Smokeskin, you are engaging in a noble endeavor, and I wish you luck. :) I would note, however, that it's not always a matter of listing the pro's and con's provided in the text of any given faction, but the choice of materials presented and the tone and tenor of the authors. For example, a poster in another threat cited the sidebar on p. 100 of Rimward as an example of what's wrong with the Titanians.

Quote:

So I have to vote every six hours, I’m expected to clean recycling vats in the name of ‘community,’ and I live in a cold dark hell hole at the ass end of the solar system? And that’s the good life? The fuck is wrong with these people? I’d rather spend sixteen years as a robot slave on Mars. Then I could work off my indenture, get rich, and own a bunch of pleasure pods with big tits. That’d be the life. This is a bunch of shit. —Nils Högarn, Rebooted gang leader

However, when viewed critically, at least in my opinion, one should understand that the text is written by a rebooted gang leader who is an unrealistic, selfish and criminal ass. Rather than portray what might be actually be wrong with the techno-socialist Commonwealth, it really is a snarky commentary on the horrible type of person who would want to live in the hyper-capitalist inner system. If you look even more closely and in the greater context of the whole setting, it's also a subtle political criticism critique of the falsity and illusion of the capitalist "American Dream."

Smokeskin wrote:

I quoted that same sidebar above. Along with it, I quoted statements about the oligarchs, a large Titanian subculture of non-criminals who share his sentiments almost exactly. The point of view is in no way only being represented by "criminal asses". I also don't see a problem with using unpleasant people to highlight the faults of a system. If I were to argue against the real world drug laws, I could also use drug dealers and criminal addicts. These are usually not pleasant, admirable people, but they are a product of laws and regulation that force them onto the outskirts of society and into crime, and as such they still serve as excellent examples of the system's failures. The rebooted gang leader also shows that Titanian society isn't perfect - there are unpleasant criminals too, even with their finely meshed social safety net. As to the falsity and illusion of the "American Dream". This guy made it to gang leader, who says he couldn't start up a business and succeed too? And at any rate, it's an option he can try for in a capitalistic system, while it is impossible among the technosocialists unless he turns to crime.

The Titanians have government funded microcorps, liberal sexuality, etc. Our rebooted gang leader has ample opportunities in the Commonwealth. The Oligarchs are also not criminal and do not really share these views. They just propose some free-market reform and fewer entitlements. They are dangerous precisely because they are less socialist. I would hardly call a remote, democratic risk of slightly less socialism as an actual critique of socialism. More notably, the presence of a few criminals, almost all non-violent, is not a viable criticism of techno-socialism. Compared to the other polities, particularly the inner system and the Jovians, the Commonwealth is virtually free of crime and corruption. No polity is crime free. The fact that the Commonwealth has so little crime is author praise, and most certainly not a setting rationale of "why they suck."

Smokeskin, Even if the Oligarchs are hardcare hyper-capitalists, their actions are legal, peaceful and democratic, and they appear to fully abide by all Titanian strictures as they seek to change opinions. Most importantly, the presence of a small group of peaceful capitalists who have no apparent power is not a author critique of socialism or why they "suck." The fact that they are permitted at all (but have no real influence or power) is a demonstration of the magnanimity and openness of the socialist Titanians, not a criticism. It is absurd to suggest that the lack of complete uniformity of opinion in the Commonwealth, which characterizes no other major polity or group, and is virtually impossible with any large group of people, is a reason why socialism as embodied by the Commonwealth, sucks. Similarly, the apparent "critique" that there are people in the Commonwealth who don't like living with the "limited options" of techno-socialism is absurd. First, the personal and professional options available to almost all transhumans in the Commonwealth exceed any other faction. And to repeat myself, the existence and tolerance of peaceful dissent or simple discontentment is a positive, not a negative. You appear to argue that since some of the polities are not, quite literally, perfect, or that some dissent exists, is a reason "why they suck" is ludicrous. It's even more preposterous in light of the abject horror, corruption, incompetence and downright evil that characterizes the other more conservative factions, ranging from the PC and LLA to the Jovians, Ultimates and brinkers. I have no doubt that you honestly believe that the autonomists have significant faults within the setting. However, most of these "faults" are inherently insignificant, comparatively laughable to the concerns of other groups, and often actually considered positives by a majority both transhumans in the setting and people in real life. For instance, many consider recreational drug use, rampant and unrestrained sexuality, political correctness, and lack of a Puritan work ethic to be bad and have high social costs. However, that view is most certainly not universal and pales in comparison to the slavery, corruption, rampant crime, discrimination, lack of democracy, etc. that plagues the other non-AA polities. I would also note that although the Extropians are technically part of the AA, they are most definitely not treated as well in the setting materials, nor romanticized by the authors like the techno-socialists, anarchists and scum. In fact, I would propose that the very existence of the generally libertarian, hyper-capitalist, dog-eat-dog, Extropians is the authors' attempt to demonstrate that non-traditional, "progressive" political systems can in fact "suck." Nevertheless, first and foremost, I still view the portrayal of the Extropians a yet another in a long line of capitalist critiques.

Smokeskin, I believe that the autonomists factions are portrayed in an unrealistically positive and romanticized light (some more than others), and the conservative factions are similarly portrayed in unrealistically negative light that is little more than caricature. Except possibly for purposes of emphasis, I do believe I stated, and certainly did not mean to imply, that the autonomist societies were quite literally perfect. I also really don't think that the fact that some members of a polity think it stinks, by itself, is a reflection on whether the faction actually sucks. The reasons and extent of the discontentment, however, are certainly relevant. Let's look again the the Oligarchs in the Commonwealth. Their complaint is that they would prefer that the Commonwealth be more capitalistic. They are not officially oppressed or deprived, can voice their opinions openly and honestly in a democratic system, and otherwise lead very comfortable lives. To use a modern expression, they have "first-world problems." Their existence, at least to me, speaks to the benevolence of the socialist Titanian society. Conversely, if you describe how the indentured workers on Mars are unhappy due to psychological and physical exploitation, lack of opportunity and discrimination, that would no doubt indicate why the PC really sucks. I will concede your point about how disagreeing with the consensus can badly damage your reputation in the Commonwealth, and that discourages dialogue. However, given the tremendous social protections that the Titanians provide, the problem is not particularly serious. The same consensus issue is far more threatening and pervasive among the anarchists and most definitely a reason why such a society could suck. As an aside, you are correct that I would not like living in the Commonwealth, and I find the anarchists disturbing. A socially liberal, politically moderate, very mildly religious, American born and bred, ethical and proud capitalist and professional like myself would probably find notable problems with all of the major factions in EP. I also admit that in real life the prospect of resleeving would raise serious spiritual and related concerns. The best fit would probably be Morningstar, although it would still be a poor choice (e.g., even their more liberal views on indenture just seem like a more charming face for slavery). My darker (lawyer) side admits that I enjoy playing Extropians, but would never seriously entertain such a society.

I have a feeling I may regret this. Nevertheless...

