Welcome! These forums will be deactivated by the end of this year. The conversation continues in a new morph over on Discord! Please join us there for a more active conversation and the occasional opportunity to ask developers questions directly! Go to the PS+ Discord Server.

Official Downsides of the Autonomist Alliance

97 posts / 0 new
Last post
Thu, 2014-07-31 14:25
Leng Plateau Leng Plateau's picture
Autonomists and Walmart
I think that most autonomists would argue that Walmart is essentially a "failure state" of economics. Sure it's successful, profitable, and influential but at the cost of massive social control, lowered quality of life, and worker community benefits in exchange for the success, profit, and influence of a tiny minority. It's a matter of what you think an organization (governmental, corporate, or cooperative polity) is for.
—
At least with Lovecraft, nobody pretends the gods are nice. And wherever you end up, there is guaranteed to be tentacles.
Top
Thu, 2014-07-31 14:59
branford branford's picture
Leng Plateau wrote:I think
Leng Plateau wrote:
I think that most autonomists would argue that Walmart is essentially a "failure state" of economics. Sure it's successful, profitable, and influential but at the cost of massive social control, lowered quality of life, and worker community benefits in exchange for the success, profit, and influence of a tiny minority. It's a matter of what you think an organization (governmental, corporate, or cooperative polity) is for.
[Oh boy, I really, really do not want to get into something even resembling a social policy and economics debate . . .] An a member of the PC, LLA or even Morningstar would argue that they efficiency, size and success of entities like Walmart, whose main customers are actually at the lower end of the socio-economic spectrum, to both have access to necessities and luxury goods that were otherwise unavailable, and at much a lower and affordable cost, thereby demonstrably improving their standard of living. Besides, if you don't like Walmart for whatever reason, you can always take your business to Target, Sears, Costco, etc. In a command economy, if the government runs out of toilet papers or milk, you're out of luck. Even the authors of EP begrudgingly concede that the vast majority of inner system citizens are not exploited workers and slaves, but rather are content and live very comfortable and safe lives. (Sunward, p, 153).
Top
Thu, 2014-07-31 17:59
uwtartarus uwtartarus's picture
How is Walmart considered a
How is Walmart considered a success when much of its revenue comes from food stamps and similar welfare AND it forces the burden of maintaining the lives of its own employees on the surrounding state. To use Walmart as an example would require some manner of self-sufficiency but it lacks that. It is wholly dependent on the State both for tax write offs and for supplying its workers with "supplemental income." (Forgive me for encouraging this off-topic divergence)
—
Exhuman, and Humanitarian.
Top
Thu, 2014-07-31 23:01
Chernoborg Chernoborg's picture
Here's one that occurred to
Here's one that occurred to me : encroachment. In several locations throughout the AA there are actions being taken that are downright antithetical to the memes of the AA but nothing can be done because that would also be at odds with the memes of the AA ! The troubles at both Hamilton cylinders at Saturn and the building of Graupner alpha and beta at Oberon are prime examples of organizations making moves that work counter to the desires of the greater community. These aren't direct acts by hostile polities so no military intervention could be called on, just people making unfortunate choices. I'd have to say that I rather enjoy the Autonomists and particularly the anarchists as depicted. It's a refreshing change to see a functional anarchy instead of the stereotypical dystopian anarchy.
—
Current Status: Highly Distracted building Gatecrashing systems in Universe Sandbox!
Top
Thu, 2014-07-31 23:58
branford branford's picture
Chernoborg wrote:
Chernoborg wrote:
I'd have to say that I rather enjoy the Autonomists and particularly the anarchists as depicted. It's a refreshing change to see a functional anarchy instead of the stereotypical dystopian anarchy.
Of course, even the extremely sympathetic authors can only envision functional left-wing anarchies within a very technologically advanced, post-scarcity environment, living at the fringes of the solar system, and protected by the military of the state-loving socialists of the Titanian Commonwealth.
Top
Wed, 2014-08-06 05:16
ThatWhichNeverWas ThatWhichNeverWas's picture
This is what I get for on on holiday.
Urg, So many Words. I feel that making this thread about the autonomists in general was a mistake. The various factions that make up the AA, whilst having some points of commonality, are still largely disparate; arguments against the anarchists don't apply to the titanians, and those against the scum don't apply to the Extropians - consider ShadowDragon's rant against Extropia, which can be largely summed up as "They're not autonomists because they're not anarchists". Focusing on a specific subfaction would have made things much easier. On Extropia: Shadowdragon's right, there's no law there beyond that which you actively sign up for. Neglect to sign a contact, and there's nothing preventing you from being assaulted in the middle of a causeway. That said, that doesn't mean people will just let it happen. If a security agent sees you being assaulted, they may well intervene on your behalf - but they're in no means obligated to. If they help, it's purely out of the goodness of their heart, and they may well face charges if the person attacking you has signed a legal protection contract which allows that behavior. Extropia is not a nice place to live, though I understand and on some levels agree with the philosophies espoused. About the availability of weapons and how often they're used: Yes, weapons are largely available. I also believe that they see a lot of use - it doesn't take a lot for people to become violent, and people become aggressive at some really stupid things. Hell, take this thread. If this was an anarchist hab, most of us would probably have flesh wounds at least, and some would probably need resleeving. Note; need resleeving. That's the counter - the use of firearms no longer causes permanent damage. You simply loose the morph you were wearing If you shoot someone, you're essentially leveling a fine. A shockingly painful fine, but a fine nonetheless. Which leads nicely to what I find is a big problem with anarchist habs, and many other autonomists: There Is No Private Ownership. Sounds fine, and many may see this as a good thing... until you consider that the morph you're wearing or the server you're running on obsensably fall under that group. This feeds back into what I was saying above: if you piss people off on an anarchist hab, they're well within thier rights to "repossess" your body, using Seeker Rounds if necessary. Or rather, you no longer have a right to object. Similarly, anyone can dick around with the server you're running, upload narcoalgorithms and generally screw you over. Sure, you can fight back with the same impunity, but not from any philosophical, ethical or legal basis beyond "might makes right". Now, this need not be the case. It way well be that your fellow inhabitants bauk at the idea of that level of violation... which leads me to my final point, which has been touched upon by every other You are completely dependent upon the goodwill of your peers. It way well be that you find yourself on an AA hab where people are friendly, peaceful and helpful. And you might not. In AA, there are no guarantees, no personal security. There are no common laws or rights, beyond the gloriously vague points of unity. Sure, you'll find glorious technoprogressive utopias, but also the darkest, blackest holes in the system where freedom has become the pyre upon which liberty burns. Habs where your body is taken from you because someone else "needs" it for an orgy, and they have a higher rep score than you, or one where everyone who arrives gets an alpha taken for phycosurgical experimentation as the price of entry, or one where the punishment for crimes such as knocking over someone's drink is being eaten alive. And have fun trying to leave, because - whilst you technically can at any point - you need the rep to get time on the farcaster, and everyone really wants you to stay. Forever and ever and ever...
branford wrote:
Of course, even the extremely sympathetic authors can only envision functional left-wing anarchies within a very technologically advanced, post-scarcity environment, living at the fringes of the solar system, and protected by the military of the state-loving socialists of the Titanian Commonwealth.
It's almost as though socialist societies are only feasible in a post-scarcity environment, in which case they are preferable to capitalist ones which function best in moderate to low scarcity environments :P
—
In the past we've had to compensate for weaknesses, finding quick solutions that only benefit a few. But what if we never need to feel weak or morally conflicted again?
Top
Thu, 2014-08-07 23:51
Surly Surly's picture
ThatWhichNeverWas wrote:Note;
ThatWhichNeverWas wrote:
Note; need resleeving. That's the counter - the use of firearms no longer causes permanent damage. You simply loose the morph you were wearing If you shoot someone, you're essentially leveling a fine. A shockingly painful fine, but a fine nonetheless.
I'll add that between the stress of experiencing and resleeving, this is quite likely to damage your mental health. The Morph Recognition Guide points out something that's easy to overlook - the Rover, a standard police morph in the inner system, [i]doesn't have nonlethal weapons.[/i] The Jovians modify it, "since we can’t just mow down civilians the way the rest of the system can." From the books I rather doubt that there's as much police brutality in autonomist habitats as in the inner system. Certainly anarchist habitats would have none at all. But if there's more overall lethal violence in autonomist habitats, think of what that'll do to the population's sanity. And if more and more people around you are going crazy... it's lucky that no scum swarms have collapsed into Dwarf Fortress-style tantrum spirals.
Top
Fri, 2014-08-08 03:19
Pyrite Pyrite's picture
Surly wrote:
Surly wrote:
And if more and more people around you are going crazy... it's lucky that no scum swarms have collapsed into Dwarf Fortress-style tantrum spirals.
Actually, I figure that this does happen from time to time, leading to a constant but small supply of abandoned habitats and ships adrift.
—
'No language is justly studied merely as an aid to other purposes. It will in fact better serve other purposes, philological or historical, when it is studied for love, for itself.' --J.R.R. Tolkien
Top
Fri, 2014-08-08 06:56
ORCACommander ORCACommander's picture
there is always just that one
there is always just that one guy who goes secretive and no one will give him what he wants....
Top
Fri, 2014-08-08 11:00
thebluespectre thebluespectre's picture
And anybody who starts making
And anybody who starts making unreasonable demands will find booby-traps installed in their bedroom.
