Bitcoin Forum

But it worked for 1000 years in Ireland.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=ZZi45Mf6jYY

And yes, England kicked their ass. Still, 1000 years of freedom beats 230 years of gradual loss of freedom, and if it were to play out today, I don't think the conquest would work out quite the same.

Do you think slavery is ethical ?

...No. If the pre-conquest Irish practiced slavery, that's irrelevant to the discussion at hand. They had private law, privately enforced, and voluntarily selected their military leadership (and could switch at any time - effectively de Molinari's competing governments), which did not have territorial monopoly. That's AnCap.

Slavery was practiced in post-revolution America, after all, and that doesn't stop people like MoonShadow from holding it up as the ideal of liberty. (It was pretty damn good, despite slavery and mysogynistic practices. Nobody's perfect.)

So when is the crypto-tuath going to be created?

Do you have any evidence that it hasn't already? ;)

Fundamentalism in any form is the real problem not necessarily what the system is you live with. Extreme ideology in any form leads to bad outcomes for the poor suckers at the bottom.

A compromise between the truth and a lie is still a lie.

Depends on your perspective.   We do not live in a world of absolutes.   I would call it a compromise and if both parties voluntary came to that agreement, then that is the "truth".  There will never be any "private" societies anymore.  At some point, issues involve more than small groups and those require compromise.   If you try and keep yourself small and private, eventually you will be confronted by more force of a larger group.   It is just the reality, put your effort into space colonization and FTL travel if you want to go off in some remote corner and try for your utopian vision.   People group together for protection, enforcement of rules and morality and social interaction.   Nothing will change that.   

But yes, I agree we can tone it down in many areas and enforce more personal liberty.  The fact your on an "internet forum" talking about this speaks volumes.  Interesting I must say.

If only Libertarians would stop calling themselves Anarcho Capitalists.  ::)

The history of ancient Ireland is fascinating as well as Celtic tribal society. But I wouldn't call it anarchistic since it was clearly structured hierarchically. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaelic_Ireland#Structure)

Won't happen without forming an independent country. You'd need to pull off something like the attempt below, but with a military force that is ready to defend the new crypto-nation.

i.e. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Minerva

Would you prefer Voluntaryist? That's a label I'm quite comfortable with.

And voluntary hierarchy is perfectly acceptable to AnCaps. It's those dirty commies that don't like any hierarchy.

It is a fantasy and nothing more.   These society were not fair or just, and if a person does not want to live in that manner, it shows about about their outlook and how they might want to treat you.  Each time I hear private, I keep thinking about people preserving their right to screw me over without any real recourse via a disinterested 3rd party that is not on someones payroll.

Hierarchy comes with unjustified authority. Admittedly in ancient Irish society it was more justified than in others since it was possible to loose or gain status. But Anarchy is by definition the absence of hierarchy, not the absence of authority.

trollface.jpg

So, instead, you stick with a monopoly that is beyond reproach by definition, because the whole system is on their payroll.

Genius.

It is not beyond reproach, it needs extensive reform and possible a total restructuring.   But replacing it with a headless voluntary capitalist society would be even worst than the two-class system we have now. 

It is not voluntary to not murder, plunder, rape, excessive pollute and conspiracy for my demise, period. 

You want to try this again in English, so the rest of us can follow along?

Try reading it out load a few times, ponder the meaning.   Comments like that don't get you away from the statement.   I am immune to such tactics, you will need to confront the statement instead.


D

That's the point, numbnuts. I can't understand the statement. Restate it, preferably without the double negative, into something that actually makes sense as written.

"It is not voluntary to not murder, plunder, rape, excessive pollute and conspiracy for my demise, period. "

"It is mandatory to refrain from murdering, plundering, raping, polluting excessively, and conspiring to cause my death."

Basically, the Non-Aggression Principle.

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

So you did understand what I said, quite playing games and state your case or go home.

Oh, you're an idiot. My case is stated in the OP. If you didn't watch the video, watch it, or fuck off. I don't have time to debate with morons. I was responding to the helpful rewording of your gibberish.

If you have a case, feel free to state it.

Is that an absolute?

(This question was designed to highlight a self-detonating statement, which proves itself false by way of self-contradiction.)