Smokeskin wrote:

[b]Dictating other people’s behavior[/b] It is a very strong drive in humans to dictate other people’s behavior. Many feel that their ideas of how you should live or not live should apply to everyone else, and to the degree that they think that they themselves, the police or the taxation system should punish those that choose to live differently. Even in liberal democracies, issues of dictating other people’s behavior are very common, as demonstrated by the laws and fierce political debates on access to abortion, learning about evolutionary theory, polygamy, drug use, outlawed sports, limits on free speech, binding regulation that prevents people from making many forms of voluntary agreements, extra taxes on fatty foods and cigarettes, etc. This psychological need is not generally acknowledged among the autonomists. The rep system has some ability to regulate behavior (in many ways comparable to the real world taxation of fatty foods and cigarettes), but except for Titan there’s very little behavioral regulation. I’ve heard the argument that “this isn’t really a negative thing”, but the fact is that most people would go absolutely apeshit if they were told that everything was legal.

This is, in fact, not a negative thing. To the extent that someone’s behavior isn’t causing actual harm to others, there should be no regulation thereof. Anyone who would go ape if they were told there were no laws or rules is likely fucked in the brain, as much so as someone who has a pathological need to dictate the behavior of others. Also, autonomists do have methods of regulating the behavior of others, if and when it becomes necessary: On an anarcho-collective habitat, you have the rules derived from community consensus, rules like “don’t release poison gas through the atmosphere vents for shits and giggles,” or “don’t shoot people who are minding their own business.” These behaviors are regulated through indirect and direct means - if someone is being a douchebag and making themselves irritating or aggravating to the rest of the habitat, they ping his rep. Eventually he’ll either get wise to the notion that he’s not making himself welcome and he’ll change his behavior, or he’ll get tired of finding that he wields no influence in the community and leave for some habitat where they hopefully appreciate his idiosyncrasies more. And, for the more direct regulation, you have everybody and their robo-dog getting tired of someone’s shit, grabbing a gun, and dealing with him physically, such as if the guy is screaming and shouting in people’s faces and making them feel physically afraid for their lives, or is releasing CS gas in the air vents after reprogramming the AIs overwatching the air distribution system to believe CS is vital to transhuman respiration, or whatever. If this guy’s being bad enough to require these kinds of measures, bearing in mind that anarchists tend to be tolerant of quite a lot (to the extent of accepting that two folks who are constantly at each other’s throats over some thing or another sometimes just need to have it out and throw down with each other,) but not TOO badly, they’ll haul him at gunpoint down to the resleeving station, separate him from his morph, and either tell him to live as an infomorph whilst contemplating the error of his ways and try to earn back the community’s good graces, or else they’ll shop around for someone else who will deal with him, and exile him. If he was being definitely too bad to tolerate, which would mean being like the guy who was turning people’s forks into his personal torture buddies, only worse because they exiled him, they’ll just forcibly unsleeve him or shoot him if necessary, and delete his backups. Either way, they have plenty of means of correcting anti-community behavior. Titanians have laws, with police who investigate crimes and prosecutors who prosecute the offenders, presumably before a jury of their peers. Standard hierarchical set-up there, only they undoubtedly have [i]far[/i] fewer laws than most places in the here and now, focusing instead on those things which absolutely must be enforced against. Extropians? They’re easily the worst of the lot, because nowhere in the books does it suggest that signing a contract for security necessitates agreeing to behavior on your part, except inasmuch as if you get a judicial order handed down against you, your security contractor won’t intervene on your behalf, and if you initiate aggression against one of their other customers, they won’t hold back in terminating you like any other aggressor. They probably also have some language in there stating that if you run afoul of another security company because you initiated aggression against the other company’s customers, they won’t protect you, probably as part of the contracts they’ve signed with the other companies to prevent inter-mercenary warfare. Of course, if you’re willing to stump up for super-platinum contracts or your security contract with them was signed before those stipulations were in place and you somehow got it ironclad that only you could choose to not renew and only you could approve all terms, that might not be in there, obligating your security company to protect you from another one... Of course, if you don’t enter [i]into[/i] any contractual agreements, you can’t have an Extropian judicial order handed down against you, because [u]you have no contracts on which an Extropian judge can rule.[/u] Of course, anybody is free to attack you, too, which they absolutely [i]will[/i] because it’s like being a new guy with a perfect, hairless, peach-shaped arse in a prison shower in the United States: your ass is meat. Scum? Fuck ya if you can’t take a joke. But if it goes beyond joking, see the way anarchists handle things, only you don’t need Swarm-wide consensus, just to piss off enough people to the point of taking action against you that the rest of the Swarm isn’t going to want to piss them off by trying to stop them.

Quote:

[b]Free use of drugs[/b] Almost all autonomists have no drug laws. Even if the effectiveness of drug regulation can be discussed, then drugs can and will lead to problems with addiction and reckless, crazy or violent behavior while under the influence. On top, drug use is in itself a huge issue for many people. Current day democracies indicate that the majority are willing to spend a lot of resources, punish a lot of people for victimless crimes, and accept much more organized and violent crime as the cost of waging war on drugs.

Current democracies also indicate that the majority of people are unwilling to try horizontal systems of government, even if it would unquestionably be in their best interests to do so. Autonomist habitats, beyond Titan, are not populated by the majority, they’re populated by the people who were smart enough to say “fuck the rat race” and go looking for something better. So, no, they will not regulate drug use. If someone’s drug use goes beyond recreation into actually being a [i]problem[/i], not for themselves but for the community at large, then Autonomists will take action to correct it, since by this point the addict is not in control anymore, and they’re endangering others. Before that point, of course, people will be constantly asking him if he’s okay, if he wants help, if he shouldn’t rethink things. But once they get to a point where he’s a danger to himself and others, largely others, they’ll have to deal with it one way or another. But if he’s not endangering himself and others, who the fuck cares if he’s getting high as all fuck on a regular basis?

Quote:

[b]The stifling political correctness on Titan[/b] What happens if you’re not into the consensus culture? You take a rep hit and get to enjoy an underclass life, as these Rimward page references show: 96: a preference for consensus over conflict, and respect for Janteloven (the old Scandinavian ideal of self-effacing egalitarianism) are all powerful memes. 103: because a good reputation tends to be earned through consensus rather than competition 100: Nyhavn in particular has a large underclass of working people who haven’t resolved themselves to the loss of Earth, don’t wish to participate in the Plurality, and won’t adapt to the reputation economy.

And to that I’d say that anyone who’s not into consensus culture is, themselves, the jerkass for being not into consensus culture. Because that means that either they like being trodden upon by the disproportionately powerful, or they envision [i]as[/i] the disproportionately powerful, forcing their way or the highway. Most likely it’s the latter, and I’ve no sympathy for them. And if you don’t like Janteloven but still want to be an autonomist... Well, Titan may be the big fish in town, but they’re hardly the only autonomist habitat. Find somewhere you can and will fit in and will have you, put yourself in the queue to be egocast, and when your turn comes up, bid aideu to those self-effacing Titanians and go be a rock star on a Scum Swarm or whatever. Or hell, ‘cast out to Mars and get to work being a slave, if that’s what rocks your boat.

Quote:

[b]Lack of security[/b] Rimward, pg 159: Since we don’t restrict tech like the hypercorps do—and in fact, with our open science programs, make it even more available to everyone—there’s always the chance that someone will endanger those around them. Consider how you feel about gun control in today’s world. Are you in favor of gun control? Strongly in favor even? Among the autonomists, you don’t get gun control. At all. Fully automatic weapons, explosives, poison, you name it, everyone can fab them and carry them around and you can’t do anything about it. Hab busters and WMDs might get a reaction, but anything less is generally ok. As gun control laws in most countries (and in the US, the fierce debate about it) show, this is a big deal to a lot of people, and those in favor of gun control are not going to enjoy the autonomist approach.