—
"Still and transfixed, the el/ ectric sheep are dreaming of your face..." -Talk Shows on Mute
Top
Tue, 2014-08-12 08:42
ThatWhichNeverWas ThatWhichNeverWas's picture
They called me mad! Me! MAD! i'lL sHow THeM WhO'S mAD!!!
Especially those jerks who keep trying to constrain thier freedoms with hatespeech like "That's immoral", "You'll never get away with this", or "Please stop, it hurts". Those bastards. Like Pyrite said, I imagine autonomist habs go dark on a regular basis, and finding out why is Firewall's most common, basic task. Funnily, you can actually use this to justify the generally positive view of AA habs via evolutionary pressure; "bright" habs survive, and their ideas are used when new habs are founded, where habs that go bad remove themselves from circulation and/or reality. ... And now I want to run a campaign where the BBEG is deliberately making habs go wrong in order to find out how to manipulate that process.
—
In the past we've had to compensate for weaknesses, finding quick solutions that only benefit a few. But what if we never need to feel weak or morally conflicted again?
Top
Tue, 2014-08-12 11:13
Smokeskin Smokeskin's picture
ThatWhichNeverWas wrote:Urg,
ThatWhichNeverWas wrote:
Urg, So many Words. I feel that making this thread about the autonomists in general was a mistake. The various factions that make up the AA, whilst having some points of commonality, are still largely disparate; arguments against the anarchists don't apply to the titanians, and those against the scum don't apply to the Extropians - consider ShadowDragon's rant against Extropia, which can be largely summed up as "They're not autonomists because they're not anarchists". Focusing on a specific subfaction would have made things much easier. On Extropia: Shadowdragon's right, there's no law there beyond that which you actively sign up for. Neglect to sign a contact, and there's nothing preventing you from being assaulted in the middle of a causeway. That said, that doesn't mean people will just let it happen. If a security agent sees you being assaulted, they may well intervene on your behalf - but they're in no means obligated to. If they help, it's purely out of the goodness of their heart, and they may well face charges if the person attacking you has signed a legal protection contract which allows that behavior. Extropia is not a nice place to live, though I understand and on some levels agree with the philosophies espoused.
This is simply not true. Even if there is no contractual agreement between 2 parties, the non-agression principle still applies. It always does, just like private property rights also always apply. You can't hurt people, and you can't steal. You are right that a security agent is not obligated to help if he sees an attack. But if he (or any one else) did intervene to stop an assault, they would not face charges, no matter what sort of legal protection contract the attacker has made. The exception is of course if it was not an actual attack that someone needed to be defended from - just like how today a police office or person acting in self defense could face charges for excessive use of force.
ThatWhichNeverWas wrote:
Which leads nicely to what I find is a big problem with anarchist habs, and many other autonomists: There Is No Private Ownership. Sounds fine, and many may see this as a good thing... until you consider that the morph you're wearing or the server you're running on obsensably fall under that group. This feeds back into what I was saying above: if you piss people off on an anarchist hab, they're well within thier rights to "repossess" your body, using Seeker Rounds if necessary. Or rather, you no longer have a right to object. Similarly, anyone can dick around with the server you're running, upload narcoalgorithms and generally screw you over. Sure, you can fight back with the same impunity, but not from any philosophical, ethical or legal basis beyond "might makes right".
Again, not true. Anarchists recognize personal property rights. This means the stuff you use, your tools, the house you live in, etc. The lack of private property rights means you don't have a right to stuff you don't use. As to might makes right - that goes for any society. In democracies, the politicians and police exercise that right all the time. Criminals exercise that right too. Everyone does. The same on anarchist habs. Just because there's no government, that doesn't mean everyone can just dick around like they want to. Anarchists have tribunals, volunteer militia, engaged citizens and such to deal with troublemakers.
ThatWhichNeverWas wrote:
Now, this need not be the case. It way well be that your fellow inhabitants bauk at the idea of that level of violation... which leads me to my final point, which has been touched upon by every other You are completely dependent upon the goodwill of your peers. It way well be that you find yourself on an AA hab where people are friendly, peaceful and helpful. And you might not. In AA, there are no guarantees, no personal security. There are no common laws or rights, beyond the gloriously vague points of unity. Sure, you'll find glorious technoprogressive utopias, but also the darkest, blackest holes in the system where freedom has become the pyre upon which liberty burns. Habs where your body is taken from you because someone else "needs" it for an orgy, and they have a higher rep score than you, or one where everyone who arrives gets an alpha taken for phycosurgical experimentation as the price of entry, or one where the punishment for crimes such as knocking over someone's drink is being eaten alive. And have fun trying to leave, because - whilst you technically can at any point - you need the rep to get time on the farcaster, and everyone really wants you to stay. Forever and ever and ever...
What you're describing here isn't really anarchism or any of the other autonomist alliance factions, by any definition. Anarchism isn't just chaos and the law of the jungle.
ThatWhichNeverWas wrote:
branford wrote:
Of course, even the extremely sympathetic authors can only envision functional left-wing anarchies within a very technologically advanced, post-scarcity environment, living at the fringes of the solar system, and protected by the military of the state-loving socialists of the Titanian Commonwealth.
It's almost as though socialist societies are only feasible in a post-scarcity environment, in which case they are preferable to capitalist ones which function best in moderate to low scarcity environments :P
Isn't this covered in the low productivity and weak military criticisms of anarchism?
Top
Fri, 2014-08-15 09:47
ThatWhichNeverWas ThatWhichNeverWas's picture
Must...stay...on...topic...
Smokeskin wrote:
Even if there is no contractual agreement between 2 parties, the non-agression principle still applies. It always does, just like private property rights also always apply. You can't hurt people, and you can't steal.
Okay, I'm 95% sure that there's a piece in one of the books directly addressing this, but I can't find it for the life of me, so I'll concede the point. For now :P
Smokeskin wrote:
Again, not true. Anarchists recognize personal property rights. This means the stuff you use, your tools, the house you live in, etc. The lack of private property rights means you don't have a right to stuff you don't use.
They recognize personal property, but no one said anything about attaching rights to it. More importantly, “personal property” isn't something with a solid definition, and can vary from hab to hab. On one, it might by anything you used favours to acquire, on another it's anything created from materials you acquired yourself, on another it's only things you actually brought with you when you first arrived, as everything else was created with community materials and is as such community property. It may only count as personal property if you can carry it with you, or carry it in one hand, or contains not electronics... the possibilities are endless, and there's absolutely no guarantee that the morph you're inhabiting is covered by it, especially if it was already onboard and you simply resleeved into it. As for might makes right, are you saying that if someone spills a drink on me then I'm justified in breaking their elbows and knees with a tire iron? Please note, I'm not talking about the fact that I would be subject to punishment, I'm talking about the acceptability of the act.
Smokeskin wrote:
What you're describing here isn't really anarchism or any of the other autonomist alliance factions, by any definition. Anarchism isn't just chaos and the law of the jungle.
Really? Because I barely changed anything from the standard, if at all. All that's required to lose your body for the orgy is for it to be considered community property, which means the community can decide to repossess it for other purposes – you weren't even in it at the time, so you can't argue that self ownership was violated. The same for cannibalism-ville, with a little playing around with what's considered appropriate punishment for unsociable behaviour, and the morality of cannibalism in an environment where bodies can be mass produced and the act doesn't involve the death of the individual; it's an extreme response but it's a hell of a deterrent, and I doubt they have repeat offenders. As for handing over an Alpha as a price for entry, all I had to decide was that there's a price for entry. Self ownership isn't violated as you have to consent before they do anything, and even then does self-owner ship even apply to a fork that doesn't exist yet? This illustrates my point quite well; all that I had to do was play around a little with what the concept of self-ownership means in the EP setting, and you consider the result actual anarchy. And really, if you're not exploring the concepts of ownership, rights and the boundaries of the self, then why are you using an anarchist hab in the first place?
Smokeskin wrote:
Isn't this covered in the low productivity and weak military criticisms of anarchism?
Branford was implying that anarchism is an unrealistic societal form, so I responded with the concept that the ideal form of a society is dependant upon it's environment instead of being something fixed.
—
In the past we've had to compensate for weaknesses, finding quick solutions that only benefit a few. But what if we never need to feel weak or morally conflicted again?
Top
Fri, 2014-08-15 13:48
Smokeskin Smokeskin's picture
ThatWhichNeverWas wrote
ThatWhichNeverWas wrote:
Smokeskin wrote:
Even if there is no contractual agreement between 2 parties, the non-agression principle still applies. It always does, just like private property rights also always apply. You can't hurt people, and you can't steal.
Okay, I'm 95% sure that there's a piece in one of the books directly addressing this, but I can't find it for the life of me, so I'll concede the point. For now :P
Any text on anarcho-capitalism or voluntaryism will explain the same concept. It is the very core of the ideology.
Quote:
Smokeskin wrote:
Again, not true. Anarchists recognize personal property rights. This means the stuff you use, your tools, the house you live in, etc. The lack of private property rights means you don't have a right to stuff you don't use.
They recognize personal property, but no one said anything about attaching rights to it. More importantly, “personal property” isn't something with a solid definition, and can vary from hab to hab. On one, it might by anything you used favours to acquire, on another it's anything created from materials you acquired yourself, on another it's only things you actually brought with you when you first arrived, as everything else was created with community materials and is as such community property. It may only count as personal property if you can carry it with you, or carry it in one hand, or contains not electronics... the possibilities are endless, and there's absolutely no guarantee that the morph you're inhabiting is covered by it, especially if it was already onboard and you simply resleeved into it.