Incorrect. Anarchy is by definition no rulers, not no leaders. If you don't know the difference, I don't think I can help you.

Medieval Ireland was not an AnCap society. It was hierarchically structured. Peasants paid obligatory tithes (taxes) but were protected by their lord or king, and other posts have already noted that slavery was present. Everybody in the society had a rank:


Source:
http://imgur.com/UAVA0.jpg?1

The video contains some truths mixed with misleading simplifications. The English weren't the first to conquer, but they were the last. Previous conquistadors were subsumed into the existing society - the phrase "more Irish than the Irish themselves" refers to this phenomenon. This "AnCap" society was not able to defend itself.

As the video says, smaller petty kingdoms were slowly amalgamated into larger, each with an "over-king". However the entire island was ruled by a High King (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_High_Kings_of_Ireland) (who also commanded taxes) - though much of the historical record is lost to legend by now. There was a highly complex legal system to which obedience was not optional.

For example, the video suggests people could easily change from one tuath to another. Not so; members of a tuath were unquestionably subjects of their lord or king.


To summarize, there are some truths in what the video states, but the real truth is much more complicated - I'm certain it wasn't the AnCap paradise you're thinking of. Though, on reflection, my own interpretation of AnCap and, to a large extent, libertarianism, is that people with more money will be able to afford better "justice" than those without. So, actually, maybe you're right. It's not what you're thinking I'm sure, but I'll bet AnCap would end up fairly similar to medieval Ireland, only with guns and telecomms instead of swords and fast horses. The video admits that there were wars between petty kingdoms, calling them "minor things". I have a problem with this as an example of how an AnCap society can go wrong - when two "defence" contractors and their respective "mediators" cannot come to a satisfactory solution, the only valid response in war (given the absence of a society-wide independent judiciary - though see below). Notably ever since Ireland became a unified independent republic there have been no more wars within or across its borders, with the sole exception of terrorism.

One thing that interests me most is that the video states the king as also subjected to an independent judiciary - this is, to my knowledge, true (with the caveat that a king's word held more weight than a peasant's). I haven't finished the book I've quoted (it's a tough read), but I'd like to learn more about the judiciary's independence. One of the big failings of AnCap/libertarianism, in my opinion, is that it cannot guarantee an independent judiciary.

Yes, when you talking about absolutes, there is a possibility of making a self-detonating statement.  Sadly I needed to write that to make the statement.   

Your "video", is just some guy talking.  He says things like "the leading authority on ancient Ireland" but gives no citation (4:40 I finally get my first citation of a Professor but it was only about the Jurists).   Also, what is funny is that the society they are talking about is a two-class gentry system.   He doesn't mentioned the "non-landed" people and where their place was.  HAHAHAHA.   I bet they had a great place and many rights and equal standing in the courts. 

I love how he emphasizes that is was a completely private and "THERE WAS NO OTHER JUDGES".   I bet is was completely fair and just and your standing in the community didn't affect the outcomes.   Also, if you thought you had a case against me, you would bring your sureties (paid thugs basically) and could "seize" me and proclaim your suit, also I am considered a debtor to you until proven credit-worthy.

I could go on.  He makes two minutes of value statements against a centralized government at the end.   Also, there was only one citation in the whole video.

Same thing, since leaders just require authority. Hierarchy for example is when there is class which grants in the case of the Irish of higher class unjustified authority.

Here in Singapore, the mainland Chinese bus drivers who refused to work have been mostly been repatriated and a handful have been imprisoned, but Singaporeans remain dissatisfied. Their labor contract obliged them to work for a fixed term or face fines, imprisonment, and caning. Yet the government is not enforcing the full rigors of the contractual penalties. Most of the mainlanders have gotten off with a mere fine and deportation. Only the ringleaders have been imprisoned. Not a single errant bus driver has been caned.

Today, Singaporeans are protesting the laxity of contract enforcement outside of the Chinese Embassy. They would like to see more Mainlanders caned. No joke.

In a good AnCap society, contractual clauses would not be allowed to lapse. People who signed a voluntary contract to work or face mutilation would either work or be mutilated.

