
gunteh 1 point ago +1 / -0

Here's what's happening: The franchise owners have to buy a certain product to open a McDonalds, which is prone to breaking. They cannot have the machine repaired by the best service tech available, they have to pay Taylor certified techs for it or the warranty is void. Instead of helping franchise owners find new private solutions to solve this monopoly, they send cease and desists to people who circumvent Taylors technology, as well as force franchise owners to keep to the current solution. McDonalds doesn't pay a penny for crappy Taylor machines, the franchise owners do. For some franchise owners, it's lost time and revenue, while Taylor and McDonalds profit off of red tape and buraucracy. The consumers pay down the road with lower satisfaction, while McDonalds Corporate isn't on the hook for any of it.

3
gunteh 3 points ago +3 / -0

They need to talk about the "momentum" of money (mass times velocity). "Velocity" only talks about equal amounts of money, whereas printing a shit ton of money might have the same "velocity" but the mass will be incredible if it hits all at once versus trickling though.

The amount of money they printed in 2020 might be like getting hit by a freight train, not a bicycle.

2
gunteh 2 points ago +2 / -0

Thanks for the source! I'll take a look later.

2
gunteh 2 points ago +2 / -0

Yes, which is exactly why I ask about when does market preference become a monopoly if driven by human desire to be dominant? Is it merely human intention that causes a market prefernce to evolve into a monopoly, if given enough time and lack of government oversight, or is there an example of market competition eliminating all possible monopolies from ever forming? Can you maybe elucidate how the development of Standard Oils monopoly could have been prevented without government intervention?

3
gunteh 3 points ago +3 / -0

I dont think Bitcoins a bad example, and heres why: the network effect. In economics, a network effect is the phenomenon by which the value or utility a user derives from a good or service depends on the number of users of compatible products. Network effects are typically positive, resulting in a given user deriving more value from a product as other users join the same network. In other words, if you have dollars in your pocket, and I have dollars in my pocket, we're more likely to exchange dollars. Crypto currency is a utility, so the network effect applies, as more people use Bitcoin, its easier to exchange Bitcoin.

The original point of using Bitcoin as an example, is to state that even in unregulated markets, theres a central tendency to conglomerate utilitarian resources towards a few (many times one) option(s), rather than spreading all investment on every single crypto currency on the market. People simply dont behave like that, and it shows in terms of market share. The fact that it happens, even without human intention/intervention, shows that the market behaves that way naturally. Monopolies and oligopolies can occur in a completely unregulated market.

1
gunteh 1 point ago +1 / -0

I feel ya, my neighborhood only has comcast and I hate not having any choice or competition. But would you say that AT&T got those non-competes from government regulation or from bargaining with other private companies? I really dont know much about the ISP and cell coverage market.

2
gunteh 2 points ago +2 / -0

I double checked to make sure, the top two cryptos (Bitcoin and Ethereum) own 81% of the crypto market. Bitcoin has 68.1% and Ethereum has 12.9% . Regardless of your perspective, that does show monopolitistic tendencies even in unregulated markets.

The point being, when does a monopoly/oligopoly become unhealthy for market competition? Because there werent government regulations on what standard oil could do until it became too powerful, and then government (not the market) broke it up with anti-trust laws.

2
gunteh 2 points ago +2 / -0

Thats a good point, most companies can offer the illusion of choice by diversifying their product lines along different price points or feature optimization.

Ive worked for a few global companies, and the level of control across regions is scary. Many global companies (like Amazon, Apple, and Microsoft) can afford to have offices in every major country, and many times multiple office locations in those same countries. Due to their flat corporate structure in tech companies, they are highly agile to shifting market conditions all across the world, and its scary to think if a company had a complete stranglehold on the global economy they could really shut down local competition.

More recently, its been government intervention thats been trying to hold back the growing influence of these tech companies (GDPR and the lawsuit against Google in the EU come to mind right away), but Im wondering if government is the only way to respond to a growing oligopoly or monopoly, or if theres an free market "event horizon" where a certain level of competition must exist in order to prevent a monopoly from forming.

3
gunteh 3 points ago +3 / -0

Ah, are these two pre-existing T_D, and connected on the platform? Im just fascinated and uninformed of the platform structure.

view more: Next ›