Sure it can vary from hab to hab, just like laws vary between countries. As for absurd definitions of personal property like the idea that your morph could be repossessed because someone wants it for an orgy, that's like criticizing the principle of democracy because the majority could vote that everyone had to wear butt plugs.
Quote:
As for might makes right, are you saying that if someone spills a drink on me then I'm justified in breaking their elbows and knees with a tire iron? Please note, I'm not talking about the fact that I would be subject to punishment, I'm talking about the acceptability of the act.
Anarchists don't "accept" that might makes right, no. Perhaps the problem is that you think that only laws and governments can dictate that people should behave properly? Anarchists don't recognize that and believe that they're able to get along (and discipline those who can't) by themselves, without a government with laws and police.
Quote:
Smokeskin wrote:
What you're describing here isn't really anarchism or any of the other autonomist alliance factions, by any definition. Anarchism isn't just chaos and the law of the jungle.
Really? Because I barely changed anything from the standard, if at all. All that's required to lose your body for the orgy is for it to be considered community property, which means the community can decide to repossess it for other purposes – you weren't even in it at the time, so you can't argue that self ownership was violated. The same for cannibalism-ville, with a little playing around with what's considered appropriate punishment for unsociable behaviour, and the morality of cannibalism in an environment where bodies can be mass produced and the act doesn't involve the death of the individual; it's an extreme response but it's a hell of a deterrent, and I doubt they have repeat offenders. As for handing over an Alpha as a price for entry, all I had to decide was that there's a price for entry. Self ownership isn't violated as you have to consent before they do anything, and even then does self-owner ship even apply to a fork that doesn't exist yet? This illustrates my point quite well; all that I had to do was play around a little with what the concept of self-ownership means in the EP setting, and you consider the result actual anarchy.
Or we could have a democracy where it was decided that everyone who liked music got lobotomized. I just had to play around a bit with what the citizens will vote for. It's not much of an argument, is it?
Quote:
And really, if you're not exploring the concepts of ownership, rights and the boundaries of the self, then why are you using an anarchist hab in the first place?
There are many reasons, such as a desire to avoid the oppression of the state and its monopoly on violence. I have never heard anyone suggest anarchism so they could eat people or repossess their morphs for sexual gratification. That's in fact something that would be very difficult in anarchism, since there's not an efficient way of getting the power to pull off such things. It would be much easier in a society with scarcity, money and a monopoly on violence.
Top
Fri, 2014-08-15 16:40
uwtartarus uwtartarus's picture
Those were absurd examples.
Those were absurd examples. Not getting to hoard things, or sell one's labor is a downside to Anarchism, but having one's morph repossessed doesn't seem like something anyone is going to actually do. Especially since Anarchists, even the traditional (non-Scum) AnCol types place a heavy emphasis on individual autonomy, that is why they abolished the state, so no one could leverage a hierarchial authority over them.
—
Exhuman, and Humanitarian.
Top
Sun, 2014-08-17 03:19
Erulastant Erulastant's picture
The morph confiscation issue
The morph confiscation issue actually has nothing to do with anarchism. It's a potential consequence of separability of self and body. If your body is just a tool that you can switch out there's a lot less justification for bodily autonomy rights than we have nowadays. That said, I think you'd have to take an exceptionally loose definition of personal property for that not to include your morph. (Especially if you're sleeved in it. I can see people putting your morph to use if you're desleeved and egocasted elsewhere for some reason, but while you're in there? Nah.) And it's not like the inner system is any better in this respect. I'm guessing at least 6/10 people are still in mortgaged morphs which could get foreclosed or repossessed if they miss some payments.
—
You, too, were made by humans. The methods used were just cruder, imprecise. I guess that explains a lot.
Top
Sun, 2014-08-17 04:25
LatwPIAT LatwPIAT's picture
Erulastant wrote:And it's not
Erulastant wrote:
And it's not like the inner system is any better in this respect. I'm guessing at least 6/10 people are still in mortgaged morphs which could get foreclosed or repossessed if they miss some payments.
Is this speculation, or do you have any evidence from the books for this claim?
—
@-rep +2 C-rep +1
Top
Sun, 2014-08-17 08:08
Lorsa Lorsa's picture
LatwPIAT wrote:Erulastant
LatwPIAT wrote:
Erulastant wrote:
And it's not like the inner system is any better in this respect. I'm guessing at least 6/10 people are still in mortgaged morphs which could get foreclosed or repossessed if they miss some payments.
Is this speculation, or do you have any evidence from the books for this claim?
The part that says 'I'm guessing' should be a clue that it is speculation. :)
—
Lorsa is a Forum moderator [color=red]Red text is for moderator stuff[/color]
Top
Sun, 2014-08-17 09:10
ShadowDragon8685 ShadowDragon8685's picture
I wouldn't say that
I wouldn't say that anarchists are completely unwilling to forcibly separate someone from their morph. It would be pretty extreme, though, especially if you've been in that morph a long while (less extreme if, say, you're a tourist who egocast in last week.) Basically, you just have to piss off a large enough collective of people (which may be as few as "one", or as many as "the entire damn habitat,") who are so pissed-off at you that they're willing to risk potentially being violently rebuffed by any members of their habitat who don't agree with them, as well as reputation hits, to hunt you down like a dog, subdue you nonlethally (bearing in mind that if you have medichines, shredder blasts to the chest are technically a non-lethal injury,) drag your ass in chains or on life support, whichever is applicable, down to the healing tanks with ego bridges in them, and convince the operators to forcibly desleeve you. It's a bit of a judgement call, really, based on who you are and how odious you are to the rest of the habitat, versus how odious it is to violate someone's autonomy in such a grandiose fashion. The greater the @-Rep disparity between you and the highest @-Rep in the group who wants to ride your ass off the hab on a beam, the more likely everyone else is to stand aside and content themselves with throwing @-Rep pings at the guy who's doing it. If they [i]really[/i] don't like you (If your @-Rep is nonexistant, for example, and you've done something in the past which is largely objectionable to autonomists,) the guys doing this may not even face many pings. Scum will tend to be more permissive of this; if someone with a high @-Rep decides he wants to airlock, then forcibly desleeve and eject someone who has a nonexistant @-Rep, they're not likely to ask questions, while Collectivists will demand you at least tell them what they actually did before letting you forcibly desleeve someone. Extropians, of course, don't give a fuck, and if the guy didn't have a security contract, well, that's too bad. Of course, actually contracting a body bank willing to forcibly desleeve a contractless guy you shanghaied may be tricky, but if you're the sort of person who makes a habit out of hijacking people and forcibly desleeving them, you probably have your contacts, and of course, Titanian law enforcement would not stand for that shit. I don't imagine Titan being willing to forcibly desleeve anybody, unless they're so heinously dangerous with a morph and criminally irredeemable or insane that there's no hope of rehabilitation, not even by extreme methods like psychosurgery. (Think Hannibal Lector.) Bear in mind, though, these are going to be very rare events. My players brushed up against it once, when a very noted anti-everything-corporate-and-especially-anti-indenture Scummer messaged one of the players in my group, crowing to her that he'd found a jackass who'd held indentures in the past, and unlike all those Extropian bastards who float through the Swarm that the other Scum won't tolerate him going after, this one was Martian, had an @-Rep of 0, and nobody would lift a finger to save him. So he invited her (the player) to the lynching, in those words; he was planning to drag the guy to an airlock in chains, inject him with medichines if he didn't have them already to ensure the morph survived, tie him down and airlock him until the medichines were only keeping the body technically alive, then drag him to a body bank to have him desleeved and kicked back to Mars on a beam. Bear in mind, this wasn't someone who'd egocast to the Swarm, but someone who'd boarded physically, with his own body. That was a very extreme example, though, and after one of the other players stood up for the fellow (his friend,) and made it clear that literally the only way they were getting at him was over his dead body (@-Rep of 80+, and a Titanian naval officer to boot,) the NPC who was eager to get his (former) slaveholder-lynching on backed down. (And in the aftermath of that, he suffered @-Rep hits when someone with a high @-Rep exposed his thuggish glee and behavior to the rest of the Swarm.) A lesser form of this is possible, and alluded to in the books, if, for instance, you make yourself an absolute unwelcome nuisance, but not so unwelcome that they're willing to exile you, the collective may decide that someone who is currently not instantiated needs your body more than you do, and may decide to desleeve you to infomorph life so they can instantiate the other person, and if you happen to shape up later on, well, they'll consider putting you back in a body. Again, though, these are very, very extreme measures. You have to either be very low/nonexistant @-Rep yourself [i]and[/i] piss off influential, high-rep anarchists badly enough for them to want to see the last of you that they're willing to suffer severe @-Rep penalties (8-10) to do so, or you have to piss off [i]literally the entire habitat[/i], badly enough that throwing @-Rep pings at you, or coming by and roughing your ass up on the night cycle, won't satisfy them. And anarchists are fairly hard to piss off that badly.
—
Skype and AIM names: Exactly the same as my forum name. [url=http://tinyurl.com/mfcapss]My EP Character Questionnaire[/url] [url=http://tinyurl.com/lbpsb93]Thread for my Questionnaire[/url] [url=http://tinyurl.com/obu5adp]The Five Orange Pips[/url]
Top
Sun, 2014-08-17 22:08
Erulastant Erulastant's picture
Lorsa wrote:LatwPIAT wrote
Lorsa wrote:
LatwPIAT wrote:
Erulastant wrote:
And it's not like the inner system is any better in this respect. I'm guessing at least 6/10 people are still in mortgaged morphs which could get foreclosed or repossessed if they miss some payments.