Gun control, in my opinion, means using [i]both[/i] hands and keeping your finger out of the trigger guard until you’re ready to dispense death. So quite frankly, I’d feel more secure on an anarchist habitat where I could walk around with a machine pistol that fires clouds of hypersonic flechettes at full auto mated to a device that very reliably incapacitated people on my hip, than I do walking the streets of my own hometown. In an Extropian habitat, your security is provided by your armed security response company, who have hover-drones armed with automatic rifles stationed all over the place. On Titan, your security is provided for by the local police and also by yourself and your fellow Titanians, who frequently walk around armed; and your [i]home[/i] security is directly at your fingertips courtesy of that militia-issued locker containing your body armor and your rifle. On other Anarchist habs, including Scum swarms, your security is provided by yourself, and anyone who cares enough about you to take up arms in your defense. And the fact that if someone goes around preying on people, it will take not very long at all for the entire community to decide to hunt that jackass down. On Mars, your security is provided for by the corrupt cops who work for the companies first and for you last, who will attack you if you’re carrying the means to defend yourself, or if you speak up against the dominant economic memes, or if you look at the wrong glitterati funny... Hrmmmmm... I know where I’d feel most secure. Hint: Not Mars. (Nor Luna, nor Venus.)

Quote:

[b]Low productivity among anarchists and scum[/b] The anarchists are listed as working only 4 hours per week. Some may spend their free time on voluntary projects (like we today have open source software and volunteer work for example), but this is extremely unlikely to be even remotely as effective as what you see in other systems. There are some self-motivated people, but is everyone like that, and what when these driven people disagree? To get a large number of people to work on the same goal, in the same direction, with focus, and work hard and work hard on doing boring tasks, everything indicates that you need hierarchy and/or financial incentives. How could it be possible that the anarchists with a 4 hour work week and volunteer work could match the productivity of for example the Planetary Consortium, where everyone is working their asses off to fulfill their indenture terms, avoid poverty, or acquire or keep the luxury and power from getting to the top? Unless the anarchists have magical powers of efficiency, they’re not going to keep up. And this has a real impact on their society. With post-scarcity tech, the individual anarchist is able to lead a pleasant enough life. But think of the long term effects of this – this means less growth, less wealth, less science being done, less engineering perfected, less resources gathered and processed, fewer morphs produced, fewer people getting out of dead storage.

Who the hell gets to decide when a person should work beside that person, huh? What gives them the [i]right[/i] to dictate someone’s life like that? Sure, everybody should do their fair share of the work that keeps the habitat from turning into a shithole, but beyond that, fuck it. So the solution is to force people into a situation where they risk enduring deprivation and enslavement if they don’t work according to the dictates of the greedy fuckers at the top, who have more resources and money than God but can never be satisfied because they are, in fact, sociopathic assholes because that’s exactly the kind of person who rises to the top in a dog-eat-dog environment like that? Fuck that noise sideways. Growth is not a [i]de facto[/i] good endeavor. Wealth? Currency is a weird fetish, and the autonomists have done away with it, because they realized they had no need for it. (Extropians exempted, because they liked it, and nobody was going to tell them they can’t indulge their weird money fetish.) Science? There are lots of people who are doing assloads of science, they’re called Argonauts. Free from the corporate yoke and having to justify their research to miserly beancounters who wouldn’t know a Higgs Bosun from a Boatswain named Higgs, they’re getting more science done than ever before. Engineering is being perfected by those who love them some engineering and they’re reaping the @-Rep rewards for it. Resources are gathered as necessary, rather than to satisfy the masturbatory money fetish of the corporate interest. As for morphs and dead storage, remember Titan? The guys working at a fever pace to expand their habitats and morph production so they can reinstantiate more and more people?

Quote:

[b]Anarchist resource shortages[/b] Rimward, pg 159: without armies of indentured slaves at our disposal like the capitalists have, we sometimes run short on fuels, metals, or other critical resources.

So enslaving people is OK if it means the not slaves get to have enough to satisfy them? Yeah, no. And if things run short in a capitalist society, those with the money never do without, and fuck the poor. In an autonomist society, everybody has equal access to the things they need, which means that such things will be rationed out as necessary, not doled out based on who has more money to spend.

Quote:

[b]Conflicts among anarchists[/b] Rimward, pg 159: Lacking any central authority to force agreement, local schisms sometimes escalate into larger conflicts.

Nothing’s perfect, but I’d still take the risk of this rather than being oppressed and forced to work for the slavemasters rather than endure deprivation and starvation.

Quote:

[b]Titan’s Jantelov[/b] A powerful meme on Titan is Janteloven - in short, “don’t think you’re better than us”. You’re not supposed to be number one, you’re not supposed to win, and you’re certainly not supposed to feel good about being more competent, at anything. From Rimward: pg 96: a preference for consensus over conflict, and respect for Janteloven (the old Scandinavian ideal of self-effacing egalitarianism) are all powerful memes. pg 105: The constant presence of news, entertainment, and sports figures has led to some of the most conspicuous application of Janteloven in the Commonwealth. Not only do Nyhavners deem it extremely déclassé to acknowledge the presence of a celebrity, the celebrities themselves actively avoid being treated in public as figures of note. One mesh personality, whose popularity had waned, quipped that she didn’t mind so much; she enjoyed being able to joke with her barista without everyone around assuming she was being condescending. Especially that last one is telling. Everyone thought she was being condescending when she was making jokes, just because she was famous.

Don’t like it? Move to Aarhus or New Quebec. Or if you’d prefer somewhere less urban, Stykkishólmur, or maybe Longueil, if you’re feeling a little spiritually bioconservative. Try the Hulder life for a change of pace, or go for an orbital, like Commonwealth Hub, or Mankell. Or if you really hate it, leave Titan and ‘cast out to a Scum Swarm where people will celebrate you for making an ass of yourself, let alone for being awesome at stuff. Titan is not the only place in the Autonomist Alliance, and they will quite happily let you relocate if you’d rather bid them farewell.

Quote:

[b]Titan’s lack of freedom[/b] Some people on Titan disagree with the limits on their freedom. Sentiments like those listed below is very likely to be shared by many people outside of Titan like Extropians and PC citizen’s above the middle class. Other restrictions on freedom would trouble anarchists and scum. Rimward, pg. 97: [The oligarchs] argue fiercely, if inexpertly, for a system with fewer checks on how individuals use their earnings. They charge the older generation with fostering inertsii—economic inertia. Rimward, pg. 100: [ So I have to vote every six hours, I’m expected to clean recycling vats in the name of ‘community,’ and I live in a cold dark hell hole at the ass end of the solar system? And that’s the good life? The fuck is wrong with these people? I’d rather spend sixteen years as a robot slave on Mars. Then I could work off my indenture, get rich, and own a bunch of pleasure pods with big tits. That’d be the life. This is a bunch of shit. —Nils Högarn, Rebooted gang leader ¬

There is some [i]real[/i] doublethink going on if you’re accusing Titan of lacking freedom. That, or you’re an @narchist’s @narchist and you’re looking back at Titan from atop a Scum Swarm or another type of anarchist hab. Anyway, I could not give less of a fuck what Extropians and upper-class Consortiumites think. Oligarchs can get fucked because they just want to be the users, lording it over others with their money. And, newsflash, if you don’t like voting? Empower your muse to vote on your behalf (not that anyone could stop you from so doing,) and never worry about it again. Hell, if you have to egocast away, just leave a fork of your muse behind to vote on all the stuff your muse would have voted on and have it forward any really important decisions to you.

