Originally posted by Bardock42For example though if Person E were to kill Person C and her two children. Who would investigate the case, who would lay claim against Person E, if Person E couldn't afford representation would someone be provided, who pays for the prosecutor; is Person E even obliged to recognize the court?
There would be a need to settle disputes. There wouldn't be a need for a judicial system as such.
Originally posted by Aster PhoenixThey both agree on the judge. They both equally pay the judge. And the judge has to be independent. And if he's not independent he's not going to get work anymore. And if the ruling is ridiculous they don't have to go by it. And if the ruling is just and they don't go by it there would be repercussions in the community. And did that answer your next five questions? And could you please just look at the link, there's a great article about it.
Yes but whos paying the judge will be the one winning.
Originally posted by Bardock42
It won't be voluntary to advance society. It will be voluntary to advance themselves.I am not actually sure how advancing society is defined, in your opinion.
Increased overall standard of living. Forward movement of science and technology. Improvement in social/economic systems and programs. It's probably overly broad and subjective. I don't see how society moves forward automatically (I assume that what you mean by them not having a choice) when people are still the ones choosing to advance personally or not.
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
For example though if Person E were to kill Person C and her two children. Who would investigate the case, who would lay claim against Person E, if Person E couldn't afford representation would someone be provided, who pays for the prosecutor; is Person E even obliged to recognize the court?
Well, it would probably be up to the Protection Agency how they deal with such things. I assume there would be different ways.
Originally posted by Bardock42
They both agree on the judge. They both equally pay the judge. And the judge has to be independent. And if he's not independent he's not going to get work anymore. And if the ruling is ridiculous they don't have to go by it. And if the ruling is just and they don't go by it there would be repercussions in the community. And did that answer your next five questions? And could you please just look at the link, there's a great article about it.
We already have that, If you want to sue someone don't you have to pay a court fee?
Originally posted by Symmetric ChaosHow is that going to work out in your "you are slaves or I kill you" society again?
Increased overall standard of living. Forward movement of science and technology. Improvement in social/economic systems and programs. It's probably overly broad and subjective. I don't see how society moves forward automatically (I assume that what you mean by them not having a choice) when people are still the ones choosing to advance personally or not.
Originally posted by Bardock42
How is that going to work out in your "you are slaves or I kill you" society again?
Dodging the question.
But to answer yours, the government/dictator uses the products of the unskilled to provide what is needed to advance science and technology, no funding is required. Social systems are obsolete because no one but those explicit in control has any power. Economic systems are obsolete because no one makes any money to start with, they're either working because they want to be helpful or they want to not be killed. Improved technology makes cheaper construction and better medical care possible which raises standard of living.
Originally posted by xmarksthespotI'd assume there would be local ones as well as more national ones. Kinda like insurance or bank companies.
I'm not sure I fully get the Protection Agency; is this a national body or is this a local thing; I'm assuming there are multiple ones. What happens if two people use the same Protection Agency but are set against each other?
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Dodging the question.But to answer yours, the government/dictator uses the products of the unskilled to provide what is needed to advance science and technology, no funding is required. Social systems are obsolete because no one but those explicit in control has any power. Economic systems are obsolete because no one makes any money to start with, they're either working because they want to be helpful or they want to not be killed. Improved technology makes cheaper construction and better medical care possible which raises standard of living.
Hmm, okay, except for not being workable (and sounding disgusting and inhumane) it sounds nice. How would your dictator be chosen?
Oh, and there was no question to be dodged.
Originally posted by Bardock42
The point of having to pay for sueing someone is not really resembling anything I said. But also, as I said, there are referees in the current law system which would have a similar job.
But again, what about if someone can't afford to pay? It seems like an anarchy society favors those with money.
Originally posted by Bardock42
Hmm, okay, except for not being workable (and sounding disgusting and inhumane) it sounds nice.
It's workable.
Originally posted by Bardock42
How would your dictator be chosen?
By assuming people will be selfish and thus the dictator will do what is best for everyone because it's also best for him.
Nah, that's retarded, the same system that places people in professions as scientists, laborers and what have you would also select those with the capacity to become effective leaders.
Originally posted by Bardock42
Oh, and there was no question to be dodged.
Point, but we were discussing how people could advance society without advancing themselves and you asked for how I defined advancing society. So going back to that, how does society advance without people advancing themselves?
Originally posted by Aster PhoenixEvery society favours those with money. But again there are multiple ways I can conceive of that might or might not work.
But again, what about if someone can't afford to pay? It seems like an anarchy society favors those with money.
Here the article I was referring to about Private Judges. I remember it opening my eyes to that possibility less than a year ago:
Originally posted by Aster Phoenix
I was talking about how much people make at a job. But price controls do serve as purpose, to keep the consumer from being gouged.
Originally posted by Aster Phoenix
But let's say your example happens and because they have to pay their employees a decent wage they decide to be greedy and raise their prices, which means less people will buy from them and they have lower profits.
Wouldn't it be better to simply pay your employees a decent wage and settle for a normal profit, instead of being greedy?
Originally posted by Symmetric ChaosWhat system would that be?
It's workable.By assuming people will be selfish and thus the dictator will do what is best for everyone because it's also best for him.
Nah, that's retarded, the same system that places people in professions as scientists, laborers and what have you would also select those with the capacity to become effective leaders.