Bitcoin Forum

I've recently been thinking that what AnCap proposers describe sound very similar to organized crime, in several ways.

1. Organized crime does not respect the laws and the social contract.

In a sense, they are living as if the society we have, right now is AnCap, treating prison as a cost of doing business.

2. There are rival organizations working in a free market.

You can choose what gang you want to be affliated with. They supply protection, insurance and "private courts".

3. There are occasional clashes.

Just as one would expect when there are "competing courts", sometimes there are clashes. Most of the time there is peace, for economical reasons.


Thoughts? Would you like to live in Mexico? Be part of a gang?

I thought the current social contract was seen as illegitimate. That was what I was referring to.

That's because the current social contract is a) involuntary, and b) imposes a positive obligation on you.

In AnCap, the only "social contract" like that is to not fuck with people. You can (and most would) accept a voluntary positive obligation to enter arbitration for any disputes, either by signing something like this (https://dl.dropbox.com/u/146411/GeneralSubmission.txt), or by signing a contract with a defense agency that includes something like this:

And that's the difference between organized crime and AnCap: We respect another's right not to be fucked with, whereas they do not.

AnCap has as its central principle the NAP. I would say that organized crime is philosophically closer to the statist model than AnCap due to the willingness to commit aggressive acts or fraud toward peaceful people for financial gain.  Protection schemes are pretty much identical regardless of the "legitimacy" of the organization if the contract is involuntary, signed under duress, or coerced.  AnCaps generally promote a model of protection or dispute resolution supplied by market actors who rely on a positive reputation and results to attract voluntary contracts for service.

AnCap is GangLand. Make no mistake about it. By the way, I don't believe you have completed my first movie recommendation to you. It was Woman in the Dunes (relating, of course, to the discussion in which it was recommend). Since we're now on the subject of gangs, my next movie recommendation for you is Pale Flower.

If I haven't read the propaganda books you recommend me, what makes you think I'm going to watch the shitty foreign movies you suggest? Now if you have something to add to the discussion, please do. If not, go jack off again to the picture of the spotted owl.

AnCap utterly rejects the legitimacy of using force to take what someone else has earned from them. It's the very opposite of organized crime. You're finding superficial trivial similarities, exaggerating them, and ignoring the substance.

...which is great for trolling, but not much else.

AnCap is gang land. There is nothing within the proposed society which precludes it, and everything to motivate it.

Now let's look at what you define as shitty:

Women in the Dunes - RTC:100%; RTP: 92%; RE: Rated one of the great movies of all time.
Pale Flower - RTC:86%; RTP: 85%; RE: Rated one of the great movies of all time.

RTC = Rotten Tomatoes critics. RTP = Rotten Tomatoes public opinion. RE = Roger Ebert.

Seems that perhaps your uneducated opinion needs some tuning.

Because other people like the movie does not mean I will. Because you recommended them, in fact, I am inclined against them. If You can honestly say you believe this:

Your judgment is automatically suspect.

Funny! Look for continued discussion via PM.

Yeah, no.

Thanks for that... I actually got a chance to click "delete," and make your idiotic words go away. Feel free to give me that opportunity again.

When people who aren't deliberately trolling describe volentarism as being violent it's typically because they recognize the inherent brutality of modern society but have to project it onto "anarchy" for psychological reasons.

What we have now is lawlessness and the rule of organized crime. The violence that people fear so much when you talk about a stateless society is the violence they live in fear of every day but can't/won't acknowledge.

Well, nothing except that the entire system is built on the notion that society exists primarily to effectively prohibit taking other people's property by force.

How AnCap attempts to prohibit taking other people's property is through organized gangs. Likewise, organized gangs are used to take other people's property. It's essential to combat the wealthy. Think of them as unions without too many scruples.

If by "organized gangs" you just mean groups of people that work together, well then yes.

Yes. The difference is that AnCap recognizes that those actions are illegitimate whereas other systems enshrine them with societal acceptance.

You could describe every government that way. Whether they will or won't have scruples isn't something you get to choose. The idea is to design a system so that there's as little incentive as possible to centralize and misuse power.

It's been discussed many times over how AnCap puts power in the hands of the wealthy. Unions (and gangs) are likely to evolve to counter-balance that.

Right, but that's the *opposite* of the argument being made in this thread. The argument in this thread is that AnCap *directly* puts power in the hands of gangs. The idea that it puts power in someone else's hands and then gangs will counterbalance that is the exact opposite.

However, both arguments fail. The argument in this thread fails for the very reason you have rejected it and switched to the opposite argument. But the opposite argument also fails. Consider someone proposing a system that seems like it gives power to the right people. Would you reply: "Yes, your system does put the power in the hands of smart, honest people who will use it only for good and never for evil. Gangs will likely evolve to counter-balance that."

You argue that both arguments fail. I rather think they both succeed. AnCap is a petri dish for gangs.

This is why I don't trust you to pick dinner.

That's actually a better argument and not one that can be readily dismissed. Anyone who promises that AnCap will produce total non-violence is, of course, kidding themselves. The idea is to build a system where it is as difficult as possible to use violence or coercion to obtain power without enshrining the use of violence or coercion in the system in the first place.