What is our society coming to ??? The voluntary contract says X or Y, and then the State goes with option Z. How will Singaporeans hold their heads up high when meeting fellow libertarians abroad?

I haven't even watched the video, nor will I bother, and myrkul will claim that my comment thus has no value, but still, let me say this:

The video, as you describe it, as exactly the kind of junk by which the anarchists and libertarians build their case. This rubbish, and rubbish like it, is the foundation upon which their 'critical thinking' is built upon.

Myrkul, you know I've never had any beef with you. But I'm curious, why are you so snarky? Why do you throw unnecessary words into a discussion like "numbnuts"? What are we, 7? It seems like you enjoy the act of arguing more than having a rational discussion. I admit, I've posted an occassional troll comment on the internet, including this forum. But your presentation of this thread doesn't suggest "comment here and let me troll you," but that's what's going on here. Now I remember why I avoid this subforum.

When the response to "Could you restate that so it makes sense" is "Read it out loud" it's clear the respondent is not being intellectually honest. They get exactly the respect they deserve, ie being called numbnuts.


They are not the same thing. Leaders are followed voluntarily, Rulers are followed or else. Anarchy means only voluntary hierarchy, not no hierarchy.

Vs. people who signed no contract, pay mandatory taxes or face death for resisting. Seems legit.

That's the spirit! We have some of the lowest taxes in the world. You should come visit. Who knows maybe you can go to one of the contract enforcement rallies?

The meaning of his sentence was clear, despite the mistakes.

Your reply also seemed dishonest to me. We both know how to read from context.

Again, this is childish:

"They get exactly the respect they deserve, ie being called numbnuts."

This is exactly what bratty children say. Are you aware of that?

There is no voluntary hierarchy. In anarchy authority is subjected to voluntary.
Leaders do not get their authority from hierarchy while rulers do. In the case of class the higher rules over the lower and there is no justification for it.
If the only way to gain authority were justified means that would mean anarchy and the Irish society was probably pretty close. Still if there were any other ways (like birthright or wealth) of obtaining membership to a certain class except for justified means it wasn't anarchistic.

Incorrect. Do not use the infrastructure in the country demanding taxes and you don't need to pay taxes. Of course it's impossible to not use the infrastructure if you are actually in the country. So simply go somewhere else. Your argument does not have the teeth you think it does.

It was not. The rewording made more sense, and removed ambiguities. It also revealed that the argument was useless, since it agreed with the AnCap position, ie the NAP. Since I never suggested throwing the NAP out the window, Mr "read it out loud a few times" was merely blowing hot smoke, and I suspect he knew it. He still hasnt made an argument not full of conjecture and other BS. He's one asshole comment from being ignored.


Bullshit. Have you never signed an employment contract? That's voluntary hierarchy. Perhaps you need to talk to Augusto, I'm sure he will be able to give you the definitions of the words you're misusing.

Agreed.

Then why come it lasted 1000 years in Ireland?

Could you please restate that? I don't understand your word usage.

Awww, isn't it cute?

Then let's try this, asshat: Explain why it lasted 1000 years in Ireland.

I assume you're asking me the question because you'd like me to answer it. Yet you call me asshat. Please try again.

Who?
You know my take on contracts, unnecessary for a civilized society.

I'd call it voluntary subjection to authority. But I'm not sure if that should apply to an employment contract, since I think employment is a relic of the state and we could do without it. We are so accustomed to serfdom that it may be difficult to think of the possibility of having it any other way.

@ Myrkul - It is funny I am being called an "Asshole" when I watched the video requested and actually went over the content involved.   I see no response to that.

You tell me I am blowing hot smoke when I asked you to actually say it out loud, after a couple replies you mentioned that you actually understood what I am saying.  You just didn't like my grammar.

What it signals to me when you do not respond to comments that are directed at you even per your instructions (watch the video and comment) for this debate, is that you don't have a real response or just have personal attacks on how someone words something or that you just think they are an:  asshole, idiots, numb-nuts, etc....   It really discredits what your main point it overall, which I believe deserves a real debate.

Now you threaten to "ignore" me because you don't like what I am saying, even though I am not insulting you personally.  That furthermore shows how weak your original argument.   But like I messaged you in private, I respect your opinion, just disagree with it.    You don't seem to want to reciprocate that respect back.  