Quote:

[b]Extropian poverty[/b] The extent of Extropian poverty is unclear, we only have the mention about the Pits on pg. 24 of Rimward. It suggests that it is mostly outcasts who aren’t able to work (and without minimum wage regulation and the low cost of living due to freely available post-scarcity tech that seems reasonable), but the size of the Pits and the number of people ending up there is open to interpretation . At any rate, poverty in the Pits and in the rest of Extropia is real, and in particular proper hab space and decent morphs seem like a scarce resource that they would suffer the lack of. Some will be entirely reliant on charity, and they may not be able to attract that much charity money. Like everything else on Extropia, charity will be a market, and the Extropian poor will be competing with other people who suffer. Are they the worst off in the solar system? Is this were a benefactor would get the most welfare bang for his bucks? Even if Extropia is crawling with giving billionaires like Bill Gates and Warren Buffett, it’s far from sure they’ll give locally.

Yeah, fuck Extropians. Far as I’m concerned, they don’t really deserve to call themselves Autonomists. Fuckin’ AINOs - Autonomists In Name Only, that is, not the prejudiced-against Japanese ethnicity. They’re also the worst, because unlike [i]literally other autonomist[/i] habitat, they will [i]not[/i] freely allow you to leave. You have to be able to buy your beam off that benighted habitat, and if you’re poor, good fucking luck!

Quote:

[b]Extropians screwing themselves over[/b] While anarchists have the freedom to screw themselves over in many ways, they have nothing on the Extropians. No Extropian with even half a brain would ever sign anything without attaching their favorite legal code and consumer protection rights and having their legal AI look the contract over, but some people have less than half a brain. Or they’re desperate, or impulsive, or whatever. Unless you’ve been tricked or coerced, if you sign something that you later regret, that’s just tough – no court is going to free you from your obligations. And there’s no limit. Indenture contracts that are infinite and way worse than what you see in the PC are entirely possible.

It’s not just being an idiot, it’s lacking the bargaining power to force your way. You don’t want to sign a contract that states that in any conditions of default, the mediator is required to find in favor of the powerful party and against you at all times, and you agree and “consent” to this stipulation? Tough shit. Good luck finding someone who supplies air on this habitat who [i]doesn’t[/i] have that stipulation - it’s in all their contracts with each other that they all have to have the same language in their contracts with you. Fuck Extropia.

Quote:

[b]No service industry among anarchists[/b]

A lot of people enjoy having other people to work for them, in some way or form. That’s not going to happen much among anarchists. They have AIs and robots, but their skill is maxed at 40 so you can't get quality work from them. The anarchists have the reputation economy, but favors are never going to amount to people doing as much work for others just because someone else is willing to pay for it, as you see in a capitalistic system. For the middle class and up anarchism seems to give a lower living standard.[/quote] The service industry is a fucking terrible thing, why would anybody want that? Nobody grows up and says “You know what I want to do with my life? I want to be a uniformed fast food worker into my sixties.” But there are people around here who have wound up doing just that, because [i]guess what?![/i] Service-sector jobs don’t give you the resources you need to get ahead. They [i]barely[/i] give you the resources you need to not [i]die[/i], and even then you’re going to have to endure a lot of deprivation and get creative with your finances. A robot can serve me my cheeseburger just as well as a person, and can put that cheeseburger together with robotic precision - a perfect burger, every time, [i]un[/i]like the cheeseburgers being put together by someone who [i]hates this job, hates the boss, hates his coworkers,[/i] and would rather be doing literally anything else than putting together his three hundredth fucking cheeseburger of the day, but which he is obliged to put together because otherwise [i]he will starve to death![/i]

Quote:

[b]Anarchist Justice is terrible[/b] Rimward, on p. 157 mentions that the anarchists have a justice system where punishment is based on the opinions of the victim, and the judge, jury, defense and prosecution are all from the affected community (they're supposed to be impartial, but that's somewhat difficult if they're among those affected...) Which is to say murder trials involve of the deceased's family and friends for determining punishment, with obvious problems. The anarchist system of justice described seems to inherently favour emotional biases and cryonism far more than modern courts...

Um... Anarchists don’t have courts. That kind of flies in the face of everything which is anarchism. Anarchist justice, on the very rare occasion on which it is necessary at all, floweth from the barrel of a gun, and it comes because you managed to fuck up royal and turn the entire habitat against you. And even then, Anarchists are likely to think there’s something wrong with you and you need help, rather than just vengefully spacing your cortical stack.

Quote:

[b]Anarchists can be insular[/b] Gatecrashing, and Rimward pg. 158, makes a mention that some anarchist societies are unfriendly and hostile to visitors, because they're prejudiced towards outsiders.

Yeah, and? People can be insular anywhere. Becoming accepted in an insular community is no easy task. Don’t like it, find a more outgoing Anarchist habitat to join instead.

Quote:

[b]Terrorism[/b] The anarchists also include people like bomb-throwing terrorists and murderers like the JAC (Rimward pg. 162 and 45). And we're talking real death here, as the Jovians are mostly without stacks and backups. There's a blurp about them trying to avoid civilians casualties - but only as long as they're not in military installations which apparently makes people fair game, and at any rate the JAC doesn't care enough about the civilians that they will abort their bombing missions if the target isn't cleared.

Um, yes. According to the laws and customs of war, civilians who are located on military installations [i]are[/i] fair game. The protections offered by civilian status go away if you’re working for the military in a civilian status, even if it’s just cooking food for them. They also go away if military installations get colocated with your civilian installations, which is why Isreal keeps bombing hospitals - because Hamas keeps putting fucking rocket launchers on top of them! So, yeah. One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter. The parliament of the United Kingdom would certainly have denounced George Washington, et al, as terrorists if the American Revolution happened during this century. The South Africans [i]did[/i] denounce Nelson Mandela as a terrorist and threw him in prison. Etcetera, etcetera. The JACs are fighting for their freedom from an oppressive regieme, one that sure as hell won’t let them say “fuck this noise” and ride a beam to Titan or Locus or wherever they want to live, and hell, if they were already living in the Saturnine system before the Junta, they have prior claim and are fighting a conquering invading army anyway. So yeah, JAC up the Junta.

Quote:

[b]Cooperating with slavers[/b] While many in the Autonomist Alliance will go out of their way to criticize the PC for the use of indentures and call it slavery, they are ok to have the Extropians in their alliance, who are perfectly willing to accept the use of indentures and even at much worse terms than is possible even in the PC. On Extropia you could sell yourself into permanent indenture with all rights waived, and a few years after being traded to a sadistic psychopath you might begin to regret that decision.

Yeah, I’m in full agreement with this. Fuck Extropia, man. FUCK Extropia. It’s the biggest concentration of hypocracy in the system, even eding out the Consortium and the Junta.

