Bitcoin Forum

the inability to be coerced.

Uncompromisedly strict adherence to the non-aggression principle.

I like that too.

A uniform set of laws guaranteeing rights to protection of everyone regardless of their wealth, such that everyone may go about their business and recreation reasonably and comfortably.

I'm going to guess, without even looking, that the post directly above mine has nothing to do with freedom...

Edit: Well, Not as bad as usual. I stand corrected.

Though I wonder why uniformity trumps fairness.

I'm going to point out (as opposed to guessing) that the above post has nothing to do with freedom.


Fairness cannot exist without uniform application.

I see, so we should make the speed limits in all the US states the same? Otherwise they're not fair, right? And we should make the highway speeds the same as the city street speeds. That's fair, right?

Wow. What a weak comeback. I doubt one freeway will feel that it got unfair treatment as opposed to another freeway.

It's not the freeway, but the motorist that gets unfair treatment. What will get a man fined in one state (going, say, 75mph), or in one section of a state, will not get another man in trouble at all. That is not uniform, and so, not fair, am I right?

Therefore, all speed limits everywhere should be exactly the same, in order to be fair to all motorists.

Not really. Both encounter the same speed limit on the same highway.


No, not really. But all motorists should get equal treatment regarding emergency response should they get in an accident on some particular highway. For example, if Alice and Bob are in a head on collision on highway X.

But it's not uniform from highway to highway! What if on one highway, the speed limit is 65, but on the other, it's 55? A motorist traveling from one highway to another could get charged with speeding for doing something that was not before he took the exit. And a motorist traveling from Highway to city streets suffers even more stiff penalties for doing something that was perfectly legal only moments before. It's madness, I tell you.

Reasonable and prudent sounds good... ;D

...that quality of life where one may follow the dictates of conscience without molestation.

Being able to do whatever you want so long as it doesn't hurt others in the process.

I guess I take a simpler view on it :P

Lots of people get killed accidentally by others who hold beliefs such as yours. It sucks.

They will not find me such easy prey :P

I'm not sure you understand what I'm saying.

poo I misread, sorry about that, I just woke up LOL :D

Now I read it better there's no way I'd let that happen because I actually follow my beliefs :( a lot of the people who claim to hold our beliefs and stuff don't actually follow them and just use it to blend in with society, like mainstream politicians. People end up being killed in accidents anyway no matter what you do though sadly, it's just a fact of life, there's little you can do to prevent it, so we may as well enjoy life until it happens, most of the time laws get brought about is because it's one or two people or a one in a million disaster when there are other perfectly careful people who do just fine normally.

I'm sorry, but all the dumbasses out there think they can do this and that and it won't hurt anybody else, because, by gosh, they know what they're doing. But then how come these accidents happen where innocent people get killed? Such as speeding, or fucking around with a gun, or failing to follow building codes, etc.

It's bad enough as it is, because the above references are with laws. Imagine them without laws and total freedom for the dumbasses to do as they want, because they think they know what they're doing (which they don't).

You want to tell me what good a speeding ticket does the person who is harmed as a result of a driver speeding? (Assuming anyone is actually harmed... and if not, who gives a fuck?)

It appears you can't fit the discussion to reality. Try thinking about your question again.

I had a friend in school who died in a car crash, the reality is that these kind of deaths that you talk about don't happen as often as mainstream media claim, most people go about there lives perfectly happy without hurting anyone, it's all just bullshit sensationalism to make laws far tighter than they even need to be. I live in the UK where there are quite literally speed camera's anywhere, you think those fuckers ever gave a shit about my friend? No, they place them at the top of hills when you're about to accelerate to try and catch you off guard and then at the bottom when you're going to be going a bit faster than you normally would because of gravity. It's all just designed to make the government money with fines, in reality all it's going to do is make people more nervous than they need to be when they drive because they have more things to concentrate on. Oh and you think speeding and guns are the only fucking thing that get people killed? If I hadn't been on the look out and checking carefully before I exited places etc. I could very well have knocked over a good dozen of pedestrians, not through any particular fault of my own but because they weren't even bothering to watch where they were going since they were on their phones etc. or just in their own world, maybe there should be a ban on that sort of thing as well. Yes, you can't leave the house without making sure you're properly awake and don't drift off so you can react to your surroundings properly.

Sorry for the rant for those in thread and LOL it's funny you talking about reality FirstAscent, you sound like someone who has been living in a bubble their whole life.

Couldn't get past the quoted part. You're basing your claims from data taken from a world where there are speed limits and people get tickets for speeding. You sound somewhat immature, and you're the last person I'd like to have driving down the road near me sans speed limits and speeding tickets.

What a coincidence. I wouldn't trust you in a "reasonable and prudent" speed zone, either. Unless some authority tells you what and how, you're lost. I kinda feel sad for you.

lol I am immature, but not in the way you think, I'm not the one who's being an opportunistic twat like a number of other people on this forum and trying to politically stampede people because of a certain recent events, I think both sides are being pathetic.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/jan/14/mortality-statistics-causes-death-england-wales-2009

While this is 2009, it's still pretty damn recent, I'm sure you could find more recent data, but it shows that we die here in the UK more from disease and GASP! mental health disorder and disease than a bloody car or even inanimate objects in general, maybe we should be doing more about mental health than speeding etc.? Anyway, that's as much as I want to talk about the subject on an unrelated thread, go make your battleground some place else, but I suspect you're running around in other threads because you're getting your arse kicked by Science and Math.

So you present a case where you want deaths reduced, and simultaneously argue against effective measures to reduce deaths through speed limits. Very strange.

Here's a hint: Explore methods to reduce deaths. That's a good thing. But don't be counterproductive at the same time.

... being able to not give a shit about what the other guy thinks freedom is.

No, just an equal application of the posted speed limited law.

Ignorance of a law is not a defense.

Its cumulative so maybe not today or tomorrow, but some day the motorist might hurt someone by their speeding, so if you continue to ticket them when they speed, it usually encourages them to slow down.  It is the deceleration impact that kills people and the person going faster has the advantage in these cases.  That is one of the reason we have speeding laws.   
 

Victimless crimes FTW.

Myrkul's mindless post is an example of him engaging in deflection. Or perhaps he really is as dumb as a bag of hammers. Note that in his question, it really appears that he does not have a clue what a speeding ticket is for. Just to clarify, and I hope I don't need to embellish in further posts: speeders, if not punished, continue to speed until an accident might kill others, such as pedestrians (it has happened) or individuals in other cars who were obeying the speed limit. It's rather unfathomable that myrkul really doesn't appear to understand this.

Freedom is a concept. True freedom can never really exist, because the freedoms of one will always impinge on the freedoms of others.

something sociopaths have no business even thinking about, let alone defining.

That is a very dangerous idea. If a law is not self evident, or someone doesn't understand why what they are doing is inherently wrong, it's a horrible law. Mainly because it gives governments the power to pass arbitrary laws without actual legal purpose, for the sole reason of arresting people. Thats the way Soviet Russia worked and achieved power early on when it was arresting anyone those in power deemed enemies of the state.

Ignorance of the law is only a defense granted to, and by, the government itself. "Those who enforce the law cannot possibly be expected to know what civil rights are!" is their effective refrain.

I agree with you there. I was referring changing speed limits and not paying attention to the posted signs.

Freedom is... When you don't consider "rights" to be freedoms you were given, but freedoms that were always there.

Freedom is being able to protect myself however I want to and to be able to make as much money as I want to without anyone telling me how I can or cannot do it.

That works when there is no causal relationship between you and the rest of society.

a word that has no meaning out side of specific contexts. (i.e. i have the freedom to ____) What you mean to say is liberty not freedom.

so what is liberty? liberty is the *freedom* to pursue your own ends free from coercion so long as your means are not responsible for coercing other individuals.

FTFY

rofl

But true. I have since edited it further.

For causal relationships, there are agreements, understandings, and contracts. Moving on.


LOL! Because you say so?

Freedom is... not giving a shit what some power-hungry psychopath says, or whom he wishes would control you.

In general, there are not. You do shit. Everyone else suffers a little bit because of it. But I don't see the reality of everyone of those individuals having a contract with you. Do you?

You and 50 of your friends do shit. Everyone else suffers a little bit because of it. But I don't see the reality of everyone of those individuals having a contract with you and  50 of your friends. Do you?

50 percent of the world's population does shit. Everyone else suffers a little bit because of it. But I don't see the reality of 3.5 billion individuals having a contract with the rest of the world's population. Do you?


You're behaving like an angry and misinformed individual. I feel sorry for you.

Irony alert

FirstAscent, stop trying to troll and derail threads just because when you are on topic you get your arse kicked in a debate.

Lethn, no derailment is occurring here. We're discussing what freedom is, and how one's idea of freedom doesn't measure up. I asked the above fellow three questions. I'm awaiting his answer.

Now tell me this (and I am vary serious). How is it that because you reside in a forum that is mostly a niche crowd, that you feel intelligent when you gang up on the few who don't hold your niche views? Are you not able to hold your own in a debate by yourself? Say, just you and me. Can you do that?

I challenge you to answer the three questions I asked above. Or are you also an angry and misinformed individual?

The anger is evident in this post:


The misinformed aspect is evident in his malformed ideas of contracts.

Just because YOU can't see the point of being a good person so others leave you alone and want to interact, socialize, and trade with you, doesn't mean others can't. As I said, you have some really fucked up views of what people actually are like. You don't actually carry a set of law tomes with you to refer to when you are going on with your day-to-day interactions with people do you?

Freedom is doing what you want, and knowing that there are consequences for doing things others may not want. Those consequences may in turn limit your freedom, and are not limited to legal consequences, because legal consequences often limit the freedom of others to get their justice as well.