Is this speculation, or do you have any evidence from the books for this claim?
The part that says 'I'm guessing' should be a clue that it is speculation. :)
I was just speculating. Although I had forgotten how dirt-cheap synths and splicers were, so that estimate was probably high.
—
You, too, were made by humans. The methods used were just cruder, imprecise. I guess that explains a lot.
Top
Mon, 2014-08-18 03:05
uwtartarus uwtartarus's picture
I feel like it is equally
I feel like it is equally speculative to claim anarchists will repurpose your morph as it is to claim that the capitalists will. In that, sure, I guess it is possible but maybe I am naive in thinking that people will not go that far. Granted, if your indenture contract puts your morph in the fine print, well that's your loss, contracts are sacred and trump any shred of decency, right?
—
Exhuman, and Humanitarian.
Top
Mon, 2014-08-18 03:35
branford branford's picture
uwtartarus wrote:Granted, if
uwtartarus wrote:
Granted, if your indenture contract puts your morph in the fine print, well that's your loss, contracts are sacred and trump any shred of decency, right?
Are you referring to the inner system capitalists or the Extropians of the AA? :P At least with a contract, you know exactly where you stand and willingly incurred the risks. A stable legal system such as the PC or Commonwealth also provide predictability. I admit that I understand the perceived increased risk to a morph in a anarchist habitat, particularly when such morph is not considered private property and you are subject to the whims of other individuals and/or the collective. As for finding any "decency" among humanity in EP (or today), regardless of polity or political persuasion, well, good luck with that . . .
Top
Mon, 2014-08-18 05:36
Smokeskin Smokeskin's picture
branford wrote:
branford wrote:
At least with a contract, you know exactly where you stand and willingly incurred the risks. A stable legal system such as the PC or Commonwealth also provide predictability.
Legal conflicts are certainly not predictable. It is also quite common for people to incur risks through a contract that they haven't thought of when they signed it (or that was unknowable and only became a risk with changing circumstances), or that they're unaware of the contract's interaction with the law. New legislation comes along, new precedent cases. And in the PC, the law isn't written for the benefit of the general citizens. Any legal system will have its share of such problems, but at least on Extropia the law is not dictated by an elitist government. When parties sign contract, only what is in the contract applies, and if they choose to have a private body of law apply to the contract, they can choose which one and such laws are shaped by market forces and customer demand, rather than dictated by the elite. They can also choose which judges to use for arbitration, so again you have choice and market forces, rather than the PC way of being forced to use the monopoly legal system (AFAIK we don't know their legal system works exactly, but political appointment of judges seem likely, and with the political system being corrupt, the judges most likely are too). Also on Extropia, there's going to be shareware AIs and you can't copyright legal AIs anyway, so even for the poor, getting at least half way decent legal counsel is an option, which means they'll be much more aware of the risks and obligations that comes with a contract. In the PC, legal counsel is going to cost credits the poor don't have. The Extropian legal system is likely to be more fair, consistent, and transparent and uphold the actual intent behind the deal being made. On anarchist habs, people might be fair, they might not be. In general you're not likely to be stuck with a deal that turns out to be unreasonable (in contrast to the occurence of perceived unfair rulings in traditional legal systems). A woman getting a 20 year mandatory jail sentence for firing a warning shot when assaulted by her violent husband, that's not likely to happen. Of course, it might lead to other types of unfairness (like "releasing" someone from a deal because they feel bad for the person having to deal with the consequences), but in general I think they'll be exchanging big injustices for small ones. It's not exactly a fun, predictable environment to do business in though, I agree with that. Overall, I think the people in the PC are getting the short end of the stick on this matter.
Top
Mon, 2014-08-18 05:49
LatwPIAT LatwPIAT's picture
uwtartarus wrote:I feel like
uwtartarus wrote:
I feel like it is equally speculative to claim anarchists will repurpose your morph as it is to claim that the capitalists will.
Anarchist communities repossessing your morph if they don't like you enough is a thing that's actually described as happening in [i]Rimward[/i]. It's not speculative at all.
—
@-rep +2 C-rep +1
Top
Mon, 2014-08-18 09:36
ShadowDragon8685 ShadowDragon8685's picture
I feel it may be important to
I feel it may be important to reprint these bits here... And thanks to a CC license, I can! [h1]CRIME AND JUSTICE[/h1] So you’ve arrived in your first anarchist hab and, like most first-timers, you may be put off by the fact that there are people wandering around with weapons hanging from their hips or that the corner fabber’s menu lists “Molotov” under its directory of cocktail choices. Or maybe you’re visiting a scum barge and are offered a cutting edge narcoalgorithm right as you step out the airlock. Or your muse gets pinged with the newest Experia OS, the one that’s still in beta back on Venus, and you may get to wondering, “Is this legal?” Anarchism doesn’t mean “do whatever the hell you want.” We have rules—not laws, but rules, guidelines, suggestions for behaviors. The difference is, unlike a law, they are mutable and often change from situation to situation. Also our rules are something we have arrived at by consensus, unlike the laws of many other habitats, which are often made by those in power to protect their interests without any feedback from the people who will be subject to those laws. Everyone in an anarchist habitat has had a say in the rules that will affect them. With no money and no need, there is no motivation to pursue many of the crimes that are common in inner system habitats, such as theft. With no laws, there is little in anarchist habitats that counts as crime. Nevertheless, there is occasionally “rule breaking” and anti-social behavior. Interpersonal violence is, of course, frowned upon, though small scale scuffles, such as a fight between friends, are surprisingly tolerated and viewed as a private personal dispute. Sometimes, people just need to brawl to get it out of their system. Murder or other savage attacks are taken more seriously, as is any sort of large-scale destruction. Most anarchist habitats have collectively decided to ban WMDs out of simple common sense.As a general guideline, anarchists consider ego crimes to be far more serious than violent offenses. Forknapping, non-consensual psychosurgery, cyberbrain or infomorph hacking, involuntary mental manipulation—these are the sort of things that will get a mob of angry locals on your neck right quick. Who responds when infractions occur? The community does. With no prohibitions on weapons, your average anarchist tends to be fairly well armed, and many will intervene if they see someone needing help or some other antisocial activity in progress. Most anarchist areas have volunteer militias that can be quickly mustered when needed to act in the community’s self-defense, backed up by a complement of heavily armed and armored security drones. Similarly, volunteer collectives also man the weapon systems that defend their colony from outside aggression. Most anarchist stations also practice transparency in public areas, enabling locals to keep an eye on potential problems. You might be able to print up some plastic explosives at that corner nanofab, but the entire local community will be alerted to the fact that you are doing so. 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. 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. Anarchists have no prisons, so an offender is expected to comply with a community’s judgment of their own free will. Those that don’t—or who are repeat offenders—will be rewarded with a quick ticket off the habitat and temporary or permanent exile. Some stations are known to ban those exiled from allied colonies. Only in the most extreme cases—mass murder, treason, slavery—have some anarchist communities been known to condemn someone to permanent death. [h1]I DON’T CARE ABOUT MY BAD REPUTATION[/h1] A lot of inner system visitors have trouble with the idea that their rep actually matters and that money isn’t worth shit here. While most people don’t have trouble keeping a good rep—after all, it only really requires that you act like a decent person—some people find it challenging not to express their innately antisocial behavior patterns. For these people, spending time aboard an autonomist hab can be a major pain in their ass. Some of them cease to care. These drop-outs can continue to eke out a life on the outskirts of our communities, but I doubt it is a fulfilling one. There are dangers to running with a low or negative rep score, especially on small habitats. If local morph availability happens to run low, the local community may decide that whatever skin or shell you’re walking around in should be reclaimed and redistributed to an ego that will be a more productive member of their community. Even as infomorph, a low rep score may mean that you’re confined to mesh areas where you won’t bother other egos and where you have minimal control of anything outside of your own processes. Sounds harsh? Maybe. But we’re not interested in indulging the selfish whims of petulant spoiled hypercorp execs here. This is a collective society, which means everyone pitches in, and everyone is equal and expects to be treated that way. If you want special treatment, you’re going to be waiting a long time, likely in mesh isolation, until you can get some non-autonomist hab to accept your immigration request.
—
Skype and AIM names: Exactly the same as my forum name. [url=http://tinyurl.com/mfcapss]My EP Character Questionnaire[/url] [url=http://tinyurl.com/lbpsb93]Thread for my Questionnaire[/url] [url=http://tinyurl.com/obu5adp]The Five Orange Pips[/url]
Top
Mon, 2014-08-18 14:16
branford branford's picture
Smokeskin wrote:branford
Smokeskin wrote:
branford wrote:
At least with a contract, you know exactly where you stand and willingly incurred the risks. A stable legal system such as the PC or Commonwealth also provide predictability.