On Shortages: The character describing them chalks them up to a lack of slave labor. You think it's a flaw of the anarchist system. I think it's basic astrography. The autonomists are living in a much less resource-rich region of the solar system than the other factions (Though their big population centers have it a bit better with access to Saturn or the asteroid belt or the Greeks.) w/r/t service economy: I think you're vastly underestimating skill 40. Recall that the average human aptitude is 10--The service quality you get nowadays in most places, even in the US, is probably less than what that skill 40 AI would have. And even in EP, skill 40 for a service profession is better than you're likely to get from another transhuman in most circumstances (Do you really think anyone sinks 20ish CP* into Profession: Waiting Tables, Profession: Cashier, or Profession: Sales Assistant?) So the actual quality of service provided by the AI is probably [i]better[/i] than what you'd get from some minimum-wage-straight-out-of-high-school octopus, unless of course one values the service economy for the power trip it gives one to have other people serving them. *Well, you know, the effort and time that that represents. Approximately the same time and effort to earn 20,000 credits, or learn some habitat engineering, etc.

Smokeskin wrote:

- like them or not, the Extropains are part of the Autonomist Alliance.

Like them or not, the Extropians are the [i]second largest[/i] part of the AA. I'll dig up the numbers later, but IIRC the AA is 40-60% Titanians, 30-40% Extropians, and only about 10% anarchists who aren't ancaps.

Shunka wrote:

Smokeskin wrote:

[b]The stifling political correctness on Titan[/b] What happens if you’re not into the consensus culture? You take a rep hit and get to enjoy an underclass life, as these Rimward page references show: 96: a preference for consensus over conflict, and respect for Janteloven (the old Scandinavian ideal of self-effacing egalitarianism) are all powerful memes. 103: because a good reputation tends to be earned through consensus rather than competition 100: Nyhavn in particular has a large underclass of working people who haven’t resolved themselves to the loss of Earth, don’t wish to participate in the Plurality, and won’t adapt to the reputation economy.

And if you aren't into the consensus culture in a plutocratic oligarchy pretending to be a democratic republic, you're also heavily oppressed. No matter what sort of culture/political system you care to put forward, this is going to happen. I would also suggest that your quotes from p.96 & 103 are not self-evidently negative elements...And that the quote from p.100 is tantamount to 'people who do not want to be part of the system or participate in it have difficulty getting along in it.' (which does seem rather self-evident).

Rather notably, there's not a single mention of stifling political correctness; political correctness is simply not part of the examples given. Overall, I agree with your criticisms of the "flaws" put forth, but I have a few problems with some arguments you've made:

Shunka wrote:

Extropia is, from the get-go, a weird example to use when discussing autonomist norms. But your sole example (only mention) is prefaced by: [cite]This is where the outcasts of Extropia end up: people who have racked up major debts, have mental problems or disabilities, are wanted for legal action by the private courts, or who just want to be away from the rest of the Extropian hive.[/cite] Once again attempting to paint a society based on the people who aren't a part of it. Also, compare that list to the people who have trouble in the PC... :) Once again, outcasts in any society, particularly self-created outcasts, are poor examples to use.

I don't think that's fair; when the list includes people with mental problems or disabilities (which they have no control over), then how they are treated by the rest of society [i]should[/i] be used to judge the problems of that society. This also extends to debtors and criminals. If a society shuns a particular group of people (crime and debt are often cause by necessity, not by some anti-Galtian desire to be an outcast), then that is necessarily an aspect of society. And, strictly, speaking, just because also happens in the PC does not mean that it's not a valid criticism of the Autonomists. The Morningstar Constellation practices slavery just as the PC does, but that doesn't mean we can't critique the MC just because the PC also practices slavery on a larger scale.

Shunka wrote:

This is a reductio ad absurdum. First, it assumes that all autonomist 'justice' is systematically the same. Second, it equates punishment based on the opinions of members of the affected community with murder trials involving the deceased's family and friends. If you actually look at what happens in the modern U.S. court system you will find that a great deal of opinion-swaying is the core of what really happens in a jury trial, and (SHOCK) juries are supposedly drawn from the community in which the crime took place. Which isn't saying this is necessarily a good thing. Look at how poorly it works in actual practice in 'modern courts...'

Reductio ad absurdum is valid a method of argument. It takes a set of premises and stretches them to their logical conclusion. If the conclusion is [i]absurd[/i], then necessarily the premises must be wrong. To use reductio ad absurdum does not mean an argument is flawed. That said, the relevant passage is: [i]"When it comes to crime and conflict, anarchists also have a much different take on resolution. The most immediate thing is that pissing off other anarchists can very quickly tank your rep score. “Punishment” for crimes is largely considered a barbaric holdover from the past. If someone is acting in an anti-social manner, odds are there is a reason for it and they need help. [b]A typical anarchist response will be to select an impartial group of peers from the affected community[/b] to assess a situation, with rehabilitation and conflict resolution overseen by volunteers from a community crisis center as the preferred method of handling offenders. [b]Justice is also held as important, and the opinion of the person who is the victim of a crime is strongly considered.[/b]"[/i] As to your claims that opinion-swaying is a a great deal of what happens, that doesn't mean it's a good thing. The fact that opinion-swaying with emotional arguments is a major factor in courts is a significant problem. The fact that Rimward feels the need to stress that the opinions of the victim are taken into account tells me that opinion-swaying with emotional arguments is an [i]even greater[/i] problem with their typical legal system. This is something I consider a pretty horrifying aspect of the way anarchist society is described (or rather, I consider it horrifying that whoever wrote it thinks it's a good idea!). As for the claim that their juries and judges are selected from the affected community being a flaw, I'll concede that it was an uncharitable reading; my first impression was that this meant that the [i]ad hoc[/i] legal body was comprised of people who'd been affected by the crime (e.g. murder victim's friends, family, and co-workers), rather than "affected community" in the larger sense of "up to millions of people on Locus".

Shunka wrote:

Anybody can be insular. The United States is hardly an example of a non-insular nation. I am not sure what you're getting at here...

The anarchists are explicitly noted as sometimes particularly insular and unfriendly to visitors. While not exactly the most striking flaw of their society, or a universal one, it's not a good thing either. ([i]Rimward[/i] practically bends over backwards to say the anarchists accommodate people with ill intent, just so the precious anarchists can be the victims of capitalist oppression. They're so nice, it's a curse...)

Shunka wrote:

This is kind of a straw man argument. People in military installations tend to be military. Generally speaking, civilians don't sit around in military installations. The Jovians, notably, are engaged in a cold war with the entire rest of the system, and choose not to stack and rack themselves for their own religious reasons. Note that the PC includes hypercorps which execute and "burn out" people in their homes (habitats) for copyright infringement.