After reading other comments on this thread, I am not the only one that is mentioning similar issues.  If you are that dug in to this position, just state it and then we can mark your posts are propaganda for a specific point of view and not actual debate.


Signed,
Dalkore

I see all the people in my ignore list came here to attack the ideas in the original post. Attack, not debate.

Par for the course.

Debate is a formal method of attack against an idea (or defending it).  I tried to give actual reasons on why I do not support this idea and some of its flaws. 

No, I understood the rephrasing of what you said. What you said was gibberish. And your agruments re: the video were all conjecture and "i guess". Those aren't arguments, they're imagination. try again.

Having cited sources to original source documents is important.   I just can't take someones word for it, especially when in the final 2 mins he stated his stance on the issue that just reinforces your argument.  What I am saying is he wasn't a disinterested historian or researcher. 

But I have a treat for you about this time period, read "Debt: The first 5,000 years" by Dr. David Graeber.  A portion of the book talks about exactly this time period and the bibliography has a bunch of sources that might enforce or enlighten your use of this example.

AugustoCrappo, Mr. Dictionary Definition himself.

Contracts are nothing more than formalized agreements. if you think agreements are unnecessary for civilized society, you are dead wrong.

Voluntary subjection to authority, voluntary hierarchy, call it what you will, it's a voluntary acceptance of a leader/follower relationship. Sometimes (not always, nor possibly even most times) this is the most efficient way to handle things. We can do without it, but there are times when it comes in handy.

Ok we might be using differnt definitions for the same thing.

No I'm not a contract involves debt but and agreement doesn't have to. I dare you to tell me any business transaction which absolutely requires debt. (Except profiting from debt itself).

Of course, I never wrote anything else. But "voluntary hierarchy" is an oxymoron.
The (modern) English language complicates this because autority is usually substidzed for power and hierarchy for structure.

I'd say it is nessecary in a civilized society for justified authority because of profession but this justification ends when it comes to power and wealth. For a society to be called anarchistic, by my definition it would only have structure established from authority in terms of profession. (And maybe other justifiable means) In a hierarchic society there would not be such distinction.
Also see: http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Anarchist_FAQ/What_is_Anarchism%3F/2.8

I disagree, crypto-anarchy can and does exist within a world of governments.  The purpose of using cryptography is to hide a person's identity in the real world.  Crypto-anarchists just need to start organizing.

Unless you mean debt as in "obligation," no, contracts do not necessarily involve debts. And a voluntary obligation is no more than doing what you agreed to. Oh, look, there's that word again, agreement.


Hierarchy (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hierarchy):
Don't see "involuntary" or "forced" or any of those other words in there. "Voluntary ranking system" is not an oxymoron.

See my post above mentioning substuation of structure for hierarchy.
Also only because you call something voluntary or even all participants call something voluntary doesn't really mean it is voluntary.

Ever were apporached by the police requiring you to sign a "voluntary" agreement? Ever got to "choose" on a "elective" subject for a uni exam?
The world is full of pseudo-choices and made-belief freedoms. You might say they are just because of the state, but if we ever succumb to accepting something as voluntary just because the participants agreed on something we would be no better...

-_-

Voluntary means the participants agreed.

If I rob you at gun point and you agree to give me your belongings and I agree not to shoot you we both agreed didn't we?

Nope, you coerced me. I didn't agree to give you my belongings, you took them by force.

Yeah, he's falsely equating agreement and surrender there.  Had you been discussing rape instead of robbery, he would have insisted that rape-at-gunpoint victims who didn't want to be shot "agreed" to have consensual sex.

That is the level of mad absurdity that passes for "reasoning" in staazis' corrupted, malevolent minds.  Either he is doing this to provoke others, or he is doing this because he truly can't think.  In any case, through his behavior, he didn't just forfeit the argument, he also ruined his own reputation.

So, people, make his reputation stick.  Let it be widely known that ElectricVomit is a scumbag, who likes to play with words, equating armed robbery with consensual exchange, just so that he doesn't "lose" an argument (which he already lost days ago).  For best effect, continually remind him on every thread that he vomits into, and refuse to engage him any further.  Let people know that they are interacting with a first-grade asshole who will steal from them (or defend theft against them) and then pretend that said theft was "agreed upon" by the victim.