Legal conflicts are certainly not predictable. It is also quite common for people to incur risks through a contract that they haven't thought of when they signed it (or that was unknowable and only became a risk with changing circumstances), or that they're unaware of the contract's interaction with the law. New legislation comes along, new precedent cases. And in the PC, the law isn't written for the benefit of the general citizens. Any legal system will have its share of such problems, but at least on Extropia the law is not dictated by an elitist government. When parties sign contract, only what is in the contract applies, and if they choose to have a private body of law apply to the contract, they can choose which one and such laws are shaped by market forces and customer demand, rather than dictated by the elite. They can also choose which judges to use for arbitration, so again you have choice and market forces, rather than the PC way of being forced to use the monopoly legal system (AFAIK we don't know their legal system works exactly, but political appointment of judges seem likely, and with the political system being corrupt, the judges most likely are too). Also on Extropia, there's going to be shareware AIs and you can't copyright legal AIs anyway, so even for the poor, getting at least half way decent legal counsel is an option, which means they'll be much more aware of the risks and obligations that comes with a contract. In the PC, legal counsel is going to cost credits the poor don't have. The Extropian legal system is likely to be more fair, consistent, and transparent and uphold the actual intent behind the deal being made. On anarchist habs, people might be fair, they might not be. In general you're not likely to be stuck with a deal that turns out to be unreasonable (in contrast to the occurence of perceived unfair rulings in traditional legal systems). A woman getting a 20 year mandatory jail sentence for firing a warning shot when assaulted by her violent husband, that's not likely to happen. Of course, it might lead to other types of unfairness (like "releasing" someone from a deal because they feel bad for the person having to deal with the consequences), but in general I think they'll be exchanging big injustices for small ones. It's not exactly a fun, predictable environment to do business in though, I agree with that. Overall, I think the people in the PC are getting the short end of the stick on this matter.
First, I have no problem including Extropians with state systems like the PC or Commonwealth as it may pertain to contract law. In Extropian habitats, the parties ability to choose how their contracts are interpreted and enforced, and by whom, is simply an extrapolation of current freedom to contract where the parties can voluntarily choose venue and jurisdiction for disputes and choice of law. The comparative issue (e.g., morph "repossession") involves a state regulatory framework and/or enforceable contract understandings vs. anarchist systems. As a commercial litigator with nearly 20 years experience, I can confidently state that contract disputes are some of the most predictable and anticipated legal matters in our justice system. The ability to freely contract, at least in the USA, is enormous and the laws governing interpretation are fairly standard, change very infrequently and are commonsensical and rationale. Most disputes arise because the parties intentionally left certain matters vague in order to reach agreement or because a party chose to breach due to changing circumstances that justified the conduct and only seek to minimize damages in litigation. I also believe that purported aberrations of justice like the warning shot news item you describe are far more likely to occur in an anarchist habitats. First, be very careful of ascribing an injustice without full knowledge of the facts. The issues surrounding the woman convicted in the warning shot case, for example, are far more complicated that blog entries or partisan anchors would lead you to believe. She was not convicted for firing a warning shot, but rather leaving the scene of a violent altercation, and then procuring a firearm, returning to the premises, and firing on the husband who was no longer a threat, while also endangering innocent children in the house. More importantly, the criteria and potential penalties for armed assault and endangerment are generally well known among a populace. In anarchist habitats, no matter how one attempts to rationalize or polish the descriptions and scenarios, is still mob justice with some appeals to human decency. Unless basic human nature demonstrably changes (or you wish to foolishly argue that anarchists are actually better people) that's really frightening. Never forget that mob justice used to be the norm throughout much of the world. We created courts and related criminal and civil justice systems because the prior results before were atrocious, unfair and inconsistent.
Top
Mon, 2014-08-18 16:41
Smokeskin Smokeskin's picture
branford wrote:
branford wrote:
As a commercial litigator with nearly 20 years experience, I can confidently state that contract disputes are some of the most predictable and anticipated legal matters in our justice system. The ability to freely contract, at least in the USA, is enormous and the laws governing interpretation are fairly standard, change very infrequently and are commonsensical and rationale. Most disputes arise because the parties intentionally left certain matters vague in order to reach agreement or because a party chose to breach due to changing circumstances that justified the conduct and only seek to minimize damages in litigation.
You're pretty much the first person I've heard suggest that legal conflicts and their outcomes are predictable. Are you saying you know which way rulings are going to go?
Quote:
I also believe that purported aberrations of justice like the warning shot news item you describe are far more likely to occur in an anarchist habitats. First, be very careful of ascribing an injustice without full knowledge of the facts. The issues surrounding the woman convicted in the warning shot case, for example, are far more complicated that blog entries or partisan anchors would lead you to believe. She was not convicted for firing a warning shot, but rather leaving the scene of a violent altercation, and then procuring a firearm, returning to the premises, and firing on the husband who was no longer a threat, while also endangering innocent children in the house.
Yes, she fired a warning shot at an abusive husband. That doesn't mean it was legitimate self defense, but 20 years for a warning shot? That's only because of mandatory minimum sentencing laws, and they come about because politicians think judges are too lenient in their sentencing when they "consider the surrounding issues".
Quote:
More importantly, the criteria and potential penalties for armed assault and endangerment are generally well known among a populace.
This is just plain false.
Quote:
In anarchist habitats, no matter how one attempts to rationalize or polish the descriptions and scenarios, is still mob justice with some appeals to human decency. Unless basic human nature demonstrably changes (or you wish to foolishly argue that anarchists are actually better people) that's really frightening. Never forget that mob justice used to be the norm throughout much of the world. We created courts and related criminal and civil justice systems because the prior results before were atrocious, unfair and inconsistent.
Well, as a transition from a system where an elite wields power and rules without limits, to a system where they have to rule through laws and government, that's an improvement. The anarchists are not suggesting to reintroduce an unfair power structure.
Top
Mon, 2014-08-18 17:39
branford branford's picture
Smokeskin wrote:branford
Smokeskin wrote:
branford wrote:
As a commercial litigator with nearly 20 years experience, I can confidently state that contract disputes are some of the most predictable and anticipated legal matters in our justice system. The ability to freely contract, at least in the USA, is enormous and the laws governing interpretation are fairly standard, change very infrequently and are commonsensical and rationale. Most disputes arise because the parties intentionally left certain matters vague in order to reach agreement or because a party chose to breach due to changing circumstances that justified the conduct and only seek to minimize damages in litigation.
You're pretty much the first person I've heard suggest that legal conflicts and their outcomes are predictable. Are you saying you know which way rulings are going to go?
Predictable simply refers to the fact that a dispute concerning the issue can be reasonably anticipated, and that the risks of loss are well known or generally well defined. Moreover, no prudent commercial lawyer would ever claim with any degree of certainty to their clients that they know how a court will rule, but privately most commercial litigators have a pretty good idea how a case will proceed. Litigation is more often than not an exercise in mitigation of damages, rather than liability. In fact, this is one of the primary reasons (the other being the cost of litigation) why virtually all civil cases, no less contract disputes, readily settle. This is true even in a non-commercial setting such as personal injury or product liability. Liability and risks are so well know that we have developed entire insurance industries around them. In fact, much of my work entails representing insurance companies suing other insurance companies simply to apportion responsibility for damages and legal fees.
Quote:
I also believe that purported aberrations of justice like the warning shot news item you describe are far more likely to occur in an anarchist habitats. First, be very careful of ascribing an injustice without full knowledge of the facts. The issues surrounding the woman convicted in the warning shot case, for example, are far more complicated that blog entries or partisan anchors would lead you to believe. She was not convicted for firing a warning shot, but rather leaving the scene of a violent altercation, and then procuring a firearm, returning to the premises, and firing on the husband who was no longer a threat, while also endangering innocent children in the house. Yes, she fired a warning shot at an abusive husband. That doesn't mean it was legitimate self defense, but 20 years for a warning shot? That's only because of mandatory minimum sentencing laws, and they come about because politicians think judges are too lenient in their sentencing when they "consider the surrounding issues".
Then you agree, regulatory schemes and contract certainly do create predictable and anticipated penalties for non-compliance. You simply do not like the penalties decided by democratically elected representatives. More importantly, why would the mob rule of anarchists produce a "better" result. In your warning shot case, if the husband had a high rep or the wife a poor rep, the danger to the children inflamed the mob, or the community had no knowledge of the husband's prior behavior, a 20 year incarcerative sentence (that is still subject to appeal) might be considered quite lenient to the justice that could be delivered by the mob.
Quote:
More importantly, the criteria and potential penalties for armed assault and endangerment are generally well known among a populace. This is just plain false.
Who doesn't know that you might face years in prison for an armed assault, no less when it endangers children? Furthermore, how many people really don't know that you cannot claim self-defense after you've wholly left a criminal or dangerous situation and you're no longer in danger only to return later armed with a rifle.
Quote:
In anarchist habitats, no matter how one attempts to rationalize or polish the descriptions and scenarios, is still mob justice with some appeals to human decency. Unless basic human nature demonstrably changes (or you wish to foolishly argue that anarchists are actually better people) that's really frightening. Never forget that mob justice used to be the norm throughout much of the world. We created courts and related criminal and civil justice systems because the prior results before were atrocious, unfair and inconsistent. Well, as a transition from a system where an elite wields power and rules without limits, to a system where they have to rule through laws and government, that's an improvement. The anarchists are not suggesting to reintroduce an unfair power structure.
[/quote] [/Quote]Are you really suggesting that being judged and sentenced by veritable mob is not an "unfair power structure"? Society has already experienced mob justice for most of our existence. Established laws and penalties, courts and legal procedures are considered a mark of civilization by most individuals, regardless of where they fall on the political spectrum. For instance, where and how does one appeal from the justice of the mob or collective? More importantly, an individual with a high rep leading a mob or pronouncing a sentence is no less a detestable "elite wielding power" than a tyrant, elected representative or independent judge.