Firstly, a straw man argument requires that someone construct a flawed argument to tear it down, in order to denounce a related argument. This is not what's happening here, as no-one are mis-representing another party's argument in order to denounce it. If anything, you're the one doing the strawmanning, since you're claiming that it's a strawman argument when it's not! :P Again, when discussing the flaws of the Autonomists as flaws of the anarchists, the fact that someone, somewhere, are worse is not a particularly good rebuttal. At it's core, it's the "bigger problems elsewhere" fallacy, also known as the "children starving in Africa" fallacy; just because the PC and the Jovians are mustache-twirlingly evil and tie sylphs to the monorail tracks while cackling manically, does not mean that problems in Autonomist society are insignificant. It'd be like saying that the NSA spying on people is not a problem because North Korea are even more invasive of privacy. Secondly, I think it's important to keep in mind that military installations have both significant civilian staff, and that anyone who has not been part of the military in the JR are second-class citizens; to then say that everyone who aspires to not be a second-class citizen are fair game to permanently murder just because they're part of a society the JAC disagree with is... questionable. Secondly, the callousness of the JAC, wherein they expose civilians to risk and kill them with discriminating bombs, does not reflect well on them. That the JAC then are part of the Autonomist Alliance (at least they're implied to be; [i]Rimward[/i] does not distinguish between anarchists who are and aren't part of the AA), and hence terrorist bombings are an aspect of the AA. As to ShadowDragon's dogmatic defence of the JAC's actions, it does not say that the civilians were [i]on[/i] or [i]near[/i] a military installation. This is particularly important because the JAC are noted as also attacking state and religious institutions. In fact, the full line is [i]"With the exception of military targets, whom they regard as fair game given a declared state of war, the JAC tries to avoid civilian and citizen casualties by sending warnings ahead of bombings. They lost a significant portion of their popular support, however, when some of their bomb attacks resulted in dozens of permanent deaths. The cells claim in two of these instances that they issued warnings[...]"[/i] - the JAC attacked a [i]civilian[/i] target, and ended up killing [i]civilians[/i]. In particular, Article 56 and 53 of Protocol I outlaw among other things attacks on places of worship - the JAC are committing explicit war crimes. These are not the actions of freedom fighters unfairly labelled terrorists; these are the actions of terrorists who bomb civilians.

Shunka wrote:

I am still not sure how this is different from indenture in the PC? Same sort of thing can happen. Worse, you can buy out your indenture and find yourself in a morph which is addicted to expensive GSPs, stuck working in a company town, racking up loans against your own education to bring you up to speed on the present (if you're an infugee), your housing, the cost of your tools and uniform, etc. If you aren't familiar with 'wage slavery' I would strongly suggest that you look into it.

Again, this doesn't mean that approval of slavery isn't a problem with the AA.

Smokeskin wrote:

ShadowDragon8685 wrote:

Also, autonomists do have methods of regulating the behavior of others, if and when it becomes necessary:

I agree, they have - but (and I'm not saying you think otherwise, I think we agree on this) compared to systems with government, anarchists are going to be a lot more tolerant in general. If for nothing else, the fact that instead of just ticking off a box every few years and then someone else hires a police officer to do the dirty work for you, an anarchist will actually have to go to do something about the problem themselves and hope that everyone else will be ok with it, [u]and that just makes it a lot harder to stick your nose in everybody else’s businesses. It’s not something you do unless its important.[/u]

Right. And that’s a [b]good[/b] thing, not a [i]criticism[/i] of the Anarchists! You’re trying to label a [i]selling point[/i] as a flaw, which would be like General Motors trying to turn people off Chrysler products by saying “They sure do waste an awful lot of money, space, and weight in their cars with extra airbags, don’t they?” Because you [i]shouldn’t[/i] be regulating someone else’s business unless it’s important. If someone likes to get naked and cover themselves in raspberry jelly while doing [b]all the cocaine[/b] and have the freakiest sex imaginable with three someones of their own gender, all of whom they are married to, that is [b]none of anybody else’s fucking business[/b]. It only becomes other people’s business if their jam-slickened, cocaine-fueled lovemaking sessions start to negatively impact the habitat, such as if they space vast quantities of the hab’s raspberry jam (which can be recycled into anything else as needed,) or in their cocaine-fueled ardor decide it would be a good idea to smash up an atmosphere distribution center and fuck atop the metal boxes within.

Quote:

ShadowDragon8685 wrote:

Extropians? They’re easily the worst of the lot, because nowhere in the books does it suggest that signing a contract for security necessitates agreeing to behavior on your part, except inasmuch as if you get a judicial order handed down against you, your security contractor won’t intervene on your behalf, and if you initiate aggression against one of their other customers, they won’t hold back in terminating you like any other aggressor. They probably also have some language in there stating that if you run afoul of another security company because you initiated aggression against the other company’s customers, they won’t protect you, probably as part of the contracts they’ve signed with the other companies to prevent inter-mercenary warfare. Of course, if you’re willing to stump up for super-platinum contracts or your security contract with them was signed before those stipulations were in place and you somehow got it ironclad that only you could choose to not renew and only you could approve all terms, that might not be in there, obligating your security company to protect you from another one... Of course, if you don’t enter [i]into[/i] any contractual agreements, you can’t have an Extropian judicial order handed down against you, because [u]you have no contracts on which an Extropian judge can rule.[/u] Of course, anybody is free to attack you, too, which they absolutely [i]will[/i] because it’s like being a new guy with a perfect, hairless, peach-shaped arse in a prison shower in the United States: your ass is meat.

This is totally not how it works. Everyone is covered by the non-aggression principle. You can easily be without any security contract or legal insurance, have someone assault you, and then seek assistance afterwards and sue your attacker. Also, contracts only have relevance between individuals who have consented to them.

You need to get the fuck off your high horse, Smokeskin. That is [b]exactly[/b] how Extropia works. The [i]only[/i] thing you can get one of Extropia’s freelance judges to rule on is a contract breach. You can’t sue someone in an Extropian court if you don’t have a contract with them, even if they shoot you right in the god damn face, or shoot you up with all the roofies, bend your unconscious body over and rape you and broadcast it to the solar system! If they walk into your apartment, shoot your robot dog, cunt-punch your robo-wife so hard she shuts down, and rips your atmosphere recycling unit right out of the wall, and takes a gigantic dump on your dinner plate before leaving, there is [b]nothing you can do to them in an Extropian court[/b] if their actions haven’t breached some contract along the way! Of course, what you [i]can[/i] do is employ violence to stop them, but if they’ve already shot you in the face, roofied your medichine-stasis’d self and publicly (as possible) raped you before doing that, you’re highly unlikely to be able to do so, but hey, that’s what [i]your[/i] armed security contractor is supposed to be doing something about. Don’t have one? You probably should have signed on the dotted line when Medusan Shield suggested it. But you certainly can’t [b]sue[/b] him for it, unless somewhere in the myriad of contracts he [i]has[/i] signed, one of his contracts has a clause which says he won’t shoot people in the face, roofie them, rape them, shoot their robo-dogs, punch their robo-wives, steal their atmosphere recycling units, or take a dump on his dinner plate! And good luck seeking vengeance after you’ve been healed up (you [i]did[/i] remember to sign up with your friendly local medical cartel that they’d resuscitate you, right?,) because if he [i]does[/i] have a security contractor and you don’t, and his contracts don’t include any clauses stating that his contract will be terminated if he aggresses upon someone who doesn’t have a security contract, then they will actively defend him against you.

Quote:

ShadowDragon wrote:

But if he’s not endangering himself and others, who the fuck cares if he’s getting high as all fuck on a regular basis?

I completely agree. I’ll even let him hurt himself if that’s what he really wants (if he’s high and wants to walk off a ledge, he’s getting tackled though). I’m not going to be the judge over if he thinks the high is worth the damage to his brain, or the cigarettes are worth the lung cancer, or if his donuts are worth the diabetes, or whatever people do to themselves. But a lot of people, A LOT of people, they don’t agree with us on this.

Fuck ‘em.