The fallacy in your answer is where you use the boldfaced phrase. When you say others, are you referring to a percentage of the population? If so, what about the remaining percentage? The other fallacy in your argument is the assumption you make that every person out there actually knows every mistake they might be making. The world is indeed more complex that it was back in the day when Cro-Magnon man hunted on the icy banks of rivers in Eastern Europe.

Regulations are important in today's world of industry and population density. Can you think why? Or are you indeed one of those who doesn't actually know all the cause and effects of actions within today's societies, economies and the natural ecosystems? How much do you know? The reality is, nobody expects that much from you in terms of knowledge, but instead, it's expected that you should accept some regulations instead.

Please share with me the general sources of learning you have been the recipient of, to come by your views. Are they balanced? Are they biased? Are they well known? Are they critically acclaimed? What citations do these sources have?

Oh, and please answer those questions about the contracts.

It doesn't matter what percentage it is. If someone is doing something wrong, they WILL be told about it.


If you are running a business or a trade, you BETTER well know what the hell you are doing. And, again, if you don't, and you fuck up, you WILL be told about it. Right now everyone just sits on their hands, and hopes someone else (the regulatory agency in government) tells you about it.


Like I said, you're an idiot who thinks everyone else is, too. Do you need the government to tell you that you feel bad ON TOP of telling you how to behave, too?


Public school. Very socialist, moderately socialist, and religious, throughout the years. Community college, public university, and other studies. Lots of reading and books from a very young age (I started reading books when I was 3). Slow evolution from hard-left socialist through moderate socialist, to "we only need government for defense," and finally to "fuck it, AnCap will happen whether we want it to or not, might as well embrace it."
How about you?


I don't have to, because the question ignored my original statement. Let me repost it with bolding relevant parts:

You don't have to have a contract to understand that you will be seriously fucked with if you fuck someone else over. And no government or regulation is required for it.

I guess you don't understand how small things summed in aggregate become big things. Have a good day.

And you never understood that in AnCap, all small things will aggregate into big things. Anarchy is not "everyone for themselves," it's "everyone for freely choosing their alliances." If you can't understand the larger implication of this then you can't understand AnCap.
(Yes, even if those alliances form some sort pseudo-totalitarian, taxing authorities that control and tax whoever lives on their territory)

I believe you missed the point. Small things, virtually unnoticed, go unenforced. But in aggregate, create monstrous problems.

Do you mean in an AnCap society, or in a Statist regulatory one? Or both? in which case it's irrelevant anyway.

Count Sparkle - Congratulations!!!!!  I believe you may be our first "Political Sock-puppet" account.   AND you're a AnCap supporter :) Applause all the way around.  Gotta love the account created on Dec 19th and then almost immediately starts posting in here, just to support your fringe ideal.   Has too much reality and logic been hitting AnCap too much lately for you to start making up new supporters?
 

Freedom is the capacity to act without restraint or limitation.

Not at all. You can blame two things on this: Minimum post requirements to get out of the newbie section, and boredom. The reason for this account have more to do with my attempt at showing that AnCap is not an ideology, but is something that is already practiced. I need to stay anonymous because I fully intend on braking laws (and in a small way already am) which I don't believe are ethically just. My anonymity, combined with Bitcoin, Tor, and PGP, means that your laws are irrelevant, since they can't do anything about what it is I am involved in (stay tuned  :D). Posting here and replying to you is really just "shooting the shit" as they say.

What do you mean by "causal relationship?"

Wouldn't they also go unnoticed in a regulatory society, and thus will go unenforced? What do government regulators have that people who are involved with a person doing those things directly don't?

A law requiring enforcement.

A causal relationship is when one variable causes a change in another variable. X causes a change in Y.

X = your actions.
Y = society.

EDIT: what the fuck did you think it meant?

How is it freedom when you are forced to pay somone else to upload laws which ensure your freedom? Doesn't this imply that you're enslaved to the law's enforcers and that you don't naturally have freedom without them?

Better that than lose the freedoms removed from unregulated activities.

What freedoms do I lose when I, and others, participate in unregulated activities? I've yet to knowingly experience this.

I think your comment solidifies the notion that you're not too well read in science, the environment, politics or economics. Would you like some recommended reading?

And by the way, have a great holiday!

the room IN BETWEEN you and the law

One is free when one takes responsibility for ones actions, satisfy ones own needs, when one is able to exist fully independently of others.

I was just confused that you seem to have thought that it's possible to make money without any " casual" relationships.

How would that help if the act goes unnoticed though?

Excellent observation. That's exactly the problem in an AnCap type of society. There's a much less consistent noticing of such things, unlike a society which enforces such things through seasonal inspections and such.

okay, I'll grant you that one.

Then by that reasoning you are only as free as you can defend.  I believe this to be true and that is why people decided to form governments so they weren't ruled by RANDOM THUGS.  This is why a step back away from a form of government is regressive in fact.

I would much rather know my thugs and have checks and balances.   You all complain that they don't work, look at us now, HOW MANY OF YOU actually do something like protest, go to your reps office, write an actually letter (not email), call a TV station?   Very few and it shows, most people care more about themselves and their oh so important social lives.  Doesn't matter.  It is coming to a head soon and we will see where people stand and what they will do.  

Can't wait!  ;D

oh you weren't joking, thats even funnier!

No, I wasn't joking. If you would like to present an argument against it, feel free to do so.

time is to short to be wasted on a lost cause

Excellent. I'd rather not debate your ethereal fantasy that exists nowhere in the world, whereas my description of how things work exists everywhere in the world multiple times over. Have a good day, and thank you for saving me the time of bickering with you about your nonsense.

The irony is that you are basically saying that "Freedom is free to do such and such, BUT DON'T DO THAT!" I mean, why shouldn't someone be free to use the term "coercion" however they wish? (aside from it hurting your feelings or something)

Twisting things, are you? We both know what you're doing. You're implying that we're talking about one's freedom regarding word usage. Even Anon136 understood the meaning. We're talking about a description of freedom, and how it's desirable that one not be coerced, with the exception of certain things that a certain crowd here likes to label 'coercion'.

Attack the meaning, not the structure of the sentences. It's always tiring to encounter such arguments.

So, freedom is not being coerced, except in some cases where coercion is OK...

Or at least where you personally think it's not coercion, even if others feel coerced.

"Freedom's just another word for nothin' left to lose" - JANIS JOPLIN

This lyric was a battle cry for a generation.

Define coercion.

I put the definition of coercion into the hands of the victim:  If you claim to have a right, you can be coerced because someone can threaten to violate that right.  When someone threatens to violate a right you believe you have, then you're being coerced.  Whether or not someone is being coerced, in my book, that is, being a victim of a violation of the non-aggression principle, depends on the rights they feel are threatened by the alleged coercer.  If I agree with the rights, then I agree that they're being coerced.

Every set of laws that is enforced through the threat to violate the rights of others represents coercion.  There is only one legitimate way to violate other people, and that is in self-defense.  Whatever part of "taxes, levies, fees, rents, tariffs or payments [that cover] infrastructure [you're using] and [the enforcement of] regulations which prevent uncaring, greedy or ignorant persons and their motives from destroying or negatively affecting others..." is self-defense would be fine with me.  From what I can tell, however, nearly all of those things generally and consistently "[affect] other individuals in a negative way," in addition to threatening to violate their rights if they refuse to comply.

In fact, the people who take that money, invent those regulations, and prevent people (caring, uncaring, greedy, not greedy, ignorant, and knowledgeable alike) and their motives from destroying or negatively affecting others - those people are the ones most responsible for our loss of freedom.  Those are the people most guilty of coercion.  Those are the people who slow us down, warp our economy, heed progress, and create politics.  Those are the people who create the most violence.

Dalkore, have you checked out The Myth of National Defense?  It's a great collection of essays addressing exactly that topic of how people defend themselves from random thugs.  It shows pretty well that your conclusion is quite off.  You mistake a cooperative defense strategy with "government," but the latter bears that name specifically because it employs coercion against its own people while the former relies entirely on voluntary participate (like the US of A was supposed to be until Lincoln fucked it up).

While you "would much rather know [the] thugs and have checks and balances," I would much rather know my friends and neighbors and trust their recognition of the thuggery, random or not, and especially recognize and repel thuggery rather than inviting it simply because I know the thugs and they (pretend to) have checks and balances built into their thuggery.  In fact, my global community is constantly finding more people who recognize the institutionalized thuggery of governments and creating solutions to the problems they cause.  Bitcoin is one of those solutions.  Find out more (if you want) at http://voluntaryist.com (http://voluntaryist.com).

according to your definition then isnt someone who is denied health care who also believes they have a right to health care being coerced? What about someone who believes they have a right to slaves would he not be coerced by everyone who refused to be his slave? i think this is not a very useful definition. I think in order for coercion to be a useful word it must be defined as a violation of the rights that the observer believes the coerced (or not) individual has not what rights the coerced (or not) individual believes he has.

dscotese,

So am I to take it then that you are fully against a landlord evicting you from a property you rent? Am I to understand that you are against someone showing up to your home with a gun to forcibly remove you if you don't pay rent and don't leave? Am I to understand you are against a landlord telling you that you cannot keep pets in your apartment? Am I to understand that you are against a landlord deciding what color carpet the place you rent has? Am I to understand that you get full say in how your landlord spends his money?

A car gives you freedom because instead of getting you to work this morning,it can take you anywhere if you feel like it. Likewise money gives you freedom of choice in many aspects of your life.

In a society each citizen trades some of their freedom for other benefits. You pay taxes to have infrastructure and security. You sell your temporal freedom at work to have monetary freedom in you spare time.

Freedom is not a well defined resource. Pushing a shopping cart down the highway not knowing where you gonna sleep tonight is the ultimate freedom for some, while it would be the absolute minimum of available choices in life for others.

