Stop Breathing...
“I do not consent to your breathing, please stop now old one.” says a stranger to Riley.
Interesting, thought Riley who, having lived through the transition, was used to the now social norm of multiple competing free markets. To think, at one time, a market was defined by geographical boundaries. Further, a monopoly was given to a centralized ‘authority’ in that boundary to define what was acceptable interactions between people.
“I’m sorry. I didn’t realize my actions were non-consensual. I’m Riley. May I ask your name before I stop breathing?”
“I’m Ari.”
“Hmm. Ari. Ok. Let’s start then. We’ll stop breathing at the same time.”
“No Riley. I can breath, you can’t.”
“You are young so you didn’t live through the transition. Free markets based on double standards don’t hold up too long. If, in your market, you can withhold from others the act of breathing then others who honor your claim are in fact joining your market. They may also expect the same in return. I’m honoring your claim and now claiming your act of breathing is non consensual. As such, Ari, please stop breathing.”
Ari thought for a bit and being the Many-worlds interpretation of the universe is actually true we now get to see the different universes that resulted:
- Ari and Riley Agree to Not Breath
Ari agrees that it would be in fact hypocritical if Riley honored Ari’s claim but Ari did not equally honor Riley’s claim. They both stop breathing.
Unluckily for Ari, Riley was in fact a world class underwater free diver. Ari passes out and dies^1. Riley starts breathing again as Riley was no longer aggressing Ari.
Riley shakes their head and thinks “The young of today. This happens way too often which is why I took up underwater free diving.”
- Ari and Riley Agree to Breath
“You’re right, Riley. That was a double standard and silly of me to try and make such a broad claim of withholding breathing from others. Let’s go have a beer.”
“Oh, no. No can do.” Says Riley. “In my free market, I don’t drink.”
“Oh.”, says Ari, “Ya. I totally get that. And it would suck for you because if an enforcer saw us drinking… We’ll, nothing would happen to me because in my free market I can drink. But, in your free market you can’t drink. The enforcer would take you off to naughty camp but leave me to sip on a lovely Guinness.”
“Ya. Aren’t multiple competing free markets, even in the same geological area, wonderful!”
- Ari Chooses the Nuclear Option and Pushes For The Double Standard
“Double Standards?” asks Ari who then pulls out a gun, points it at Riley and demands “Stop breathing, now!”
“Well, I’ll be.” says Riley as they pull out a Glock and triple taps two the the chest and one to the head. Riley was a two time world champion in Fast Draw.
An enforcer happens buy and asks Ari what happened while checking which free markets Ari belongs to on a data pad. After a quick explanation from Ari, the enforcer ruled that Ari operated within their moral belief system and no one was aggressed.
All acts were consensual.
1: Ya. I know. People don’t die from holding their breath. It’s a story, live with it.
Posted Mar 25, 2017, 12:53 AM UTC
Markets have never been defined by geographical boundaries. Wtf is competing free markets? The market is an abstraction of individuals trading.
A market requires some form of dispute resolution. So far, a majority of people operate in dispute resolution systems based on geographical location. States, Federal Governments and Cities are all examples of such geographical based monopolized non-competing markets.
Example:
Yep. Markets are an abstraction of individuals trading. As such, there are as many markets as there are human interactions. Competing means that, similar to choosing between Coke and Pepsi, I can choose which types of markets I trade in.
This is a rather useless definition of markets.
You can choose to trade in one state or another or across state borders. You can use those borders to define markets based on state arbitration jurisdictions, but that's only useful in a very narrow set of trade disputes. The vast majority of trade disputes are resolved without state arbitration.
This wasn't a definition as more like an observation to show that I totally agree with your statement of "market is an abstraction".
You can choose to try anything like trade Marijuana across state borders. The question is if you're risking going to jail because a very small group of people are forcing a specific dispute resolution system.
Example: In competing free markets I choose to consider Marijuana a horror to society and I join the 'Just Say No' market. You join the 'Just Bake it' market. These are competing in that they both offer a different subjective value proposition: I feel morally superior to you.
We, together, drive across 'the border' to sell Marijuana. We're pulled over.
You're free to go because the market you joined, and thus the dispute resolution system, allows you to trade Marijuana. Your act was consensual.
I go to jail because in my market, and thus dispute resolution system, the act of trading Marijuana is non-consensual.
Not sure if this is true. I would agree that a vast majority of trades occur without the need to invoke a state-based dispute resolution system.
I can't find data on it at the moment, but it's common knowledge that mediation and arbitration are cheaper than litigation. Insurance companies almost always settle out of court.
No need for such complexity: insure what you think is precious to you; insure the responsibilities you have upon what is precious to others.
Then, let the people who charge you for both those services handle all of it.
Interesting service. Not complex? Wonderful.
I'm a prudent buyer so, if you wouldn't mind, please explain to me the logistics of your service.
Ok, now for second part: the responsibility company.
In short, I insure your behavior. I use the notion of transferable torts to buy the future would-be torts that you would make upon others (or specifical would-be torts). From this point, when people come to you for a prejudice, they will come to me, instead. More generally, the insurance company of the people suffering from the prejudice would come to me.
That indeed means that you are buying the freedom to act accordingly to what you think are your rights. If you find people to insure your behavior, that is.
Feel free to ask if you want me to explain more thoroughly some aspect of any of these two concepts of companies.
You say that you want to insure your sensible data because you feel it would be a prejudice if someone gains access to it. You measure the prejudice with money I have to give you if the sensible data becomes available.
In exchange, I check the security surrounding the sensible data, to assess how much I risk in the insurance and how much I should ask you each day/week/month/whatever for the service. I could even tell you how to secure it even more to reduce your cost.
I will answer for the last part (the responsibility part) later.