Quote:

ShadowDragon wrote:

Gun control, in my opinion, means using [i]both[/i] hands and keeping your finger out of the trigger guard until you’re ready to dispense death. So quite frankly, I’d feel more secure on an anarchist habitat where I could walk around with a machine pistol that fires clouds of hypersonic flechettes at full auto mated to a device that very reliably incapacitated people on my hip, than I do walking the streets of my own hometown.

I think a lot of people have terrible gun safety behavior, and a lot of people have poor impulse control. If we are to have a society with regulation, gun control is actually one of those things I’m in favor of. That being said, I live in Denmark where guns are very, very rare and criminals are typically unlikely to have them. If I lived in the US where things are different, I might well feel safer with a gun than without. I heard an economist suggest that you should slap on a mandatory extra X (it was long, can’t remember the number) years to a sentence if you carried a gun while committing a crime - you didn’t have to use it, just carrying would give the extra sentence. That would give criminals a strong incentive to go unarmed while not harming law-abiding citizens. That seems like an optimal solution perhaps?

It really is not. They’ve actually enacted stupid laws like that here, and you know what? It doesn’t deter criminals at all. It has been proven, time and again, that the harshness of sentencing has no measurable effect [u]whatsoever[/u] on criminality. For those who are not pathological (IE, driven to crime by neurological problems,) the decision to behave criminally is based strictly on the likelihood of consequences, however harsh, versus need. When the likelihood of said consequences includes a strong chance that “the person I am attempting to prey upon is armed and will fight back with force,” criminality goes [i]way[/i] down. To get that kind of effect in a gun-controlled environment, you’d need to station a police officer on every corner and one in every building. It may seem like a paradox, but it is not. For the same reasons that a barbarian society is a very polite society (because insulting someone is inviting him to pick up his broadaxe and cleave your head from your shoulders; so it’s only something you’re going to do if you have vast power over him,) a well-armed society is a very safe society, because while the would-be criminal may have trivial access to firearms, [i]so does everyone upon whom he would consider preying[/i]. So sure, come on out to Guntopia, a friendly anarcho-collectivist station, get your standard issue Shredder-Stunner - if you feel like it, of course, nobody’s gonna tell you you can’t carry something else, or you have to carry anything at all, though we would prefer you did carry something, and which isn’t explosive. You’re in for a safe and pleasant stay.

Quote:

ShadowDragon wrote:

Who the hell gets to decide when a person should work beside that person, huh? What gives them the [i]right[/i] to dictate someone’s life like that? Sure, everybody should do their fair share of the work that keeps the habitat from turning into a shithole, but beyond that, fuck it.

I agree. But a lot of people feel differently about it. I also think that it is only fair that it is pointed out that if everyone pretty much only does the minimum amount of work needed to keep things running, then there’s going to be very little progress. I personally don’t think that justifies forcing people to work, but in the long term a more productive society would have achieved a lot more - a higher technology level, higher standard of living, more production capacity, etc. And that tends to hurt the very poor a lot more than those who are well off.

It doesn’t matter how well the rich are doing if the poor don’t have access to the things they do, they’re still living miserable fucking lives. Besides, technology and science and culture tends to [i]propagate[/i], which is how you can find Somali pirates comparing themselves to Jack Sparrow and taking selfies on their iPhones and Androids with their AK-47s and RPG-9s on the decks of their boats. Also, in an anarchist habitat, people are working - on the things they [i]love[/i] to work on. So a guy only puts in his four hours a week scrubbing the waste recycling tanks and then vanishes back to his cabin. He’s working on a novel that, if it were printed out on paper, would put The Ilead, Oddesy, War & Peace, the entire Wheel of Time and A Song of Fire and Ice and everything made by J.R.R. Tolkein - combined - to shame. And he publishes it freely on the matrix because he isn’t butthurt by the idea of people writing fanfics or making simulspace environments based on it, and he doesn’t give a fuck about credits. Or maybe he just spends all his free time running and playing Dungeons & Dragons 38th Edition with his friends, and looking forward to the release of D&D 39e next year*. So what? He’s still doing the things he loves. Maybe he’s the best damn game master in the solar system, maybe he’s the best on this hab, maybe he’s not even the best on his hab, it doesn’t matter. *I worked out that since its introduction 40 years ago, D&D averaged a new edition (discounting 3.5 and the box sets as not new editions,) every five years, then extrapolated back from 2143 to 2014.

Quote:

Shadowdragon wrote:

Smokeskin wrote:

[b]Anarchist Justice is terrible[/b] Rimward, on p. 157 mentions that the anarchists have a justice system where punishment is based on the opinions of the victim, and the judge, jury, defense and prosecution are all from the affected community (they're supposed to be impartial, but that's somewhat difficult if they're among those affected...) Which is to say murder trials involve of the deceased's family and friends for determining punishment, with obvious problems. The anarchist system of justice described seems to inherently favour emotional biases and cryonism far more than modern courts...

Um... Anarchists don’t have courts. That kind of flies in the face of everything which is anarchism. Anarchist justice, on the very rare occasion on which it is necessary at all, floweth from the barrel of a gun, and it comes because you managed to fuck up royal and turn the entire habitat against you. And even then, Anarchists are likely to think there’s something wrong with you and you need help, rather than just vengefully spacing your cortical stack.

I agree, not courts as such, but Rimward pg. 157: A typical anarchist response will be to select an impartial group of peers from the affected community to assess a situation, with rehabilitation and conflict resolution overseen by volunteers from a community crisis center as the preferred method of handling offenders. Justice is also held as important, and the opinion of the person who is the victim of a crime is strongly considered.

Ah, I’d forgotten about that. I w as thinking more of Scum justice. Anyway, so what? How is that terrible? Frankly, I’d rather face Anarchist justice than Consortium justice.

I think that there's a lot of great material to consider about the disadvantages of the various Autonomous Alliance groups in EP. However, as per Smokeskin's OP, the issue is why the autonomous groups may suck as expressly characterized and portrayed within the setting materials. Of course, some extrapolation and interpretation is required and discussion of whether something is actually a negative or positive is expected. We should nevertheless be mindful of not drifting into arguments about our personal opinions concerning the various political, social and economic systems. It doesn't matter if we happen to agree or disagree with the libertarian Extropians, techno-socialist Titanians, or the various independent anarcharist and scum groups. The issue here is what the authors officially present as the societal disadvantages of these groups within the EP universe.

Smokeskin wrote:

That is simply not how ancap works, as the links I provided show, and as any text I've seen on anarcho-capitalism describes and as any anarcho-capitalist I've ever talked to claim. Extropia is described as anarcho-capitalist. If they didn't have the non-aggression principle, the most central idea of anarcho-capitalism, I think they'd have been described as something else, or at least have a mention of it.

ShadowDragon8685 wrote:

Smokeskin wrote:

If they didn't have the non-aggression principle on Extropia, that would be a huge, huge issue. [u]Their society would be completely unfair and oppressive[/u], it would by and large be "might makes right" which is the exact opposite of their ideology.

NOW YOU’RE GETTING THE PICTURE! That is [b]exactly[/b] what Extropia is - a dog-eat-dog, might-makes-right unregulated hell-hole, where the only forces acting upon you is the legal force of any contracts you have or have not entered into, and the physical force of anyone whom you offend!

The whole idea of anarcho-capitalism is to protect people from the arbitrary violence and oppression from the state and those the state give that right to, like police officers, tax men, and the corporations that exploit people. To then replace it with the right for everyone to commit violence and oppression, it frankly makes no sense. What would the point of removing the NAP be? That the founders of Extropia wanted to see the transhuman ants run around stealing, killing and raping?