You trade your freedom all the time. You have periods during the day here you have zero freedom and other periods where you decide others degree of freedom. When you feel un-free it's when you think your are in the red in your freedom bookkeeping.

It's hard to differentiate between freedom of choice and freedom by privileges. You will never feel that you have enough freedom as you cannot feel you have too much happiness in your life either.

your quest for your freedom is often in conflict with others quest for their freedom.

If you think hard enough, you know that the freedom you think you don't have is a freedom you have given away with your consent. Freedom is not something you ask for. Freedom has a price tag.

I'm pretty sure you are confusing "freedom" with "options."

Quote: "I'm pretty sure you are confusing "freedom" with "options.""

I'm pretty sure I'm not. Freedom is not a law of nature or a right, its a feeling. Options might be a lesser kind of freedom but the more of them you have, the more free you feel.

Yes, they are being coerced in their view.  In my view, we are obligated to coerce them (as they call it) because their perception of their rights violates our property rights (heathcare requires the provider to be paid).  Likewise the slave-owners.

You've touched on another important point which is this:  The problems we will/do have with would-be slave owners and sick socialists are a result of their untenable conception of rights, not a poor definition of coercion.  Definitions aren't important unless you want to stick with a given word (as if you had a contract that uses the word or, if you're a statist, a law that uses it).  A person who believes they have a right to own slaves should NOT be free. Likewise a person who believes they have a right to medical services that others are capable of providing.  If you make unreasonable claims to rights, you should not be free.  Who judges?  I do.  Everyone should judge for themselves.

No sir, you are not to understand those things.  However, if it appears that I'm choosing to violate someone's property rights in the ways you described, it's a good bet that I'm doing it because they don't actually hold rights to the property.  If it seems to you that I'm wrong, please get in touch with me so we can have a reasonable discussion about it.

If you don't mind, I'm also interested in the logic behind what seems to be a set of conclusions you've made about me.  Can you explain?

Is there a word you use for the exercise of the set of rights you have that you never actually give up for any reason? - "inalienable rights" that is.  Does the condition of being able to exercise those rights any time you want to without fear of retaliation from other people have some sort of name for you?  "Freedom" is a good name that I use to describe this condition, but that word apparently means something else to you - something that we do give up from time to time in order to get other things, something that is "alienable", or tradable.

Or perhaps you have no word for what I've described.

I find a lot of people trying to tie their own meanings to words as if Plato was right about his ideals.  He wasn't.  Every individual has their own meaning for every word they use, and I think it's a waste of time arguing about what a word "really" means when the important issue is not what the words mean, but what the person using them means.  I avoid a lot of problems by recognizing that others use words differently than I use them.  At the same time, when we find common ground in the meanings of the words we use, it enhances our ability to communicate, so there is value in discussing word meanings.  I just think it's silly to argue about who is right in that area.

Belief doesn't enter into it. You can objectively determine who is using coercion in any conflict where coercion is being used by determining who initiated the conflict. The other party, who did not initiate the conflict, is defending themselves.

I don't like to claim that we can be objective.  We can agree to enough aspects of word definitions to make the subjectivity insignificant (that's what we do in math), but true objectivity is ... well, void, in my view.  But that's probably a bit too philosophical a discussion to have here.

To answer the question of how we should interpret one person's claim that some guy is being coerced, trust, but verify: I would ask the victim: "Do you feel a threat to violate your rights?"  Whether or not the victim holds my definition of coercion, an honest answer will provide me with the understanding I desire.  From there, I can judge those doing the threatening and interact or avoid them, defend or abandon the victim, and explain whatever choices I make according to my voluntaryist disposition.  I might have to ask what the threatened rights are first.  But that's the rub - if I agree that the victim has those rights, then I agree that it's coercion.  If not, I and the victim will have to agree to disagree - not because of the facts of the situation, but because we don't agree on what rights the victim holds - about whether he's being coerced.

"Threaten" and "harm" and "damage" and "violate" are simpler than "coerce" because "coerce" requires a certain psychological state in the victim - essentially his belief that he would be better off without the person doing the threatening.  To use "coerce" as I use it requires that you believe something about the victim's beliefs.  I suppose I'm narrowing the definition from how most people use it - people who wouldn't be puzzled by "He coerces the horse" because "threaten" and "coerce" mean the same thing to them.  I think that requiring the victim to perceive that he has some rights that are under attack makes "coerce" more useful - and I think when people use it - honest people, not politicians - there is at least a tincture of that requirement.

I brought up the horse because I've been using the difference between horse whispering and horse breaking for years to explain what's wrong with government authority and everything it touches, and also in discussions about raising children.

Well, I disagree with you about objectivity, but as you say, that's not really this discussion. This bit, however, is an excellent point.

WAR IS PEACE, FREEDOM IS SLAVERY, and IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH, huh?

Would you take offense if I defecated in your living room?

Well. This, I have to admit was an unexpected angle. So, you have no home, then? Where do you keep your things? Where are you accessing the internet from?

Ah, but you're not really playing along. If you want to, just answer the very simple yes or no question: Is it OK if I crap on your carpet?

If you really want to play along, add in why or why not.

No, I would not clean it up afterwards.

Now THAT is disgusting!

Freedom is not wearing underwear.

Ha! Yeah, that's probably the best response to this. He knows he's already beat, so he's refusing to engage. Pretty much par for the course with him.

Since he's admitted defeat by refusing to engage, I'll go ahead and run the conversation without him:
Me:
Would you take offense if I crapped in your living room?
Him:
Yes, of course I would.
Me:
So you would like me to respect your property.
Him:
Of course.
Me:
In return, do you agree to respect my property?
Him:
Sure, why not.
Me:
Great, we've just established a property right. All rights are reciprocal agreements like this.
Him:
...

I agree with this, I agree with is so much in fact that I just avoid the "rights" (and also the "morality") framework completely. Instead I focus on goals that can be objectively evaluated like the goal to live in a society that is free to maximize it's potential an objective requirements of which is everyone to be free to own and be in absolute control over their property..

If you share my goal then you must obey that requirements if you ever want to reach it. And if you don't then I don't really care about you or your goals.

Unlike most libertarians, most left-anarchists do make a difference between ownership (the right to use something) and property (the kind that can be only protected by a strong authority or state).

Agreeing to not take a crap in each other's living room is one thing. Having a paper that says you own an island far away is another. Either this claim is backed by a strong authority that can apply (military) force, or it's just as significant as these shady sites on the internet today where you can buy a plot of land on the moon or a star.

No....

If there are no other people, then I have a de facto right to my property, because there's no one to violate it. When there are other people around, then those people have to agree on some ground rules. We call these ground rules "rights," and so that these ground rules will be fair and equitable, we base them on objective principles such as self-ownership.

the idea that objective principles exist is the very core of all fundamentalism. as long as you base your set of rights on "objective" principles you always risk not listening to your fellow citizens who might have entirely different ideas about what rights are necessary and what ground rules are fair and equitable.

And what would you counter self-ownership with? I claim that everyone owns 100% of themselves, and 0% of anyone else. That is fair and equitable, because it applies to everyone equally. What principle would you base your "fair and equitable" system on?

i would base it on principles the actual participants could agree upon. as long as you found ancap nation only with volunteers in a completely seperate new nation, that might not be much of a problem at first. but in every existing society, you will always have different views on what is fair and reasonable. as long as you start out with "i know whats right for all of us" you are bound to fuck up, no matter how awesome your principles are.

Do you honestly believe that people could not agree upon "Leave me alone, and I'll leave you alone"?

Even when that principle is "I know what's best for me, you know what's best for you, I don't necessarily know what's best for you, and you don't necessarily know what's best for me, so let's just decide for ourselves, and not for each other"?

History says yes. See communist revolutions, religion, colonialism.

Which is where defense comes in. Those who don't agree to leave people alone and in turn, be left alone, will be "convinced" to leave those who do agree alone.

well, many countries dont have the space - not to mention the mindset - to play cowboys and indians anymore ;)

Who said anything about "Cowboys and Indians"? It's "peaceful people and assholes."

same old game. the only difference is that with cowboys and indians there usually is an agreement who is playing the cowboys and who is playing the indians  ;)

No need for "agreement," Whoever breaks the agreement to leave the other alone first is the asshole.

When someone breaks the agreement to leave each other alone, it's not voluntary anymore, because they disagreed. They tried to force someone to do something. They made it not voluntary.

The one all peaceful people live by:

"No person has the right to initiate the use of force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle)"

They don't have to have heard of it in order to live by it, and therefore, be peaceful. Some other formulations:

"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" - Christianity

"Do not do to others what you would not like yourself. Then there will be no resentment against you, either in the family or in the state. " - Confucianism

"Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful." - Buddhism

"This is the sum of duty; do naught onto others what you would not have them do unto you. " - Hinduism

"No one of you is a believer until he desires for his brother that which he desires for himself." - Islam

"What is hateful to you, do not do to your fellowman. This is the entire Law; all the rest is commentary." - Judaism

"Regard your neighbor’s gain as your gain, and your neighbor’s loss as your own loss." - Taoism

"That nature alone is good which refrains from doing another whatsoever is not good for itself." Zoroastrianism

So you see, basically every religion has taught this ideal as "good." Following this ideal - not harming another unless they have harmed you - makes you peaceful, regardless of how you word it.

They don't? Then maybe you don't understand what the NAP means... because though they express it in different words - one in logical, legal terminology, the others in religious - they carry the same sentiment.

And what aspects of a religion make it so? Because it looks to me like a legal framework based on logical principles, not a faith based on superstition and myth.

I'm sure I totally missed it, but could you please repeat your debunking of the " leave others' stuff alone and don't be an asshole" idea? I'd love to hear how that is debunked exactly.