Top
Mon, 2014-08-18 17:56
ORCACommander ORCACommander's picture
Also mobs are rarely rational
Also mobs are rarely rational and suffer from massive hivemind group think. Another form of mob is also known as a Riot :)
Top
Mon, 2014-08-18 18:07
branford branford's picture
ORCACommander wrote:Also mobs
ORCACommander wrote:
Also mobs are rarely rational and suffer from massive hivemind group think. Another form of mob is also known as a Riot :)
I do not even want to think about what happens in a community where a mob's rioting, vandalizing, looting, and one's morph is just considered property.
Top
Mon, 2014-08-18 18:07
branford branford's picture
DELETE - DUPLICATE POST
DELETE - DUPLICATE POST
Top
Mon, 2014-08-18 18:22
ORCACommander ORCACommander's picture
And if a habitat its an very
And if a habitat its an very tightly enclosed space :) I recommend reading Downbelow station for a description on what a habitat is like after riots break out. Septic is an understatement.
Top
Tue, 2014-08-19 03:33
Smokeskin Smokeskin's picture
branford wrote:Smokeskin
branford wrote:
Smokeskin wrote:
You're pretty much the first person I've heard suggest that legal conflicts and their outcomes are predictable. Are you saying you know which way rulings are going to go?
Predictable simply refers to the fact that a dispute concerning the issue can be reasonably anticipated, and that the risks of loss are well known or generally well defined. Moreover, no prudent commercial lawyer would ever claim with any degree of certainty to their clients that they know how a court will rule, but privately most commercial litigators have a pretty good idea how a case will proceed.
I've studied cognitive biases, and even experts are typically very bad at predicting outcomes, and what is perhaps worse, they wildly overestimate their own ability to predict the outcomes. IIRC the general picture is that when experts are asked to give a 98% confidence interval on a prediction, they typically give a range that is only an 80% confidence interval! And that's for largely datadriven sciences like medicine. And experts tend to be outclassed by a simple linear model with just a few (like 3 or 4) data points.
branford wrote:
This is true even in a non-commercial setting such as personal injury or product liability. Liability and risks are so well know that we have developed entire insurance industries around them. In fact, much of my work entails representing insurance companies suing other insurance companies simply to apportion responsibility for damages and legal fees.
Insurance companies use statistical models over large numbers of events. That is generally highly accurate. Predicting the outcome of a single case, that's a VERY different matter.
branford wrote:
Quote:
Yes, she fired a warning shot at an abusive husband. That doesn't mean it was legitimate self defense, but 20 years for a warning shot? That's only because of mandatory minimum sentencing laws, and they come about because politicians think judges are too lenient in their sentencing when they "consider the surrounding issues".
Then you agree, regulatory schemes and contract certainly do create predictable and anticipated penalties for non-compliance. You simply do not like the penalties decided by democratically elected representatives.
No, I don't agree that the people involved had an understanding (or even a knowledge) of the jail time they'd be facing. And the whole point of anarchism is that they think that politicians are oppressive.
branford wrote:
More importantly, why would the mob rule of anarchists produce a "better" result. In your warning shot case, if the husband had a high rep or the wife a poor rep, the danger to the children inflamed the mob, or the community had no knowledge of the husband's prior behavior, a 20 year incarcerative sentence (that is still subject to appeal) might be considered quite lenient to the justice that could be delivered by the mob.
Anarchists wouldn't say that their system would always guarantee a good result. But they'd argue that for a given population, anarchism would provide a better result than democracy. A society where flash mobs form and lynch a mother for firing a warning shot, that society would have politicians and laws that were even worse. It seems to work for our society: I think you'd agree that in current day western society, most would have let the woman in question get off with a very mild punishment - they'd consider the husband's prior behavior, and they'd consider the welfare of the children. But the courts gave her 20 years - the children weren't taken into consideration, and mandatory minimum sentencing forced the judge/jury to ignore the particulars of the case like the husband's prior behavior.
branford wrote:
Who doesn't know that you might face years in prison for an armed assault, no less when it endangers children? Furthermore, how many people really don't know that you cannot claim self-defense after you've wholly left a criminal or dangerous situation and you're no longer in danger only to return later armed with a rifle.
Let's take this case. Do you seriously believe that the mother knew she'd get 20 years when she did that? That she thought she wasn't justified in protecting her children in removing the husband from the house? That she though that a warning shot would constitute armed assault and trigger a mandatory 20 year sentence? I don't have much knowledge of the US self defense laws, but here in Denmark, there's a lot of misconceptions floating around (and from watching Jon Stewart, I'm pretty sure that there is in the US too - they get a lot of stuff wrong on that show). The following might not apply to the US. I've done a lot of martial arts, and even in those circles there's a complete lack of understanding of the legalities involved in self defense. You'll often hear people say that you should just go full throttle when trouble starts - hit hard, and keep hitting until you're sure he's not going to retaliate (and strangely enough, especially in "street self defense" systems). But that's totally false and it will get you in a lot of legal trouble, likely much more than you'd ever face from the assault. In reality, at the very moment that you think you have the upper hand, that you are no longer at risk, or where your opponent isn't willing and able to defend himself against your attacks any longer, you have to stop, because everything that happens after that is assault. Another thing most people don't know is that acts justified by surprise and agitation are legitimate self defense. There's also a lot of misconceptions about a requirement of symmetry in response - you can only use a knife if he has a knife, etc. There's no such requirement, neither in the law nor in the precedence cases.
branford wrote:
Quote:
Well, as a transition from a system where an elite wields power and rules without limits, to a system where they have to rule through laws and government, that's an improvement. The anarchists are not suggesting to reintroduce an unfair power structure.
Are you really suggesting that being judged and sentenced by veritable mob is not an "unfair power structure"? Society has already experienced mob justice for most of our existence.
People were barbaric in the past (and still are in many parts of the world). If we look at democracies, they were every bit as uncivilized. In the US, we could take slavery as an example. We could take the late 19th/early 20th century labor disputes where government forces gunned down protesting workers. During WWII all citizens of Japanese descent where imprisoned. And this in one of the unarguably most freedom-loving nations in the world. There could certainly be anarchist habs where there was primitive mob rule, fueled by immediate rage and justice metered out without considering the facts. But such a population, what sort of politicians would they vote for? Wouldn't they be similarly enraged by the superficial, emotion appealing presentation of single cases in election campaigns and elect political hotheads that passed draconian laws? In contrast, with a population that cares for due process, under anarchism they would ask (or force) the involved parties to calm down, explore the facts, and then take it from there. It is unfair when you try to compare democracy's finest with the worst of mob rule.
branford wrote:
Established laws and penalties, courts and legal procedures are considered a mark of civilization by most individuals, regardless of where they fall on the political spectrum. For instance, where and how does one appeal from the justice of the mob or collective?
That's an appeal to the masses fallacy. And we're discussing anarchists who certainly disagree that laws are a mark of civilization. If you want to appeal, you just talk to the people. There's nothing at all that says that anything decided has to stand. It's not like our legal system where if you've exhausted your appeals options, or you've been denied appeal, it's game over. The appeal system is infinitely easier in anarchism. And exactly how does one appeal an unjust law in a democracy? If Joe Jones, the single American adversely affected by a new law, wants to get a pass, what are his options? That the entire political changes the law just for his benefit? That's never going to happen. In anarchism, if the local people on the ground thinks its unfair for him, that's all that's needed to get a pass.
branford wrote:
More importantly, an individual with a high rep leading a mob or pronouncing a sentence is no less a detestable "elite wielding power" than a tyrant, elected representative or independent judge.
If we have a hab where the people believe that someone with high rep gets to oppress other people at will, then yes. But that's unlikely to be the case, given that they're anarchists who don't like oppression. Heck, even the current population in most western democracies don't believe that famous or rich people should get to do whatever they want. People tend to detest such behavior, and it is only within the confines of the democratic system that oppression is acceptable.
Top
Wed, 2014-08-20 06:31
ThatWhichNeverWas ThatWhichNeverWas's picture
Smokeskin wrote:Any text on
Smokeskin wrote:
Any text on anarcho-capitalism or voluntaryism will explain the same concept. It is the very core of the ideology. ... There are many reasons, such as a desire to avoid the oppression of the state and its monopoly on violence.
Except we weren't discussing the concepts of anarcho-capitalism or anarchism in general, we were discussing extropia and anarchist/autonomist habitats in specific. So I wasn't asking why you like anarchism, I was asking what the reason was to set a story on an anarchist habitat.
Smokeskin wrote:
As for absurd definitions of personal property like the idea that your morph could be repossessed because someone wants it for an orgy, that's like criticizing the principle of democracy because the majority could vote that everyone had to wear butt plugs.
I used an orgy as an example because it's a generally harmless activity which ties in to the “sexual freedom” theme associated with anarchist habs. I was trying to play up the consequences of the concept of the body being separate from the self combined with a collectivist society, where autonomy can be overriden should the community decide that doing so is in it's best interest. I'll post another thought about this below.
Smokeskin wrote:
Perhaps the problem is that you think that only laws and governments can dictate that people should behave properly?
Not at all. I simply believe that what I consider “proper” behaviour and what someone else does can be wildly different, and that without laws to act as a stabilizing influence the definition of suitable social conduct becomes protean.
Smokeskin wrote:
Or we could have a democracy where it was decided that everyone who liked music got lobotomized. I just had to play around a bit with what the citizens will vote for. It's not much of an argument, is it?