A simple sentence "You're the guy who considers that being the victim of armed robbery equals agreeing to give something to someone, so you're not getting any attention from me" should suffice.  If he is already in your ignore list, you can say something like "I did not read what ElectricVomit said because he is in my ignore list since that day he claimed armed robbery equals agreeing to give something to someone".

We can't make idiots think straight, but we sure as hell can curb their idiocy by shining a light on what they do.

Are we at the point of name calling again ? :D

I may have not come up with the best analogy to state my point ok. And I am probably least of a statist. ;)
Whats my problem is that there is a slippery slope between a "voluntary" agreement under which somebody might have a slight disadvantage and straight out coercion. Some of those problems occur specifically in "AnCap" like contracts, employment and class. That is because well, it's part of good captialism.

I have no problem with a system of differnt schools of thought, on the contrary I am all for it. But you have to think those parts out where differnt ideas disagree with each other to make it work. Libertarians take the easy route and state that free market capitalism already is a subgroup of anarchism which it isn't. Classic anarchists simply disagree with this assessment and with good reason: The above reference to voluntarism is just not good enough to ensure justification of authority.

Oh, come on, at least make me work a little to get the right one...

Your logical fallacy is... (http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/slippery-slope)

People agree to do something voluntarily because it's in their best interest, or at least, what they see as their best interest at the time.

You are kind of tossing game theory out the window in this assessment. How do you justify this? Is noncooperative game theory just a bunch of hokum in your book?
You only accept economics in so far as it supports your vision of the free market.

Game theory supports the Non-aggression principle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace_war_game

And at least Austrian economics aren't based on a fake math system from a sci-fi book. ;)

If you view my point as a logical fallacy I have nothing to say to you about this subject. (I think it's not and you can't change my mind)

Have fun debating with yourself or clones of yourself  :P

Then support it with facts, instead of fallacies.

But if they "see something as their best interest", couldn't this be a form of "soft" coercion?  Lets say I know are consequences to not play ball by implied punishment or social ostracization?  Then something is not truly voluntary because there is a false choice in a sense.  Your word voluntary feels very loaded in the manner you use it.  

In your AnCap world, if we make an agreement and you loan me money.  I renege on our agreement and you know I have the money that is owed and I ignore your peaceful non-violent attempts to retrieve it, what are your options at that point?  Also, what are my consequences overall.   I would like to understand that from your own words more.  

Enforceability is a major issue I see as a problem outside my worry that your stated policy of N.A.P. (non-violence) is just that, a policy that at anytime you could break and then we would have not unbiased 3rd party to uphold my rights if I was the weaker person in this situation.  A private [court] would have its bias because of the monetary relationship,  it corrupts them slightly if not all the way from my point of view.  Not saying corruption doesn't exist in other systems along with our current one in the U.S. (where I live).

Can you think of one logical hypothetical situation where this is the case? I'm having difficulty doing so. Note: it's not coercion to make you do something you already freely agreed to do, only to make you do something you would not otherwise.

Well, there are two paths. One, the "soft" way to do it, is to inform everyone available that you have reneged on our agreement, and further, that you have refused all attempts to redress that wrong. This is the same method usually used to enforce the implied contract between you and a restauranteur. If he gives you poor service, or poor food, you tell your friends, and he loses business.

Of course, with you, this may have even greater consequences... I know I wouldn't sign a contract with someone who hasn't put in a general submission to arbitrate with one or another agency without making sure that contract has an arbitration clause. Likewise your defense agency, and any other people who contract with you. By breaching not only the contract for the loan, but the arbitration clause (I assume you've done so, since you stated you ignored my non-violent attempts for redress), you've shown yourself to be untrustworthy.

Once you've shown yourself to be untrustworthy, none of those other entities will deal with you anymore. Economists call this the discipline of constant dealings. Practically, what this means is that you will lose those contracts, and likely be unable to get new ones. For some of those contracts, you'll probably do fine without (Cable TV, Internet, etc). Others, however, are slightly more vitally necessary. Such as your defense contract. Oh, you'll still get the "free ride" of "national" defense, from the aggregate actions of all the agencies, just like everyone else does, but other than that, you're on your own. House got robbed? Tough luck. Car stolen? Boy, that sucks. I guess you'll be biking to work. Being mugged? Hope you know Tae Kwon Do. And so on.