Religion requires a belief in some higher power or something spiritual that has to be taken for granted but can't otherwise be proved. At most the NAP is a philosophy. Mostly, though, it's just an understanding, since all it is, in it's totality, is "don't fuck with my stuff, and I won't fuck with yours." I'm not sure where you are getting "religion" out of that, unless your belief is that normal people should be able to fuck with others' stuff without permission, and doing otherwise is some crazy cooky nutcase idea.

No... people following that principle is all that's required. Not even all people. Just most, and those who don't being considered criminals. The only difference between that and now, is that not all that don't are considered criminals.

Then test our "faith". Can you think of a single situation where it would not work?

...
NAP throws the first punch... by telling people they can't throw the first punch. Logic is not your friend, is it?

You are the only one claiming it will prevent chaos. There will still be chaos, as there is now under government rule, because there will always be assholes trying to commit crimes.


"Empirical evidence?" The NAP isn't going to do diffuse conflict scenarios, it will either prevent or eliminate them. To say otherwise is to claim that things like the threat of punishment or being actually killed by police will not prevent someone from committing crimes or stop them from being able to commit them in the future. The enforcement method is the same.


The opposite of NAP throwing that first punch is the government throwing the first punch by laying down the law and telling people that they MUST use aggression and violence against others. That's the opposite of NAP.

If you can disprove an argument, intellectual honesty demands no less than I reject it in the future.

Indeed they do, but if you can prove to me that the NAP is not universal, I will stop calling it universal. If I can prove to you that it is, will you stop trying to tear it down? Do you hold yourself to the same high standards of intellectual honesty as you seek to hold me?

...the result of people applying Universally Preferable Behavior and logical reason to their moral understanding and interactions with other people.

+1

So your claim is that all people ought not be aggressive. You are making a positive claim here this means you hold the burden of proof. Why ought all people not be aggressive? For me i personally would prefer that people not be aggressive but thats simply because *I* prefer peace and prosperity not because i believe peace and prosperity are objectively preferable. I mean lets call this what it is, you are saying that some things are objectively preferable. The phrase "objectively preferable" is like a paradox it makes no sense to me, the very idea of preference implies an element of subjectivity. forget the nap, I'll be happy if you can demonstrate any preference that is in any sense objectively valid.

There is a book called Universally Preferable Behavior that attempts to prove this, as well as years of discussion and fine-tuning beyond this. Reiteration here would be ridiculous, so I invite you to research into it. The book and audiobook are available for free.

No, my claim is the same one that the Non-aggression Principle makes: that no person has the right to be aggressive. The functional result is that all people ought not be aggressive, but all I am claiming is that no person, or group of persons, no matter how they are constituted or their decisions are made, have the right to.

But you have a problem with landlords being aggressive if you don't pay rent. You advocate squatting.

You still haven't indicated that you've calmed down enough to converse without resulting to insults. Have you?

You're having trouble answering my statements, aren't you? If you can't, or don't want to, fine. We can just discuss movies instead. Your choice.

I have no trouble answering your statements, but if my conversation partner isn't calm and rational, there's no point, is there? Are you calm and rational, FirstAscent, or are you just going to be throwing insults around again today?

If you wish to go on with this meaningless and condescending chatter, you will get the opposite of what you want.

It's a simple question. Simply indicate that you are calm and rational enough to converse without insults, and we can continue our conversations. What I want is calm and rational conversation. Are you saying that you're not calm and rational enough to give me that?

I'm not saying anything one way or another regarding the matter, nor am I going to. Address my statements if you are able to, or choose not to. I have no need to engage in agreements with you.

In other words, that's exactly what you're saying. Have a nice day.

So, you're saying that it's impossible to prove that the NAP is not universal? Or that it's impossible to disprove my argument that it is? If either of those is what you're saying, then you concede defeat, and I accept your surrender.

Would that not disprove my claim that it is universal, and thereby prove to me that it is not? If you can make such an argument, do so. I think you're just stalling and avoiding actually presenting your argument.

i am aware of this book and the logic contained has been demonstrated to be fallacious by bitbutter in this youtube video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OMt6CxZUOog)

ok but for it to be universal this statement must be either objectively valid and not a product of your personal preference or agreed upon by everyone in the universe. since we can rule out the latter, inorder for it to be objectively valid it must be logically deducible. how does one logically deduce that no person hast the right to be aggressive?

Because any right, in order to be a right, must be universal. Therefore, either everyone has a right to be aggressive, or nobody has. With me so far?

No one claimed anything like that. You are misunderstanding NAP, which means simply that no one has the right to agress, AND those who do will be aggressed against in kind. A NAP society will not be any more or less devoid of criminals than the current one, aside from the fact that some crimes today are actually legalized, which would still be considered unfair aggression under NAP.

I've already made the commitment you seek. You even quoted it:

Same question can be asked of you? Do you believe some people should be allowed to initiate aggressive action without consequences, and if yes, why?

More to the point, what's the point of discussing NAP? Where do you feel that you are missing out on NAP in your life?

Prove, or logically demonstrate, that in a NAP society, the NAP principle will fail then. That's a proof positive.

I'm gay. My partner and I own a house we both pay for, but it's in his name. If he dies, I shouldn't have to pay inheritance tax to take ownership of his house. If I refuse to, since our marriage isn't recognized, I will have others come after me for my money.
I like to grow flowers. Some of them are beautiful, but were deemed dangerous and banned because others use them to make drugs. I can't grow them, because I'll risk having my door busted down, even though I'm only interested in the flowers.
I like to travel, and do so a lot. Neither I, nor the airlines, want to put up with the idiotic taking off shoes and not carrying liquids rule, but both of us are forced to comply with them.
I wish to hire someone to do some web work for me. To do so, and pay them legally, I have to report whom I'm hiring, fill out forms, and pay a variety of taxes and insurances, even if it's just a temporary contract work. If I don't do this (and most people don't), I risk getting in trouble with the government.
Plus there's the issue of my tax dollars going to pay for things like police arresting nonviolent drug offenders and giving them food and housing for months, or going to pay for military that at times tends to kill innocent civilians with no repercussions, both perfect examples of aggression being initiated unjustly.

I also came from a country that was the opposite of NAP, where everyone was equal, but some were more equal than others, and speaking badly about the government or any of its propaganda resulted in a visit from an official, along with some uncomfortable questions and names placed on blacklists. So, I may be a bit biased, but we do have quite a bit of " you're unpatriotic" accusations and no-fly-list issues, and the whole " imprisoned without charge and renditioned to a foreign country for a false accusation of terrorism" was only recently stopped.

But if you were to rent, would you complain that part of your rent payment goes to property improvements you're not interested in? Would you complain if the landlords said 'no pets'?

Move to a gay friendly state. Kind of like moving if you don't like your landlord.

No, because it is not my house. I am just buying the privilege of living there, and have voluntarily agreed on doing it together with my landlord, along with all the issues you mentioned, when I first moved in.


Aside from it being a Federal issue, are you implying that the house I own is actually owned by the state and not me? Is everything in reality owned by the government, like it was in the Soviet Union? And when did I agree that anything I buy from someone should involve a third party, like a government landlord? I don't think your example works very well.

Hey, Rassah, where is the state that will let you grow opium poppies? Where is the state that will not subject you to the TSA? Where is the state that will let you hire who you wish for whatever job you wish, at whatever rate you wish, without all the paperwork and tax forms? For that matter, where is the state that will not steal your money for its own use, and that will prevent the federal government from doing so as well?

'Cause I'll help you move, if you help me.

Can you tell me how you're supposed to be able to choose your parents? Can you choose where you were born? There are some things in life in which you simply cannot choose.

Tell me now, can the state choose where you were born? It cannot. But the state does have laws. If you were born in America, as an infant, would one choose to forfeit any services offered by the state? No.

And lastly, you voluntarily chose to come to the U.S. So I think on all counts, your argument is falling flat on its face.

ok sure you can define any word you like any way you like for the sake of this discussion lets define rights in such a manner that they necessarily apply to everyone, no harm in that at all. To me the rights that i believe people have orginate from my own subjective values and beliefs. You seem to claim that the rights that you believe people have originate from somewhere other than your own subjective beliefs and that you are simply an observer not the creator. Do i have this right?

"which means simply that no one has the right to agress" what is the functional difference between this statement and "thou ought not aggres"? It seems to me that they are two ways of saying the same thing and that my way is simpler and more direct.

ah now we are getting to the heart of the matter! i do not believe that some people should be allowed to initiate aggressive action without consequences. I believe this because i believe that allowing such behavior leads to outcomes that *i* do not prefer. Notice how this is different from the claim that this leads to outcomes that are universally non-preferable.

Only one I'm aware of is my little, yellow, three-person inflatable boat that I have, whenever I row it out far enough into the ocean. Can't really live on it for too long (great for tanning and relaxing though)

What does my, birthplace or me being born to my parents, have to do with my contract with a landlord I'd be renting from? And conversely, if I had been born in an apartment, why can't the landlord of that apartment force me into a contract where I owe him $500,000 paid over my lifetime, from the time I was a baby, and without me ever even agreeing to it, simply because I was born in his apartment? That sounds like it would be a great deal for landlords, so why can't they do it?


Why not? I'm sure many would, and there are plenty of state offered services I would choose to forfeit, too.


I was under 18 when I moved, so it wasn't voluntary, and moreso, even if I had moved here voluntarily, I doubt I would have been given a copy of the contract that lists all the agreements and responsibilities that both I and the state agree on. The only pertinent question that immigrants get asked when moving here is "will you join the army and fight for this country if you are called?" Nothing about any other responsibilities or benefits.

None, you're right.