Smokeskin, although you may correctly be describing contemporary anarcho-capitalist thought and literature, I'm not certain that a non-aggression principle universally applies among all Extropians and those within their territory, although many may adhere to such a belief. In EP., p. 78, the text states,

Quote:

In Extropian society, law and security, like everything else, are contracted services. When entering an Extropian habitat, you purchase defense insurance from a local contractor such as Gorgon Defense Systems, who maintains automated drones and freelancers throughout the station who can come to your aid if threatened. Likewise, the only law that exists is what’s put into writing between two contracted parties. In case of disputes, both parties resort to a pre-agreed legal contractor to settle the matter. . .

This certainly indicates that your personal safety and security is certainly at risk if you do not purchase defense insurance, both from Extropians or other visitors to their habitats, who include individuals from both the inner and outer systems. I believe that most Extropians would not be particularly violent towards strangers, as this would most certainly be bad for business. Who wants to contract with psychopaths? This is also the reason why I think ShadowDragon's description of Extropia as a might-makes-right society is also inaccurate. I view most Extropians, who I imagine are a varied and interesting lot, as quite civilized, in their own way. Their (contracted) word is binding and good, their dealings open and generally straightforward, and the proliferation of legal and related judicial services a testament to non-violent resolution of disputes. As detailed in the sidebar on p. 24 of Rimward, even their contractual customs concerning indenture and slavery, although unsavory from our perspective, are not unnecessarily cruel and lack the blatant exploitation and uncertainty of the inner system factions.

Smokeskin wrote:

branford wrote:

This certainly indicates that your personal safety and security is certainly at risk if you do not purchase defense insurance, both from Extropians or other visitors to their habitats, who include individuals from both the inner and outer systems.

Absolutely. Compare it to your work as lawyer in real life - if the other side has legal insurance that will cover their costs, compared to the other side not being able to afford a lawyer and will have to rely on finding one who will do it pro bono or no cure no pay. The latter is often a weak, easy target. On Extropia, the same principle applies for criminal law and basic personal security, there's no DA or police officers paid by tax dollars. If you're knocked unconscious you can't even hire the security contractor right next to you - if he wants to rescue you, he'll have to take it on faith that you'll pay him anything. So getting a security contract and legal insurance is a VERY good idea. You're going to be a tempting target for criminals otherwise. But you're going to lose your rights to self defense or to sue your attackers.

All that may true, and is not a source of disagreement. Nevertheless, I cannot find anything in the text that is analogous to the overarching societal non-aggression principle that you describe. The fact that defense insurance is so vital among Extropians, and for personal safety and not contract enforcement, appears to contradict the principle. Also, as I'm certainly no expert on anarcho-capitalism, who exactly would enforce and maintain the necessary cultural "non-aggression." I can easily imagine that the custom and practice of Extropians in basically non-violence and respectability for business and contractual purposes, with the defense contractors acting as a sort of mutually assured destruction in the even of breach of etiquette. Additionally, criminal conduct might indicate a propensity to not strictly adhere to contractual terms. Distrust of criminals and the risk of mutual aggression, however, does not sound like universal non-aggression.

In general, it appears the independence of the less organised autonomist habitats and fleets are made possible by Titan's military clout at least as much as their sheer distance from the inner worlds. Not to mention apparent assistance from the Jovians who at best are "the enemy of my enemy".

"No service industry among anarchists A lot of people enjoy having other people to work for them, in some way or form. That’s not going to happen much among anarchists. They have AIs and robots, but their skill is maxed at 40 so you can't get quality work from them. The anarchists have the reputation economy, but favors are never going to amount to people doing as much work for others just because someone else is willing to pay for it, as you see in a capitalistic system. For the middle class and up anarchism seems to give a lower living standard." Just a quick point of order: Market economies and Capitalism are not co-equal entities. Capitalism is a form of market economy where singular ownership of the means of production is permitted. You could have a Socialist market economy, where Locke's 'mixing of labor with resources' is actually observed and a means of production is owned, wholly and completely, by everyone who works there. You could have a Chattel market economy, where low-level production is done by property, sentient or no. You could have a Central or Command market economy, like Walmart's internal economy (which is not only the size of some smaller countries but is frighteningly efficient, at the cost of nearing Chattel market economy moral territory.) The most efficient economy is the Command economy, the most free economy is Laissez-Faire (though ratcheting effects tend to turn these into either Command or Chattel economies rather quickly). Just some food for thought.

Thanks to the economic calculation problem, planned economies generally cannot be as efficient as market economies. (That might change with massive information collection and a superintelligent planner, though).

bblonski wrote:

A good example of Titanian recklessness when it comes to technology is the Cloud Holm project (Rimward p. 69). It was "one of the largest losses of transhuman life since the Fall." The project was plagued by delays and design issues and ended in disaster with the Commonwealth still figuring out who is responsible.

Obvious Jovian sabotage! Or TITANS! :)

Actually, all you need is a [i]goal[/i] or a totalitarian regime. Walmart has both, and it's internal economy is planned down to the mil. And like I said, it's frighteningly efficient. The proof is in its existence. Walmart is a huge corporation. It has internal logistical needs and divisions that would always prefer to have higher budgets than lesser ones. Therefore it has an internal economy. The Waltons have supreme executive, judicial and legislative power within the confines of the corporation, therefore the economy within Walmart is a command economy, where all budget decisions are made by the Waltons. So, given what we have above, we can now construct a logical chain of argumentation: Command economies are inefficient. BUT, Walmart's internal economy is command-style. It's command-style because it is under the total control of a small junta of absolute dictators. Inefficient economies lose out to more efficient economies. Inefficient economies are limited in their growth potential. BUT Walmart out-competes all of its competitors, and is not 'losing out'. BUT Walmart is the largest single corporation in the world, its growth potential is apparently limited only by the availability of patrons. THEREFORE: the statement 'command economies ARE inefficient' cannot be correct, because we have an extant example of one that ISN"T. And, we can safely generalize to all such corporations, as they are all run on roughly the same lines. Better to say that SOME command economies are inefficient, which IS true, but the same can be said for [i]any[/i] type of economy. An Open Market (different from a Free Market, which requires a strong central government) has no built-in protection from ratcheting effects, and so as time passes, becomes less and less efficient at supplying basic goods and services to those who aren't filthy rich.

Ataraxzy wrote:

Actually, all you need is a [i]goal[/i] or a totalitarian regime. Walmart has both, and it's internal economy is planned down to the mil.

Evidence that it's strictly internally planned?

Quote:

The proof is in its existence. Walmart is a huge corporation. It has internal logistical needs and divisions that would always prefer to have higher budgets than lesser ones. Therefore it has an internal economy. The Waltons have supreme executive, judicial and legislative power within the confines of the corporation, therefore the economy within Walmart is a command economy, where all budget decisions are made by the Waltons.

These claims seem to be in contradiction. If the Waltons strictly control all budget decisions, how are divisions able to compete with each other? Also, it's worth noting that Walmart's growth has been weak compared to that of its competitors over the last few years. It's ridiculously huge, but its potential for further growth is certainly limited. [img]http://media.ycharts.com/charts/7ed33b20ad48fad3640f07c1045a26c7.png[/img] ...not to get off-topic.