Of course, that's the "soft" method. The other way, which probably won't be used unless it's a very large amount, in which case it would likely be specified in the original contract, since the soft way is much less expensive, is to simply extract the money by force. You're liable to resist, of course, which is where the expense comes in. Overcoming that resistance is likely to incur some losses. Death benefits to the agents of my defense company would cut large chunks out of that money. But, half of something is better than all of nothing, so I'll take what I can get.

So, let's say you attempt to bring a case against the US federal government, or much more likely, the federal, county, city or state government brings a case against you. Would you say you are the weaker party in that situation? Would you further say that the judge is an "unbiased third party?" Whose interest does he have at heart?

On the contrary, the monetary relationship is what keeps it unbiased. Judge.me, for instance, at the time of filing, requires half the fee from each party. During arbitration, the arbiter is then able to shift part or all of the fee as part of the judgment. Typically, this means that the loser pays the entire cost of the proceedings as part of the judgment against them. He truly is an unbiased third party, since he gets paid whichever way the case goes, and his employer doesn't get mad if he continually judges one way or another.

Myrkul, you should stop to subvert my name and surname to support your delusional ad hominem arguments. Please, stop to refer to my name and surname to advocate your twisted ethical values. I do not want to be associated to an user like you. You are not respecting my privacy (my name was given to me by my father and is not yours). I will not friendly tolerate this situation if you keep subverting my name and surname every time you feel frustrated with the ongoing debate.

This is how reputation-based contracts worked among Jewish (Maghrebi) traders. A trades with B, C, ... ,Z. Via letters A, B, C, ..., Z keep a public record of their transactions and whether they went well. If Z cheats A, then A reports this to everyone. A, B, C, ..., Y now refuse to do business with Z. If Y does business with Z, then A, B, C, ..., X refuse to do business with both Y and Z. Thus the penalty for violating the group's ostracism order is getting ostracized yourself.

This is the most efficient way of organizing reputation-based contracting. (you get much more leverage if you enforce ostracism, then if you just refuse to do business with them individually)

I don't know state-based legal systems sound much less oppressive to me.

I dont think the op was claiming that this was an example of an ideal an-cap society. I believe he was trying to point out that there have been fairly successful anarchic societies in history and this lends some legitimacy to the claim that anarchy can be *relatively* orderly and peaceful (a requirement for any anarchic society, an-cap included).

Problem is the example he gives it more like many small feudal lords that we independent.   They had tribal governments that did communicate with their neighboring tribes.  When you get more that a few dozen people together in the same area, you stat to see foundations of a hierarchy form and as they grow or expand, a form of government follows to keep the peace.  It is a very simplistic concept that on paper looks like it should work but fail to calculate the most important factor, human nature.

Because we are all created unequally, some will tend to dominate by right or force and a combination of both.  Maybe this old tribe found balance so that is didn't consolidate but that bridge has been crossed for now and it will take much more dialogue and compromise before we revisit it, if ever. 

ah well im not that familiar with the irish anarchy, i do know a little bit about saga period iceland though. That was a true anarchy and it lasted for quite a bit longer than it appears the united states is going to last.

Competing (not necessarily, and in an NAP-respecting society, not, violently) governments (security providers) without regional monopoly and freely joined and left, law-givers/judges separated from those governments and selected based on reputation... Yeah, that's AnCap. AnCap is simply Law, Justice, and Security provided by market competition, rather than a monopoly. Nothing says it must be non-hierarchical, only that the hierarchy be voluntary.


Yeah, medieval Iceland is another fine example of voluntary hierarchy and market law. Like in Ireland, the goðar did not have territorial monopolies.

I feel the entire idea is inherently flawed. It amounts to saying "if nobody had guns there wouldn't be any gun violence" ... if people were non-violent it would work. The problem is defending it from anyone who's willing to shed a little blood.

I imagine that if such a society existed, it would be over-run by mafia-esq companies, security providers or whatever you want to call them.