Not sure what you're trying to get at. NAP is a society-based understanding, similar to offering extra rights to a few selected ruling elite being a society-based understanding. It's not an individual preference.
Would you prefer an outcome where you are being hunted down or denied goods and services because earlier you preferred to initiate aggression against someone else?
The bigger issue, though, is that in our current state-run society we have some people who are allowed to initiate aggression, and some who aren't, regardless of whether the people involved prefer it that way. It essentially make some people "more equal" than others, simply because society agreed on it, and at times even when it didn't.

Edit: Holy crap typos!

Yes.  If you are doing something harmful and all non-aggressive actions have been exhausted then I would reserve the right to take aggressive action to stop your harmful activities. 

That's not initiating aggression, that's responding to someone else's.

Doing something "Harmful" is not the same as being "Aggressive" unless there is some special definition I am unaware of?

Exactly. What has AnCap done for you lately? Answer: nothing.

I'm not a fan of the "aggression" term, either. Just think of it as:
Aggression - fucking with me or my property.

Uh, it kept my neighbors and myself on friendly terms that involve us respecting our individual yards despite the lack of fences? Just one tiny example.

Oh im already a free market anarchist. Im just a consequentialist libertarian who doesnt recognize the legitimacy of many of the arguments of denotological libertarians like stefan moleneaux or myrkul. So where it counts we agree! i just find debate with other libertarians to be so much more stimulating than with people like firstassent so i nit pick and look for points of contention.

Well I am talking about Harmful and I reserve the right to initiate aggression to any acting harmfully in a way that is or potentially will affect me or my property.  The only way I would infringe on my right is if we form a government that we are both a part of and those laws will instead assert this right.  

In the end, this is exactly where I see the biggest flaw in NAP & AnCap as an extension.  It all sounds nice on paper but in the end, human nature does not work in this way and with that is just sounds like a system to give cover for people who want to externalize their impact and not give just recourse against them.   Its all about Person Responsibility and most people don't have much.  Until you fix that, AnCap and any all voluntary systems fall flat because of the people who will abuse these rules and others expense.  

Thank you. I definitely still need that, as I'm still forming my own views on all this.

Why wouldn't you take up aggression if someone was doing something harmful? It could be as simple as boycotting their products and encouraging others to do so (they even have apps for that now), taking them to court, or outright violence against their person and property. Hit them in their checkbook, even if it means they have to spend a lot more on beefed up security.
And also, what do you do if the laws do NOT asset that right? For instance, what if a law states that only a certain amount of arsenic is allowed to be leached into the surrounding water, but that level is way too high, and is toxic to you and your plants? Or a law says that the fine needed to pay for cleanup of a spill is actually way too little to actually cover the costs of the spill cleanup, or to be punitive enough to make the company try to stop spilling? In both cases the entity doing the harm is well within their legal rights, and you are forced to agree to it. (FYI, the later happened with the BP oil spill, where BP agreed to pay a fine in exchange from being protected from being sued again, but the fine they paid is way less than what it is costing to clean up the gulf)


I think I have just shown that it's actually the other way around. People who want to externalize their impact usually have professional people who help write laws to make their impacts legal, thus binding those who get harmed to just accept it, whereas, without the government being there with tax payer funded police and military, there would be nothing to prevent an angry mob from storming the place and taking it out of commission, laws be damned.

Good, because that's the definition that the dictionary uses, too.

Now, as to the origin, there are several ways to look at it: Rights could come from:
1) An inherent nature of the human condition, such as is often used to justify self-ownership: You have the first, best claim on your body, therefore you own it.
2) An external creator, with a higher authority than all others, such as the founders of the United States used to explain their conception of rights: that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. or
3) An agreement, which must be reciprocal in nature, that both participants in an interaction have a certain right, and thus it should be respected: By not killing someone, you are acknowledging their right to life, and therefore, your right to life is respected as well.

Note that all three of these require that a right, in order to be considered a right, must be universal: Everyone here has the original claim to their body, as we're all human (I assume). Everyone has the same Creator, or they don't. If you deny a right, then you can not claim it for yourself... the murderer can hardly expect to have his right to life respected, after denying the right to life by killing someone.

But this is all just a side-track. You've already agreed that rights need to be universal, regardless of their origin. So, if anyone has the right to aggress, then everyone does. The state, however, disagrees. They pass multiple laws which indicate that people do not have right to aggress: laws against rape, murder, theft, etc. But then they empower agents to do just that: rape (http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/04/17/i-had-a-transvaginal-ultrasound-my-perspective-on-the-mandate-that-touched-off-2012s-war-on-women/), murder (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6f-bLxIJiVA), and steal (http://www.irs.gov/). So, are they violating the criminals' rights, or ours?

if you are interested, my favorite libertarian author, an outspoken consequentialist and great alternative to stefan molyneux's deontology is david d friedman. Where stefan will just deflect by saying "technical specifics dont matter" or "try explaining a tractor to people 300 years ago" david will actually lay out technical specifics in laborious detail, david will actually explain the tractor. His book the machinery of freedom single handedly changed me from a minarchist to an anarchist, this being after i had had been listening to stefan for long time.

if you do decide to check out the machinery of freedom its free on the web. the book is broken into 3 parts, i recommend starting with part three and i would ask that you only stick with it for atleast 2 chapters "what is anarchy, what is government" and "police courts and laws on the market" then after that only keep reading if you are hooked =).

In fact, here it is... https://dl.dropbox.com/u/146411/BookClub/The_Machinery_of_Freedom_-_David_D_Friedman.epub

If you prefer PDF, I believe I can provide that as well.

Ok but *why* does being born into a body constitute legitimate acquisition of that body? Maybe bob believes that bob owns everyones body. Specifically why is your theory right and bobs theory wrong? I know we are venturing into the territory of epistemology but i dont see there as being an answer to this question. Fortunately i dont think the question its self is very important. I value peaceful resolutions to conflicts and self ownership leads to peaceful resolutions to conflicts. Whether it is objectively the case that peacefully resolving conflicts is preferable is not a concern to me, all that matters to me is that I prefer it. when getting into a debate with someone like firstassent I just ask do you value peaceful society? if he says yes than i can discuss what means (libertarianism) will lead to that outcome and then the conversation shifts into the realm of objectivity. If he does not value a peaceful society than you can just disengage and take comfort in the fact that he is in the super-minority, there is no need to prove that he is "wrong" in not preferring peace to violence.

if you could demonstrate the existence of a god then i might accept number 2.

"An agreement" it surely cant be this, i have made no such agreement with every person on the planet, which is what would be required for the agreement to be universal.

"By not killing someone, you are acknowledging their right to life, and therefore, your right to life is respected as well." not at all. Imagine that i am with a person who i do not believe has a right to be alive, i may avoid killing him for many reasons, maybe i would go to jail if i killed him or maybe i believe that he could draw his gun faster than i could draw mine and that i do not wish to die. Maybe im a pacifist who would like for someone else to kill him but am unwilling to kill him myself for philosophical reasons.

What he may be eluding to, is that you only have a right as much as you can defend it with force.  The law of nature has some of these elements in it.

I answered that in the example explanation. You have the first, best claim. Bob is wrong because in order to take possession of my body, he would have to expel me.


Well, when you go into a restaurant, you don't explicitly agree to give them money for a delicious burger, and they don't explicitly agree to give you a delicious burger for your money. But when you purchase a burger, and it is not up to your standards, you do go back (or call them, if you've left) and get a better burger, or your money back.

Many of these agreements are exactly this sort of "understood" agreement. It doesn't matter why you respect his right to life, for instance, that you do is sufficient.

+1

It's not exactly unclear... and no matter how you interpret it, the result is the same.

You're playing your word games again. You would not have made your statement if I had not made mine. It is in response to it. To demonstrate, refute the points Holliday will make when he next responds to this thread. But do it before he does.

You are making up a fake world with very restrictive rules, and then saying that the NAP cannot exist in such a world. I would agree with you. But what you described isn't the real world that we live in, so it's rather irrelevant.

Also, it seems you are implying NAP is some strange scenario where nothing happens while no one messes with each other's stuff, but as soon as someone does, guns go blazing. That's also not how the real world works. If your neighbor messes up your yard or shoves you while passing by you, you don't immediately get into a brawl or call the police, you figure out what happened, why, and what can be done to resolve it. People practice NAP every day of their lives. We just propose extending it to the rest of the government.

Here, blablahblah, this philosophy should be right up your alley:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeno%27s_paradoxes

You do so love to "prove" reality wrong.

Lol. I laugh at people who don't understand free will vs determinism. I guess you are trying to change his mind about his ability to change his mind and say he is wrong if he doesn't, just like a rock is wrong for rolling down a hill?

You have a choice to respond to this post or not. The fact that you cannot respond to is prior to the post existing doesn't invalidate free will. This is rather a function of events and time.

If you take a group of people and put them in identical environments and then give them a choice of the color chair they want to sit in, there will be some variance in the choice. Again, the option to choose a chair must exist in order for someone to choose a color of chair, but this doesn't mean that they all will have the same choice. These are very separate.

Let me try this...

• If you believe that man has free will, then what really counts in terms of aggression is a person's decision on how to act, their inner intentions. Every intrinsically human act is therefore initiatory. Whereas reactions or responses, especially ones that are completely predictable and logical, are indistinguishable from a machine. Machines are "event-driven" and are only capable of responding to external stimuli, based on their sensory inputs: push a button -- something happens in response. If man has free will, there must be something else that cannot be explained by the known laws of physics (or at least Newtonian physics).
• If you believe that man does not have free will, this could suggest a deterministic world where everything that happens is an unavoidable consequence of all the things that occurred before. Taken to its logical conclusion, there is no such thing as aggression or initiation of force -- all human activities are forced responses to a complex interplay of sensory inputs, genes, cosmic rays flipping a switch, etc. Even the decision-making process and appearance of free will is just an illusion.

I'm sure there are other views and variations of the above, but I think I've covered the two main camps. Neither view allows a government sanctioned legal system to function properly.