Depends. Are you arguing that under a democracy you may become shackled under legislature designed to enforce a specific mortality which may not coincide with your own, and face a potential punishment disproportionate to your crime? Because if yes, then it's a very good, accurate argument. Were I designing a dystopian democratic hab, that would look perfectly in place, perhaps linking the idea of music as a way of transferring memetic information and emotion as a targeting route for basalisc hacks, so the hab is attaempting to inhibit artistic expression in order to suppress the associated portions of the brain to imbue the residents with resistance against infection. Now, considering “ absurd definitions of personal property”...
uwtartarus wrote:
Not getting to hoard things, or sell one's labor is a downside to Anarchism, but having one's morph repossessed doesn't seem like something anyone is going to actually do.
Erulastant wrote:
That said, I think you'd have to take an exceptionally loose definition of personal property for that not to include your morph.
ShadowDragon8685 wrote:
It would be pretty extreme, though, especially if you've been in that morph a long while (less extreme if, say, you're a tourist who egocast in last week.)
I'll admit I was surprised that people have such a big problem with the concept. I mean, part of the reason I used it as an example was to evoke atavistic horror so I get that, but when you get down to it it isn't really that much of a violation, at least if it occurs painlessly. You lose your body... but you're not dead. You can get a replacement morph, of just stay as an infomorph for the duration, using virtualities or jammed rental bots/morphs should physical contact be required/desired. Your agency remains largely intact. In the case of loosing your morph for an orgy, you're even going to get it back after a couple of days at the latest, so you're simply being inconvenienced for a short period of time, not violated to the level people seem to be thinking. You could even play this up in a “nice” habitat, where massive, rapid resleeving is part of the local culture; Play sports in an olympian, resleeve into a menton if you have some hinking to do, then pop into a pleasure pod or sylph for a fun evening. Perhaps make cyberbrains standard to make it all easier, free skillsofts so that you can configure your skills for the task at hand, that sort of thing. On a hab like that, not giving up your morph for an orgy would be unacceptable behaviour, perhaps being considered a backward, old fashioned or repressive view of the self. Really, they should go back to the PC where they belong and so on and so forth.
—
In the past we've had to compensate for weaknesses, finding quick solutions that only benefit a few. But what if we never need to feel weak or morally conflicted again?
Top
Wed, 2014-08-20 11:10
Smokeskin Smokeskin's picture
ThatWhichNeverWas wrote
ThatWhichNeverWas wrote:
Smokeskin wrote:
Any text on anarcho-capitalism or voluntaryism will explain the same concept. It is the very core of the ideology.
Except we weren't discussing the concepts of anarcho-capitalism or anarchism in general, we were discussing extropia and anarchist/autonomist habitats in specific.
I'm sure it works the same way in the specific, like how for example voting is a part of democracies (note that you mention autonomists - they aren't all in favor of the non-aggression principle).
ThatWhichNeverWas wrote:
Smokeskin wrote:
There are many reasons, such as a desire to avoid the oppression of the state and its monopoly on violence.
So I wasn't asking why you like anarchism, I was asking what the reason was to set a story on an anarchist habitat.
I thought you meant the in-game reason for people to set up anarchist habs. I'm not really that big a fan of left-wing anarchism btw.
ThatWhichNeverWas wrote:
Smokeskin wrote:
As for absurd definitions of personal property like the idea that your morph could be repossessed because someone wants it for an orgy, that's like criticizing the principle of democracy because the majority could vote that everyone had to wear butt plugs.
I used an orgy as an example because it's a generally harmless activity which ties in to the “sexual freedom” theme associated with anarchist habs. I was trying to play up the consequences of the concept of the body being separate from the self combined with a collectivist society, where autonomy can be overriden should the community decide that doing so is in it's best interest. I'll post another thought about this below.
Anarchists don't really do the whole "override autonomy because the community decides it is for the best". That's pretty much exactly the sort of thing they don't want and why they got rid off government to begin with.
ThatWhichNeverWas wrote:
Smokeskin wrote:
Perhaps the problem is that you think that only laws and governments can dictate that people should behave properly?
Not at all. I simply believe that what I consider “proper” behaviour and what someone else does can be wildly different, and that without laws to act as a stabilizing influence the definition of suitable social conduct becomes protean.
But anarchists are ok with it being protean, so why should that be a problem for them?
ThatWhichNeverWas wrote:
Smokeskin wrote:
Or we could have a democracy where it was decided that everyone who liked music got lobotomized. I just had to play around a bit with what the citizens will vote for. It's not much of an argument, is it?
Depends. Are you arguing that under a democracy you may become shackled under legislature designed to enforce a specific mortality which may not coincide with your own, and face a potential punishment disproportionate to your crime? Because if yes, then it's a very good, accurate argument. Were I designing a dystopian democratic hab, that would look perfectly in place, perhaps linking the idea of music as a way of transferring memetic information and emotion as a targeting route for basalisc hacks, so the hab is attaempting to inhibit artistic expression in order to suppress the associated portions of the brain to imbue the residents with resistance against infection.
And that might be an interesting setting and good story. It's just doesn't seem to be a valid criticism against mainstream democratic habs.
ThatWhichNeverWas wrote:
Now, considering “ absurd definitions of personal property”... I'll admit I was surprised that people have such a big problem with the concept. I mean, part of the reason I used it as an example was to evoke atavistic horror so I get that, but when you get down to it it isn't really that much of a violation, at least if it occurs painlessly. You lose your body... but you're not dead. You can get a replacement morph, of just stay as an infomorph for the duration, using virtualities or jammed rental bots/morphs should physical contact be required/desired. Your agency remains largely intact. In the case of loosing your morph for an orgy, you're even going to get it back after a couple of days at the latest, so you're simply being inconvenienced for a short period of time, not violated to the level people seem to be thinking.
Anarchists and voluntaryists aren't really accepting of that sort of oppression. The stuff that most people accept as natural, they see as criminal. They think taxation is robbery, that throwing a drug dealer in jail is assault and kidnapping. The idea that someone else can decide something for you and violate your autonomy is inherently wrong and immoral to anarchists, and that is one of the major differences between them and statists.
Top
Wed, 2014-08-20 18:43
Slightlyonfire Slightlyonfire's picture
God is on the side of the big battalions.
i think the offical material suggests that anarchists tend towards smaller, more dispersed populations, while more formal groups- the PC and even the Titanians and Extropians can deal with larger more concentrated populations more easily. The biggest anarchist habitat is Locus with 1 million+ inhabitants- and even they are not really one popuulation, being divided into many modules. Generally, anarchists in EP tend to concentrate in relatively small, reatively insular groups that are both voluntary and have very low levels of inequality. These are factors that tend to make communities easier to manage informally, which will prevent the sort of law and order problems that have been suggested will inevitably occur in this thread. Most important is the fact that generally, everyone in an anarchist community wants to be there, and therefore thinks like an anarchist. Official downside: anarchist communities are less populous than other communities
—
I may be only be slightly on fire, but that is still not cool. It is, in fact extremely hot.
Top
Thu, 2014-08-21 09:45
MAD Crab MAD Crab's picture
Just to make a slight
Just to make a slight correction: everybody in an anarchist hab wants to be there, was born there and doesn't want to leave home, or thinks they can pull a personal advantage from being there.
—
Top
Thu, 2014-08-21 10:02
ThatWhichNeverWas ThatWhichNeverWas's picture
Damnit, this thread is destroying my free time :P
Smokeskin wrote:
I'm sure it works the same way in the specific, like how for example voting is a part of democracies (note that you mention autonomists - they aren't all in favor of the non-aggression principle).
Even in democracies you have variations of how voting is carried out or what can be voted for. I got the impression from the books that on Extropia the importance of the contract system trumps that of non-aggression... and I was sure that there was an in-character piece validating that, although at this point I'm wondering if I hallucinated it.
Smokeskin wrote:
I thought you meant the in-game reason for people to set up anarchist habs. I'm not really that big a fan of left-wing anarchism btw.
Yeah, we completely talked past each other there. Ah well, it happens.
Smokeskin wrote:
Anarchists don't really do the whole "override autonomy because the community decides it is for the best". That's pretty much exactly the sort of thing they don't want and why they got rid off government to begin with.
They do at some levels. At the very least there's restrictions on the creation of weapons that could harm the habitat, or if doing so somehow helps keep the hab intact (claiming someone's quarters because it's up against the hull and they need the space to anchor a strut re-enforcing the engines, for example). Autonomy is important, but they're still collectivists. Contrast with the Scum, who put more precedence on individualism.
Smokeskin wrote:
But anarchists are ok with it being protean, so why should that be a problem for them?
It's only a problem when it changes in such a way that it goes against your personal opinions (“Cannibalism is Bad” no longer applying for example or “Morphs are Public Property”), and the higher rate of change means that there's a higher chance of that happening.
Smokeskin wrote:
And that might be an interesting setting and good story. It's just doesn't seem to be a valid criticism against mainstream democratic habs.
It's an extreme example, just like I used, but worst-case scenarios can often be more illuminative than more common cases. If I had said that on some habs your morph might be repossessed in order to conduct vital repairs to the life-support systems, or that crimes may be punished by getting kicked in the junk, it may have been a bit harder to see the potential of the problem.
Smokeskin wrote:
Anarchists and voluntaryists aren't really accepting of that sort of oppression. The stuff that most people accept as natural, they see as criminal.