That's kinda the point. Hasn't been a crusade since Martin Luther nailed his demands to the door, and since the two groups have splintered even more, they hardly even fight amongst themselves anymore.

People often listen to ancap ideas and then reply with the standard condescending "Yeah it's all good brah but what you fail to take into account is human nature".  Usually, the point of the person blabbing about "human nature" is that "human nature" somehow always conspires to sabotage all peaceful cooperation (the ancap ideal).

I'd like to address that nonsense, thanks.  Here we go.

You'll note how people use the term "human nature" as a conversation stopper.  Rarely if ever does the person condescending others with "human nature arguments" actually bother explaining exactly how "human nature" (whatever that is) actually means that ancap ideas are possible.  He just says "human nature" and shuts up, as if the words "human nature" were some sort of magical incantation that stops all possible thought.

Also note how, rarely, does this person contemplate that he himself, somehow, and magically, does not conform to this alleged "human nature" of alleged nefariousness.  After all, he himself doesn't go around raping, robbing and defrauding people.  And, excuse my healthy skepticism -- I find it hard to believe that he doesn't behave in evil ways just because there's a government wth an outstanding threat of punishment against him.  Refraining from doing evil solely because of fear of punishment is sociopathy defined; I'm not particularly inclined to believe anything a sociopath says about "human nature", because what the fuck could he possibly know about that?

So, to the people who claim that they have "disproven ancap because human nature": what do you know about "human nature" that entitles you to dismiss ideas condescendingly?  What's this "human nature" you speak of?  That humans are extremely adaptable?  That on most circumstances humans seek to cooperate with each other?  That under a certain set of circumstances -- when humans posing as "state" control and order humans around -- humans kill each other?  Yeah, so what?

If your point is that "human nature" is "evil" -- which by the way is the sack of Christian bullshit theory of "original sin", repackaged to sound politically correct -- then you are evil (or you're not a human), so why should anyone listen to you giving advice about evil?  Not to mention that proposing to centralize the power to murder, kidnap and ruin human beings into a few hands is the absolute worst idea, because it will obviously empower evil people, according to your own beliefs about human nature.

You wanna see human nature?  With your own eyes?  Here you go:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z-eU5xZW7cU

That is how human nature looks like, on healthy individuals who haven't had a chance to be victims of abuse or brainwashing.  Yet.

I'm sure those of you who are evil and sociopathic will find ways to defame and discredit this hopeful reality; you can't bear the thought that other people are actually better at humanity than you are.  But it's not you that I'm addressing -- after all, you're warped to the point of being incorrigible -- it's your lies. Your lies perish here.  Too bad.

I'm saying, you're welcome to try it, it might even work for a generation. But I promise you, once you've socialized violence out of generation two --- it will promptly go down in flames.

All animals practice selective breeding. Being physically able to dominate your environment is a survival trait. You won't be able to socialize it out of every person on the planet. Politically you don't have any way to even attempt that under the tenants of what you're proposing. It would require coercion, but if you don't, someone somewhere is going to come destroy your ancap society... just as soon as your general population is docile enough and rich enough.

The point is to socialize violence out of the unlimited authority class (government, which uses various types of "immunity" to do absolutely ANYTHING evil and never suffer immediate or even lasting punishment). Once everyone has the ability to defend themselves equally without infringement, the self-preservation instinct kicks in all around, and you have true peace instead of a half-assed police state where tyrants and criminals are the ones committing all the aggression with every weapon known to man, and the innocents are left with just hands and feet.

Once again, I need to remind someone that non-aggression is not non-violence. There will always be that segment (recent numbers that I've seen indicate that it's probably 1 in 25) that want to enforce their will on others, keeping the rest of us on our toes.

For the record, I can't see what firefop says because he's on my ignore list due to his antisocial and irrational behavior on the boards.

a waste of good fodder i says

If true, that's interesting - and also quite ironic. It probably isn't the first time I've been ignored by a troll. But if the quality of your posts is anything to judge by, I'm honored to be on your ignore list.

Seems like firefap still does not unserstand what being on an ignore list means.

Gotta grant him: the idiot is nothing if not stubbornly persistent. Can someone quote the Einstenian definition of insanity for his benefit?