If Free Will doesn't exist:
One is forced ;) to adopt a left-leaning view that all apparently aggressive actions are really a consequence of everything else. All police responses to force are genuine, including merciful 'decisions' that take into account all the unavoidable circumstances, including the fact that force initiated by the government is never really initiated by the ultimate act of free will.

Yeah, it makes just as much sense... :P

Your logical fallacy is... (http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/black-or-white)

I note you still haven't refuted Holliday's next post. How come you haven't initiated that action yet?

Free will exists, and people make choices in response to others' actions. And in the words of Rush (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OnxkfLe4G74), "If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice."

The wave function collapse (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_function_collapse) may hint that the world is not that mechanical determined by "outside" influences, and that free will exists.

Maybe we're living as avatars in a simulation (http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2019912305_simulation16m.html), as the world is only being rendered when there is an observer.

Maybe this simulation runs in a technologically high advanced civilization, and they run it because they still haven't figured out economics.

Doesn't bode well for any system of crime and punishment, whether anarchy with NAP, or democracy with a police force. So, either a government with a police force, and people practicing NAP privately don't exist, or there is something wrong with your premise.

When reality contradicts your premise, it's pretty clear that there's something wrong with the premise. 'Cause, you know, arrows do hit their targets, faster runners do overtake slower ones, and people do make decisions in response to others' actions.

Yea.... logical consequences of falsehoods are irrelevant. Like the logical consequence of the Earth's atmosphere being poison is the mass genocide for the human race, except maybe a handful of people. Only this "logical conclusion" is based on a false premise and thus, has about zero effect on (or help in describing) reality.

Reactions aren't forced. They are chosen and deliberate, and the person choosing to react bears responsibility for his actions, just as the person to whom this reaction is in response to is responsible for his initial action.
What's your point?

co·erce 
/kōˈərs/
Verb

   1. Persuade (an unwilling person) to do something by using force or threats.
   2. Obtain (something) by such means.

This has been one of my major areas of contention.   If I had to name a single habit of society that keeps gnawing at us and hurting our character, it is the continual habit of people trying to dodge responsibility and the inability for them to take responsibility for their actions.

This is a major flaw of AnCap & NAP as a potential system.   Until the human nature of people trying to dodge the rules at others expense is dealt with, a voluntary society will just fall apart into chaos and guess what shows up in the wake....... The State.   Where you don't get to choice what is your responsibility or not.  I personally think we can easier determine between reasonable people what these basic responsibilities are, and come up with rules/laws to enforce them.   AnCap thinks these are a choice, but in fact they are not if you want a functioning and thriving society.  You need a basic environment/foundation for people to build and evolve on.

http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-nature (http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-nature)


http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/slippery-slope (http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/slippery-slope)
...and the funny part that you want a State in order to solve the possible eventual problem of getting a State

http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman (http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman)
At least most AnCaps agree there are rules, they are just determined by an infinite set of voluntary market transactions and the social ostracism of "bad actors" (or people who choose systems opposing to yours), rather than the arbitrary decrees of a handful of politicians of whom were never agreed upon by everyone affected. (Obama was elected by about 1/6th of the USA, as only 1/3rd of Americans even voted. Congressional and local elections have even lower turnouts on average).

I see. so, the rape victim is actually initiating sex with her attacker, huh?


Ahh. You think that rejecting coercion somehow is an attempt to absolve the coerced of responsibility?

Quite the contrary. In fact, accepting coercion, "Just following orders," that's rejecting responsibility for your actions.

Funny thing is that your 1st response to link a website. 

1.  Stating the fact of human nature is not a logical fallacy.  It is the way things are, I operate in the present and read about the past.

2.  That is not what I said at all.  I said that as people skirt the laws, the voluntary society will fall into a state of lawlessness and the longer that persists the more likely a State will form to deal with it with enforced rules.

3.  I never said AnCaps didnt agree there are rules.  I am saying humans tend to cut corners at others expenses and when you have a weak state (AnCap) that will be more rampant. 

You need to actually read what people say and respond with your own thoughts.   Your all over the board on a very direct statement.

ok why does being the first person to occupy a body grant you a better claim than not being first. For me the answer is that accepting the legitimacy of the homesteading principle allows people to peacefully co exist. This is good to me because i personally prefer peaceful coexistance to the alternative. Your job is to demonstrate that property ownership is more than a useful convention well suited to acheving perticular goals that are personally important to you but rather an intrinsic law of the universe, which i still do not think you have done. So basically my position is that we own our bodies because recognizing the social convention of property ownership allows more people to acheve the things that are importent to them than the alternative would allow your position is that we own our bodies because there is some fundamental law akin to the laws of physics which states that this is so. What is this law how do we use either the scientific method or deduction to demonstrate its existence?

"Many of these agreements are exactly this sort of "understood" agreement. It doesn't matter why you respect his right to life, for instance, that you do is sufficient." good point and it should be noted that fundamentally we are on the same team. The only thing we disagree about is how to come to the conclusions that we both agree with.

Because in order to take possession of my body, he would have to force me out. (unless of course, I voluntarily abdicated possession of my own body) And we definitely agree that using force is not a legitimate method of gaining property, right? If he sought a way to get me to voluntarily abdicate my body, then that itself recognizes my better claim on the body. No matter what action he takes, he's affirming my ownership of my body, even as he tries to take it.

Myrkul owns his body. Give him that. He still owes taxes though if he's going to take up residence in some country and use their infrastructure.

I agree as well.  He does own his body.

Great. Since we all agree on the principle of self-ownership, we can work from there. I do not wish to pay for services I neither need, nor desire, such as the drone strikes killing children in the middle east. Since the military makes up the vast majority of government spending, I feel no great desire to pay any taxes. Sales tax, similarly, is an intrusion upon my private dealings with merchants. If they are providing me needed and worthwhile services, why do they feel the need to point a gun at me to make me pay?

Road construction and maintenance is paid for out of the taxes on gasoline, so while I object to the monopoly and taxation on principles, if we're going to have a monopoly, that seems to be the fairest way to pay for it, aside from direct tolls. A private system could probably do it for cheaper, but you live with what you've got. Same with the taxes on liquor, cigarettes, and similar products.

Property taxes are particularly offensive. Either I own the land, or I don't. If I don't, why did I pay so much money to the previous occupant? Why did I not simply assume the payments to the government? That's what you do when you get a new apartment, is it not? You simply start paying rent? So property taxes seems to be the basest of protection schemes. Either you pay up, or bad things happen to you.

So, tell you what, drastically cut military spending, and get rid of all income/capital gains taxes, property taxes, and sales taxes, and I'll happily pay what remains.

It's either that or you are someone's slave. Logic.

Basically doing things for yourself,
what you want.

You don't own yourself, do you? Then who is moving your fingers? And if I don't own myself, why are you trying to convince me of that fact? Here, let me quote the wikipedia article for you:

Go ahead and draw that venn diagram for me. Or even just list some of the things that would go in the overlap.

The circle that is you is subtracted from the circle that is the community. Wherever you are, that part of the Universe (the physical extent of your body) is owned by you.

First, think you either don't understand what "to react" means, or are just really stretching definitions beyond what they typically mean.
And second, in what world is someone not responsible for their actions, even if they were forced? I'm pretty sure in your world the Nuremberg Trials would have been very short and unproductive.

That's a problem that would quickly solve itself. Those not being responsible with their lives (such as not buying insurance, not taking care of their health, and not saving money for retirement and emergencies) will very quickly find themselves as horrible cautionary examples for others, since there won't be a nanny state to take care of them. And those who are dodging the rules at other's expense will be quickly forced to pay for those expenses, since there won't be a complex lengthy legal thing to fight through, and those who do take responsibility for whom they associate with will avoid you.

It doesn't have to be the state. If there are issues with lawlessness, people can obtain their own security to counter it without needing a state (personal weapons, security systems, private security, private military, etc).

+1
If there's one thing that WILL bug people about being in an AnCap state is that it will be a rather brutal existence for irresponsible idiots. The sight of someone dying of starvation because they failed to secure their own lives and are unwilling to do anything about it may be somewhat common  :P

No, it is either you accept you have responsibilities or not.  Logic.

Having required & shared responsibilities does not equate slavery.  I find that a very lazy attitude to take, communities require us all to share different responsibilities so they operate in a beneficial manner to everyone.

Which is what FirstAscent and blablahblah are afraid of. They don't like their prospects.

If they're so mutually beneficial, why the force? Could it not be voluntary?

And those who are dodging the rules at other's expense will be quickly forced to pay for those expenses - How will they be "forced" "quickly".   Sounds like speculation with no meat backing up that claim.  We have a current system with good and bad laws and we have clear cut criminal behavior and we can't force quick justice.   What makes you think in a system where we roll back government, they would speed up.  I think your purely speculating and that is all.

No, it is that we actually have empathy and compassion to people that are more disadvantaged that we are.   If we are going to talk about a society different than are current one, we would not just let them fall to the way side. 

Because there required, there is no option.   These are also services where your lack of participation increases cost on everyone while at the same time yo enjoy these services regardless if you are directly involved with them.

They're not really responsibilities if they are basically forced on us. If I were to give money to a local school, I'd be taking on the responsibility for funding and growing our local education and workforce. Instead, I just see a bunch of money leaving my paycheck, and I have no idea where it's going. I can only assume a part of it is going to the school, but the "responsibility" is essentially forced upon m me.

Boycotts, protests, ostracism, public shaming, vigilantism that doesn't wait for a legal process, angry mobs, and if it comes down to it, outright guerilla warfare and destruction of property. These may not be as clean, but they can and have been very effective.

Well there you go, you believe you live in a bubble and other live in bubbles and you do not recognize the community or the responsibility that go into maintaining a community.