And so I have to ask, how is that oppression? Or rather, how is that more oppression than saying that you can't hoard items or feedstock in your quarters, or make off with the community shuttle? All that can really be said is “Morphs are Different!”, but it's a subjective difference of classification, not an objective one.
—
In the past we've had to compensate for weaknesses, finding quick solutions that only benefit a few. But what if we never need to feel weak or morally conflicted again?
Top
Thu, 2014-08-21 11:28
Slightlyonfire Slightlyonfire's picture
MAD Crab wrote:Just to make a
MAD Crab wrote:
Just to make a slight correction: everybody in an anarchist hab wants to be there, was born there and doesn't want to leave home, or thinks they can pull a personal advantage from being there.
MAD Crab: I didn't want to discount the possibility of some people who are in anarchist communities who are not totally on board with the movement- for example, there may well be self imposed exiles from wherever who would much rather return hone but can't for whatever reason (there's probably a number of people with too much debt/commited crimes running to anarchist space to avoid the consequences). Also people on anarchist habs which have gone wrong for whatever reason and now people can't leave. I admit these people want to be on anarchist habs, but not necessarily because they are dyed in the wool anarchists. They'd be the sort of people who would tend to cause the sort of problems discussed in this thread. Also also- scum barges that allow ego thieves to operate- by definition, those egos don't want to be there. I suppose what I was trying to say was everyone on an anarchist hab wants to be there (and if they don't want to be there and can't leave, something has gone seriously wrong), but it may not be their ideal living arrangment. Not everyone on an anarchist hab is an anarchist.
—
I may be only be slightly on fire, but that is still not cool. It is, in fact extremely hot.
Top
Thu, 2014-08-21 16:48
mellonbread mellonbread's picture
Something I don't think
Something I don't think anyone's mentioned (possibly because it applies everywhere in EP, not just to the Autonomists), a "reputation economy" means constant information gathering on every member of society. I would prefer not to live in a society where everyone I interact with is societally encouraged to post as much information about me as possible to a publicly viewable profile I have no control over.
Slightlyonfire wrote:
Also also- scum barges that allow ego thieves to operate- by definition, those egos don't want to be there.
Rimward, page 170 wrote:
There are some things that no scum will tolerate. Coercion. Mental manipulation. Torture. Rape. Brain hacking. Slavery. These are offenses that will get you airlocked, and no one is likely to bother with your backup.
Yes this seems a little improbable, given that many Scum swarms have ties to criminal organizations, but officially according to RAW they don't tolerate Ego Trading.
—
Did you hear the one about the guy who became a fence?
Spoiler: Highlight to view
They say he was a real posthuman
Top
Thu, 2014-08-21 17:14
uwtartarus uwtartarus's picture
Also, are we arguing about
Also, are we arguing about Anarchist collectives or Scum barges? AnCol are collectivists, no personal property, while the Scum are far more individualistic, aren't they?
—
Exhuman, and Humanitarian.
Top
Thu, 2014-08-21 17:26
Smokeskin Smokeskin's picture
ThatWhichNeverWas wrote:
ThatWhichNeverWas wrote:
Even in democracies you have variations of how voting is carried out or what can be voted for. I got the impression from the books that on Extropia the importance of the contract system trumps that of non-aggression... and I was sure that there was an in-character piece validating that, although at this point I'm wondering if I hallucinated it.
Contracts trump the the non-aggression principle, yes. NAP only applies if you don't have a contract covering the incident. You can agree to BDSM, or a boxing match, or loan money shylock style with a clause that gets you tortured if you default on the payments.
ThatWhichNeverWas wrote:
Smokeskin wrote:
Anarchists don't really do the whole "override autonomy because the community decides it is for the best". That's pretty much exactly the sort of thing they don't want and why they got rid off government to begin with.
They do at some levels. At the very least there's restrictions on the creation of weapons that could harm the habitat, or if doing so somehow helps keep the hab intact (claiming someone's quarters because it's up against the hull and they need the space to anchor a strut re-enforcing the engines, for example). Autonomy is important, but they're still collectivists. Contrast with the Scum, who put more precedence on individualism.
Sure. You can compare it to democracies, the general principle is that they let voting and politicians decide everything, but they know that if you take it too far it can get really ugly so they have constitutions that place limits on what can be democratically decided.
ThatWhichNeverWas wrote:
Smokeskin wrote:
Anarchists and voluntaryists aren't really accepting of that sort of oppression. The stuff that most people accept as natural, they see as criminal.
And so I have to ask, how is that oppression? Or rather, how is that more oppression than saying that you can't hoard items or feedstock in your quarters, or make off with the community shuttle? All that can really be said is “Morphs are Different!”, but it's a subjective difference of classification, not an objective one.
I agree, it is largely subjective. Anarchists believe in personal property, ie. that the stuff you use is yours, while anarcho-capitalists believe in private property, ie. you continue to own your stuff even when you don't use it. Who can say what is better? Pacifists believe violence is always wrong, anarcho-capitalists believe violence is wrong unless you're defending yourself or your property, democrats believe that the majority has the right to exercise violence as they see fit. Sometimes one can be justified by more basic deontological principles, other times by a utilitarian argument. Sometimes the two go in opposite directions. Often people don't agree on the arguments at all. So it ends up being subjective.
Top
Thu, 2014-08-21 18:35
Slightlyonfire Slightlyonfire's picture
Mellonbread: good point about
Mellonbread: good point about no privacy in a rep economy as a potential downside. You have are right about p170 but on p172 it says 'we'll transport anything, no questions asked'. So we'll kill you if we catch you but we won't look. The scum section in Rimward is an exercise in contradiction (we'll kill anyone who engages in mental manipulation or rape but wearing a morph that exudes a substance that makes you literally sexually irresistible is totally awesome). I don't want to go further with that criticism because it's not an official downside. Also: best pun ever. uwtartarus: I got my groups mixed up. We were talking about AnCols but I mentioned the scum, who are still anarchists but individualistic. They're still autonomists though, so fair game for the thread.
—
I may be only be slightly on fire, but that is still not cool. It is, in fact extremely hot.
Top
Fri, 2014-08-22 01:29
Smokeskin Smokeskin's picture
Don't AnCols still have
Don't AnCols still have personal property though?
Top
Fri, 2014-08-22 01:53
ShadowDragon8685 ShadowDragon8685's picture
Smokeskin wrote:Don't AnCols
Smokeskin wrote:
Don't AnCols still have personal property though?
To some extent, yes. In all but the most extreme of circumstances, nobody's going to hassle you over something which is of sentimental value to you, your personal effects (the furniture in your cabin, the smart vacsuit on your back, whatever gear you carry around day to do,) or your morph. Now, on the other hand, if they think you're becoming [i]greedy[/i], or [i]hoarding[/i], they take a dim view of this. An Anarcho-Collectivist habitat which is functioning properly and sited on, say, an asteroid, will not tolerate you going out onto the rock, mining out minerals, and then trying to assert your possession of them (or the things made with them.) Your rep will be pinged to hell. If you requisition, favor-borrow, etcetera, something important and resource-intensive* to make, and don't want to give it back when you're done with it, or when someone else needs it, your rep will be pinged to hell. If you go crazy installing resource-intensive shit in your cabin, or some space you've decided to exert your influence over, your rep will be pinged to hell. But only the most anal-retentive assholes will go around a station tisking and pinging people for having what they feel are too many tools in their toolbox, or one too many blobject chairs in their cabin, and [i]those[/i] guys will have low rep because everybody considers them an annoying douchebag. *And here I strongly encourage the prospective GM to consider "how many resources did this actually take to make" as opposed to "what's this object's list price?" Notwithstanding the fact that Neurachem Level 2 is an [Expensive] cost, it's still just some neurological work. It most definitely does not require anywhere near the amount of resources to create that, say, a go-cycle would require, even though that is merely a [Moderate] expense.
—
Skype and AIM names: Exactly the same as my forum name. [url=http://tinyurl.com/mfcapss]My EP Character Questionnaire[/url] [url=http://tinyurl.com/lbpsb93]Thread for my Questionnaire[/url] [url=http://tinyurl.com/obu5adp]The Five Orange Pips[/url]
Top
Fri, 2014-08-22 05:12
Chrontius Chrontius's picture
Because I love playing Devil's advocate…
It's 5 AM and I've been enjoying a common pastime among the scum and a rare one on Mars, ethanol. It just occurred to me, after perusing this forum for hours, that the tax rate in the Euro-socialist societies that Titan is based on are similar to the tax rates in America during the so-called "Greatest Generation" and the era after WW2 in which their economy grew at the highest rate in history. Given the exceptional cost of living in spaaaaaaaace, it seems likely that a more egalitarian society, given a tenfold or less spread between the richest and the average, and the average and the poorest each, is more likely to be stable given the latest science on the subject than any PC or Jovian governments per unit of memetic social control and policing (possibly also enumerated in currency). Again, playing Devil's advocate, those Euro-socialist systems are designed to maximize individual liberty in spite of financial inequality. Any similar system, implemented in good faith, is liable to reduce crime by the entirety of those crimes committed in the name of survival, and victimless crimes of prohibited vice. Furthermore, while the average barista may be an AI on the far side of the person-ness line, the culture probably punishes those who are cruel in the same way that most modern Western cultures frown on animal abuse - at least from the theory that animal abusers are likely to become serial killers, to be slightly too dramatic about the correlation. But, as I said, my local barkeeper AI has been providing me with glasses of eighty-twenty for a few hours, so my muse is insisting I warn you to take this with a grain of salt.
Top

Pages