You really gotta ask?

I probably would, but I don't think it's necessarily education that determines the better answer. Some very well-read and well educated people have been utterly and completely wrong.

That's the crux of AnCap. Whether you think it will achieve that goal is, of course, another matter.

lol... Joel gave you a pretty straight answer.

AnCap. Remember that the core concept of AnCap is that you own yourself, and thus I have no right to aggress against you.

Well, since you admit you're not as well-read on AnCap and related issues, feel like remedying that?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle

That is the founding principle (along with self ownership (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-ownership)) of an AnCap society.

Well, you don't really have a question. You're now basically down to "convince me that AnCap will actually work". That's, of course, a pretty tall order. If you agree on the principles though, then the next question is what system best furthers those principles, and you should be able to at least agree that current governments are many times larger than they should be. If not, you still don't agree with the goals of AnCap and there's not much point in arguing over whether it will achieve them.

I'm not fully convinced AnCap will actually work. That's why I advocate moving in that direction and seeing what happens. As we see what works and what doesn't work, we can see how far we get. If we stop at a minarchy, I'll still be totally thrilled.

Yes, I definitely get this. However, enforcement of the NAP, requires the use of violence. The entities that wield the power to use that violence are "private courts", "private police forces", "private prisons".
If they have good people at the top, they may respect the principles of NAP, as understood by the AnCap proponents on this board. If they are not, they must somehow be replaced. If the private justice organization in question has no way of changing leaders (e.g. popular vote), this requires either a revolution, or an attack from another organization.

If all of these organizations are, and push for each other to be, democratic, that could maybe be more stable. I assume however that you think this would be an unacceptable violation of the fundamental right to own any kind of company.


I describe it as violent, because all systems are necessarily violent. You can't just wish away rule breakers (whatever your rules might be), they need to be dealt with, violently. So a natural question is who gets to wield this power. A benevolent gang leader in the AnCap case.

Benevolent dictatorships can work a long time. Since an unworkable system can work for a long time, there is a very real risk that you take it to far without realizing, until it is too late.

Well, yes, enforcement of the NAP requires violence. Considering that the violence is only directed at those individuals (or organizations) that start violence, that's typically not seen as a problem.

And no, a revolution is not necessary. If your insurance company starts being a dick, you don't overthrow them, you just switch companies.

I mean things like harassing innocent people.

Well, that's aggression, innit? ;)

Which means you need war/revolution to take them down.

No, you need defense agencies to do their job. I think you are assuming a monopoly, just a private one instead of a state-run one.

This was what I meant by war.

Then you have a poor definition of war.

From Wikipedia:

What I describe is simply law enforcement. Not war.

Organized

Armed

Prolonged: could be, or not
Extreme aggression: Possible, even probable in an oligopoly scenario.
Social disruption

High mortality

No matter what you call it, it could turn really ugly.

Oh, for certain.

And expensive. And the companies know that. So rather than using force, arbitration (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arbitration) is used, to recompense the victims of aggression, as opposed to simply punishing the aggressors.

The structure of society will eventually reflect the collective consciousness of the people participating in it.
As more and more people shift towards non-aggression, aggressors will have a hard time surviving in that environment at least economically if not physically. Use of force as self-defense is not considered an aggression.

Again one cannot impose one particular system on people over another - it's always a reflection.
One can think that the current system is imposed on us against our will, but as long as majority of people allows it to happen that's what we'll have. You cannot force people to follow NAP if they like to express themselves violently or tolerate aggression to others.

On a positive note, what we're seeing now is a shift in consciousness towards non-violence.
The wars fought by governments are largely disapproved by population, so the old system is running on a borrowed time and is destined to collapse giving way to the new one.
What that will be - we will see in time.

OK, you apparently have the functional IQ of Quartz. I'll spell it out in no uncertain terms.


AnCap.

It's the same answer you've been given over the past several responses.

Basically, The only hard and fast law in AnCap is the NAP, and instead of one monopoly provider of security and justice (the government) Those services are provided on the market.

It would indeed be a contractual society. Here's one example of the contract (https://dl.dropbox.com/u/146411/GeneralSubmission.txt) (certainly not the only one, but it's the one I have on hand).

That (very short) contract could be easily incorporated into the contract with a defense agency.

Gang warfare.

http://m.apnews.com/ap/db_268773/contentdetail.htm?contentguid=KW1IM42E

"BROWNSVILLE, Texas (AP) - When a regional manager for the Mexican Gulf cartel moved his operation to a more lucrative territory on the border, he took along not only his armored trucks and personal army, but also his department heads and a team of accountants.

In the grotesque violence that has enveloped Mexico it's easy to lose sight of the fact that, ultimately, these criminal organizations are complex businesses that rely on careful accounting as much as assault rifles. The structures underlying the most successful criminal organizations are stable in a way that means capturing or killing the man at the top may only be a temporary setback and pinching one revenue stream will only drive a search for others.

(...)
"

That's all very well, but I don't see what it has to do with anything.