You are wrong in that notion and I feel comfortable that your system will never catch on until you compromise on that issue among others.  My whole purpose of engaging in this debate was to get to this core issue.  You have a lack of take responsibilities for issues of your community that do not have a direct affect on you.  A selfish attitude and we already have plenty of this in the world today and is one of the reasons we are going down the tube.  

You'll notice I didn't include you on the list. If you'd like to be included on the list of "irresponsible idiots," you certainly can be.


But if it's mutually beneficial, who would not purchase such a service voluntarily?


Those are called, in economics, "public goods." Can you name some of those services? Can you think of some ways that they could be made profitable without resorting to forcing people to pay? Can you think of any ways that it might be paid for entirely voluntarily, with each person giving only as much as they desire?

If you have empathy and compassion, why wouldn't you support those people voluntarily in an AnCap society? Just think, instead of just $500 of your annual $7,500 bill going to the needy, you could send them the entire $7,500?
Or is it that, by "compassion," you mean that you are compassionate enough to force others to take care of them, while giving the minimum effort yourself?

Call it what you want, if I didn't agree to it, it's by definition slavery.

I doubt that very much since in an AnCap society there'd be many many people far better of then they are today and so they'd much more easily afford to contribute to charities which could address those who actually were less fortunate.

To say nothing of the fact that private charity is significantly more efficient than tax-funded welfare programs.

- I will actually use your line, there are irresponsible idiots



- I have named these services many times so it feel redundant repeating this list.  I think you can figure those out yourself.   Hint: Domestic Army, Basic Preventative Health Care, Infrastructure, Education, Incarceration Facilities, Elections, Archival of Historic Records, etc....

These services should all be done not for profit and people should be required to pay.  No choice.  

No I don't think they can be paid for voluntarily because people are in whole pretty selfish and irresponsible.  This is why I think AnCap will never succeed unless you can change this aspect of human behavior.  I am not saying taking all selfishness away but we are WAY beyond a healthy amount.  Just look around and see the messages and the shit people say these days.  I know you agree with me there, you wouldn't be even thinking about this subject if the current culture didn't make you cringe.  

Try responding my comment about human behavior and lets see if we can make some progress.

That is exactly how most seem to see libertarians and AnCaps, and it couldn't be further from the truth. I believe that I live in a community, and that I have responsibilities for it. I just think that my responsibilities should be voluntary, and that by "forcing" this responsibility on everyone, the government is essentially teaching everyone to completely abdicate their own responsibilities. Why should people care and be responsible if the government will just take their money and take care of things itself? The low voter turnouts pretty much show that people mostly don't care what their money goes to, and don't want to be responsible for how it's spent. Also, note that the point of doing taxes for everyone is to end up paying as little as possible. So, not only is the government teaching people to abdicate responsibilities, it's teaching them to avoid paying for as much of it as possible, too.
I could similarly argue that your side is the selfish one, where you are projecting your own selfishness on all people in general, believing that everyone is as selfish as you, and only contribute to society because they are forced to, not because they feel responsible for it.

It all boils down to this: You think I must do something and instead of trying to persuade me to do it voluntarily and accept a potential rejection you think you should be able to use violence in order to force me to do it no matter what I want.

Bottom line, that's what you advocate and have shit for brains of calling it good.



You know what you are? You are an evil stupid bully/thug and you can go fuck yourself.

Switzerland doesn't have one. Every citizen owns a rifle and is trained to fight. That's a big reason Hitler didn't want to attack it.


Free clinics for those who need them, and hard lessons learned from not taking care of one's health, not knowing some basic health information, and not owning health insurance. Even if you are poor, if it's something as important as your life, I would hope people would be compelled to spend money on health rather than a new TV or video game (they don't, now, because they know if they get sick, they'll just go to the emergency room, and get treated using someone else's money). I'm actually very glad ObamaCare passed for this reason, even if a legal mandate isn't as "educational" as a hard life example.


Private power (already exists), private water (already exists), private rail (already exists), private roads and bridges (already exist), etc. Infrastructure actually hurts us in some way, by forcing us to stick with old technologies that new things can't compete against. Part of the reason the rail system in US sucks is because it can't compete with subsidized highways.


Private schools (especially if funded with "war" money)


Many prisons in US are already privately owned


won't exist or be needed


private collections by hobbyists (you should see mine), or museums funded by visitors


You are projecting your own selfishness on others. Also, people who are selfish and irresponsible will quite literally die off in AnCap society, where you NEED to build relationships and communities to survive. You can't just work 9-5 for a crappy wage, have your money taken to pay for things you yourself should be responsible for, and spend all your time sitting at home playing videogames without giving a crap about anyone else. Well, you could, but at the first bit of trouble you'd be royally screwed.

Ok, now I think I have a question to bridge this divide.  I can see at least this present company, our hearts are in the right place. 

Question:How do we get the general populous to start caring about their community and the people around them.  If I had faith in them to be the proper custodian then I would be much more open to a different decentralized form of government. 

The modern media culture shows basically messages that are narcissistic and self-centered.  About getting to the top no matter how ruthless.   The less morals you have and the more you will exploit yourself the better.   How do we combat this message?   How do we bring back honor in people actions?  Not all people because there are always exceptions but in most people.   

That is your opinion and your entitled to it.  You should refrain from personal insults.  Quite unbecoming of a "Staff" member.

Indeed there are. And, except in the case of actual public goods, they would not receive the benefits of the programs they did not pay for. Thus, the brutal existence for them. If they remained irresponsible idiots, short as well.

If they can be done without force, and for profit, can you explain why they should not be?


They're irresponsible because they can be. Why get a job, when you can live off welfare and food stamps? Why save for retirement, when you can collect social security? Why save for a rainy day, when if you get fired, unemployment will pay you? I know you just want to help. I just wish that you would see that the help is what's causing the problems.

The only public goods you presented up there were Domestic Army ("national" defense), and infrastructure. The rest are either private goods, such as education, or not goods at all, such as elections. Infrastructure is easy to make profitable, or for that matter, turn into a private good. Toll roads, for instance.

The defense is a bit of a problem, since there is the positive externality of all the people who don't pay getting defended along with those who do. Of course, those who don't pay probably are taking care of their own defense, with a small arsenal of weapons. Therefore, they provide that same positive externality back to the community. Seems an equitable tradeoff to me. And as long as the defense company is able to run profitably, without charging so much that people stop paying, then they find it a fair trade as well.

Except the government is not specialized. It's a hodgepodge of bureaucracy, where everyone tries to take on as little responsibility as possible, which attracts typically the least skilled in their fields thanks to it paying the lowest salary for those skills due to tax payers and politicians wanting to "save money" instead of "get the job done."

We don't. They will either see the benefit of it, or they won't, but they won't be allowed to enjoy the benefits of a community otherwise. They will also get a chance to see what contributing to a community actually gets them, which is something they currently can't with the government doing everything.


Subjective morals aside, contrary to popular belief, you can't actually get very far in business while being an asshole about it. The only way to get far in the private sector is to give others something they want. You can be a total asshole and still get elected or make money in politics though (e.g. Gingrich, lobbyists, etc). As for being self centered, again, the only way you can make your own self centered life better is by trading something with someone else, be it your money, your skills, or your good/services. So even if you are narcissistic and self centered, at least you gave a lot of other people things to get that way.

Well now you bring a good line of discussion to go into:

How would you feel about the State if we cut those benefits you spoke of?  Is that a major part of you angst?

Before I address your comment about my wanting to help (I'll give my reasoning), I would like to state I believe everyone universally is entitled to education in a Capitalistic society.   Also road should be maintained for everyone, it should not become a class issue to travel in your country, at least to the doorstep of someones property.  Elections should be funded by the public with no private money at all, issues are what get you elected and that is all.  Even in AnCap you would have some form of elections to posts everyone agreed you needed.

Now here is my issue with your hardline approach to whine people off of welfare services.  I agree we would be stronger without them, the problem I have is the intentional perversion of the education and culture that has really brainwashed the populous into this servile state.  I have to have some compassion for their situation and realize it is not all their cause and fault (some yes, not all).   Also I don't believe "wealth" ie "money" should be the determinate factor on a person worth in society as well.  Look where is has gotten us, no where except we have a few extra goodies.

You need to spend more time in business.  It is called lying to your customers.  There is much less competition in most industry and most are basically monopolies so either you pay ball or not.  Also, you don't need to "get far", you just need to "get enough" and cash out and say "f**k em".   

I am not going to waste my time with this line of discussion.  I would rather continue elsewhere, no offense I hope but I just think you are not being objective enough on this subject.

Agreed. Kids can't make choices about their lives. Though how that education is actually provided for is what's debatable.


I'd rather travel by train, flying car, or work over the internet. Why is it that I have to pay for a car, car insurance, maintenance, gasoline, and taxes to support it all in US, when I can pay a much cheaper fare and travel conveniently by train on a profitable railroad in Europe or Japan?
Though the sprawl in US, with everything and everyone being so far apart, is a symptom of the road systems that would be an issue if AnCap was to take over here.


There would be no "posts" in AnCap. People will be hired based on their skills, and services will be "voted" on by purchases. Don't like the person at some "post?" Pay someone else.

I bet that is "exactly" what they will be hired on.   No posts in Ancap, wow I feel safe.

This whole discussion where certain people advocate violence against peaceful people merely because they refuse to do something became unbecoming so I fail to see your point.

The maximum legitimate role of government is to provide external security, an internal police force, and courts. Ie, the industries of security and justice. And those can certainly be provided privately, so the minimum role is none.