@ Myrkul - I have a question for you that would better elaborate your position:


Question:  What is the nature of sovereignty?   Where does sovereignty ultimately reside? 



P.S. Others are welcome to comment as well.



Dalkore

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-ownership

Look in a mirror. There, and only there.

Amazing... Myrkul is quite delusional... He answer questions with Wikipedia links and thinks that an image on a mirror is where sovereignty resides...

You're an idiot. It's the person in the mirror, not the image.
Just to reiterate, you're a moron.
If you don't know what those words mean, maybe the OED will tell you.

A vase appreciating where it sovereignty resides...

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/52/Mirror.jpg

I agree at one point in history this was the case, but once one state of forms, others form the same to either join in partnership or defend itself against it.   In essence, states out-compete the individual.  

With this said, I say that there is no voluntary association with the state because if they do not join, they are subjugated to it.   How does AnCap survive in this reality?  There is not path to regress to this state of being.  You may be able to setup a cove somewhere to try your experiment but once any threat to your sovereignty, you will need to join up not out of voluntary association, but necessity.  At that point, people who do you join could either be an enemy or a threat to the whole and you would need to subjugate them to you system of rule of law.   You system does not seem to be able to survive this real and present danger.

Reply Kindly,

D  

There may be no voluntary association with the state, but there can be voluntary association to defend against the state. Get enough people together, and they can defend against the subjugation. The only requirement or "rule of law" is that they agree that subjugating another is wrong.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=muHg86Mys7I

Its doesn't sound voluntary though, like you put it, it would be in there best interest but that may not be their ultimate wishes.  Its a necessity out of being is a dire situation.   

You idea sounds nice and some parts are appealing but it is not realistic and would not form under the manner you state.   

So, both parties agree, and nobody is forced to join, but because they're doing it to defend against state aggression, it's not voluntary? Have I correctly summarized your position?

Basically yes, they type of person that would be part of this sounds like the person who does not want to be part of state but a voluntary association.  The second you see this threat, you are then forced to act or be dominated.  History is filled with this type of domination so this is not speculation. 

I see. So does the existence of rape make all sex non-consensual? What about defending my spouse from rape?

First off, I am disgusted that this is the best example you could come up with. 

Rape is an act of violence and domination just for the sole gratification of the aggressor.  In contrast, there are good
benefits of a state along with bad effect and actions. 

The two do not compare enough so I reject your premise.

Very well, If I rob you to pay for my grandmother's new hip, does that make the robbery OK? Does the fact that I am robbing you to pay for my grandmother's new hip make you purchasing a better lock a non-voluntary transaction?

Why keep making up these storied scenario?  Lets just stick the the discussion at hand.  If that is all you can come up with to make your point, it doesn't sound like you have much of a rebuttal other than using stories with shock value and sympathy to make your point. 

In desperate times all people including you may do things that you wouldn't agree with.

Because analogies sometimes help you see things better. Kindly address this one, if you would.

States do not 'outcompete' the individual. Competition is, you do X, I do X, the best one wins. But that is not what states do -- what states do is, you do X, the state threatens you with ruin or death, game over.

People who use aggression to get what they want aren't 'competing'. They are just being malevolent. Malevolent people don't compete --- they just shoot you it you tell them 'no'.

Only a sociopathic person who wants organized aggression to take place would euphemize it as 'competition'. Like only a rapist would euphemize rape as 'lovemaking'.

There is no person in the mirror and sovereignty is not related to an mirror image.

You are really delusional....


http://mises.org/journals/lf/1971/1971_04.pdf


So, why the Celtic Irish people did not voluntarily organized to defend themselves against the English state subjugation?

Perhaps the Celtic Irish people did not have enough mirrors to find where their sovereignty resides?

I read once, I can try to find the reference, that if the Irish provincial kings had united they would have easily repelled the invaders. However, the invaders practised the very successful "divide and conquer" method, and exploited differences and petty wars to actually have the Irish fight themselves.

Isn't this the same tactic that government and politicians use on the voting public?

I'd say that's a fair characterization.

I felt that this might need a bump. I don't think Dalkore got a chance to read it the first time.