I'll address the points in order: First, nobody is entitled to anything. Period. That's life, get used to it. TANSTAAFL.
Roads don't have to be toll maintained, that's just one way to do it. Another perfectly viable method is advertisement. A while back, KFC was filling in potholes in exchange for the ability to put their logo on the patch. Billboards are an accepted site along the highway, the funds from them could go towards the road maintenance. Or to apply the "freemium" model, perhaps you could pay to travel in special lanes.
As to elections, I don't think you actually understand AnCap. There would be no elections in an AnCap society, because there would be no posts to elect anyone to. AnCap is entirely privately run.

Again, the solutions you propose are the cause of the problems you point out. The government controls education, so of course they produce good little drones. Private education would solve that.

I AM in business, and am talking from experience. Yes, you can lie, and be an exploitative monopoly, but you won't have customers or be a monopoly for long, since you'all be inviting competition or innovation. You can just say "fuck'em" and get out, but in that case you hopefully have made your money legitimately.

Those proposing AnCap are of two camps:
1) Establish an AnCap society somewhere else, such as by SeaSteading. In that case, the people you feel compassionate about will be left with their safety nets, and you don't have to worry about them. The only people who do end up in the AnCap society will be the ones who voluntarily move there, knowing all the risks.
2) Society and government as a whole are slowly devolving into AnCap, thanks to globalization and technologies like the Internet, Bitcoin, Tor, 3D Printing, file sharing, etc, which will make the government lose more and more power due to not being able to regulate the things it used to. In this scenario, AnCap is pretty much the inevitable end, so arguing about why it's good or bad for us is irrelevant, and we should instead focus on what it could entail and how to be ready for it.

As for those outwardly "wealthy" and "moneyd" types, a lot of their wealth is actually owned by their bank in the form of loans and credit cards. All they own is a bunch of junk that they're only losing money on. Your real wealth, or net worth, is determined by how productive you are in a society, which I believe should be encouraged. If you simply won the lottery, or inherited a large sum, you likely won't keep that money for long, either.

That is a poor response and justification for your use of language which I took directed at me.    

Also your assumption that these were peaceful people is a large assumption as well.  The act of Capitalism which is part of AnCap is not economically peaceful and being that the money/profit derived from this activity is my sole manner of acquiring the goods I need for my survival, you could in fact through collusion, enact violence on my pocket-book and deny me the means of my survival.  You think just because I am not clubbing you over the head I can not be violent or aggressive against you.  Interesting...

Capitalism: Capitalism is an economic system that is based on private ownership of the means of production and the creation of goods and services for profit. -

Explain please.

Ah hah! So we get to the root at last. How is mutual voluntary trade and private ownership not peaceful?

Well on face value it would not be known because we both have incomplete information in our mutually agreed upon trade.  My point is when you control resources and means to productions and likely influence on distribution, you can enact harm on people through your trading practices. 

An example is we are in a town, you were there first and claimed the only water access for the town.   I am a farmer or manufacturer and needed water for my production.  You "could" charge me a rate that would put me out of business or make me uncompetitive because you owned that resource or you had interests that would benefit from me not competing with you.    This actually happens all the time and we do have laws the counter these types of tactics.

I am just showing you that all violence does not need to be physical, thats all.

I "could," but would I? If I were supplying water, and you need water, which would be more profitable for me, charge you rates so high that you cannot stay in business, or charge you a rate that will keep you coming back for more?

Do a little research into game theory, specifically the iterated prisoner's dilemma.

It would depend on what your "interests" where at the time.   I just wanted to highlight there are other ways to be aggressive and cause others harm that does not require physical abuse. 

See, that's the best thing about capitalists. You always know what their interests are: Profit, both short- and long-term. Running you out of business would not be helpful to my long-term profit potential, and the short term benefits would not be worth that loss.

You wish that is what Capitalist's only interests are.   WRONG.  There is this thing called Power & Influence which after you get a certain amount of money, becomes more important that digits in a bank account.   You need to read more history on this subject.  I personally have read histories on many industrialist and bankers whom we could consider proto-typical Capitalists and guess what I found across the board?

Once they got a large sum of money, their effort and activities became increasingly focused on power and influence.   

Do you know why this is?   IT IS BECAUSE THEY KNOW THEY WILL DIE AT SOME POINT.   This means that their legacy and influence in what they care about and that does not have a direct correlation to making profit.   They may have their own ideas on how society should be run or what culture will be taught, don't ever forget this.   It is crucial to everything around you.

Also, how is it acquired?

Merely saying and acting like I own a natural well doesn't actually mean anything. Unless I produced it, mixed resources with labor I don't own it and anyone that claims otherwise is a fraud and should be fought against exactly the same as one would fight an evil sadistic bully/thug who'd want to impose his will upon you through the use of violence.

But if I put my sweat and blood into building a well on land I cultivated you better believe I can charge the maximum if I want. But why would I be so stupid? You can just build your own well next door and start competing with me, what a stupid thing would that be. I much rather keep the price at a reasonable level and turn my labor of building that well into a nice profit and have you be a farmer and have you turn your labor into a nice profit for you.


You see IN ALL PROBLEMS YOU THINK CAPITALISM CAUSES YOU ARE ACTUALLY DESCRIBING CORPORATISM and I'm very much opposed to that. If someone says they own a whole river just because they said so and they try to enforce that through force they should be defended against with any force necessary.



So you see, your theoretical examples do not match reality and to not match the AnCap framework.

By saying "Capitalism is not that smart," you are actually saying "I am not that smart," since what capitalism does is determined by what YOU buy.


If there is a monopoly, chances are it will charge more than trains, and people will pick trains, or even invest some other mode of travel. Monopolies never last, because when pushed hard enough, someone always comes up with alternatives.
Otherwise, if roads are cheaper and more efficient... what's the problem?

Many ways, I will give you a few examples then you will need to use your imagination.

Foundations
NGO
Lobbying
Endowments
PACs
Dedications
Scholarships
Funded Research
Advertising
Movies
Books
Screenplays
TV Shows
Radio Shows
Political Movements
Pornography
Celebrities
etc....

And how many of those can be done without government?
And what's so wrong about the ones that are left?

Nothing wrong if they don't use violence to enforce their will upon others except in self defense.


That's corporatism not anarcho-capitalism.


Nothing wrong if it doesn't defraud anyone or using violence against anyone in order to provide it.


That's corporatism not anarcho-capitalism.


Nothing wrong if it doesn't defraud anyone or using violence against anyone in order to provide it.


Nothing wrong if it doesn't defraud anyone or using violence against anyone in order to provide it.


Nothing wrong if it doesn't defraud anyone or using violence against anyone in order to provide it.


Nothing wrong if it doesn't defraud anyone or using violence against anyone in order to provide it. If you don't like it don't watch it.


Same.


Same.


Same.


Same.


Same. BTW in all of these only in corporatism someone with opposing ideas is NOT allowed to freely produce and distribute their own advertising, movies, books, screenplays, tv shows, radio shows ect.


That's corporatism not anarcho-capitalism.


Just  ::)



ect WHAT?! You have yet to formulate a valid objection to AnCap.

First off, I am not complaining.   I am having a discussion where I am in disagreement with some core points.  

Foundations
NGO
Endowments
Dedications
Scholarships
Funded Research
Advertising
Movies
Books
Screenplays
TV Shows
Radio Shows
Political Movements
Pornography
Celebrities
etc....

There is the list without Government.   Political Movements stays because even without Government, people will still lobby each other about the issues that affect them.

Why is it harmful?   Well having everyone operate only for consumption of goods and profit makes a pretty thin culture.  So the first example would be a business person that does only want to increase his wealth, he might fund projects that sway people to follow a trend in which he produces for and makes a profit.  Maybe he has a particular view of the world and believes that is the only correct manner, then he may use his wealth and influence to get "experts" to agree with him and indoctrinate the children into this way of thinking before they have had time to mentally develop and experience the world first hand to make up their own mind.

You can already see this on a daily basis, very similar messages.   Consume this, be like this, approve this, your not complete unless you drive this, idolize this, etc....  

You can wear the blinders if you want but I am fully aware of the influencers and messages at play.  You may want to focus you energy against government but just as you have said (not you but others), government is used as a tool.  A tool by whom?

 

@ Hazek - You are entitled to narrow a value-judgement to just if you don't force someone.  But there is quite a bit of harm that happens and people don't know it happens and the people that perpetrate that harm will still exist in AnCap as they do now, just in AnCap there will be even less oversight than there is today which is virtually nothing. 

Honestly I have nothing against AnCap as a concept, but we will need to fill it with humans at some point to make it real and that is the point where these other issues I am bringing up will come into play and really make like more of a living hell than today and its getting worse. 

Don't think I am pessimistic either, I am an optimist and quite a happy fellow.   I just know how people have been conditioned and that would not lend to the types of behaviors you would need to have AnCap succeed in the manner that people in general would see their daily life improve. 

Dalkore, AnCap is only compatible with intelligent, modern and educated people.

So unless you have such people, no one here is arguing you can have an AnCap society. And if you do have such people no one here will believe any of your problems would actually be problems.

Well then.. you're problem is not with AnCap but with unintelligent, undeveloped and uneducated people.

If ancap is only compatible with intelligent people then we should stop talking about it because it will always be an ideal and could never really exist. But ancap is compatible with the unintelligent, they would just be worse off. Maybe that's why the unintelligent argue against ancap...

Ok, from how you informed me of the workings I agree.


So how do we get people that are not to this level, to this level?   I think about this at least once a day and have some ideas, but nothing stands out.   When you say educated, what areas do we need to improve the current education?   What subjects do they need more education of?

Well yes that's what I mean.. I was talking about an AnCap society not being possible with unintelligent people, the framework of course is but such a framework could never lead to an actual AnCap society because if people are unintelligent they'll resort back to violence to enforce their stupidity sooner rather than later and the society would dissolve into what we have today, tyranny of the majority.

Whoa, watch yourself.   Don't think that to agree with AnCap makes your intelligent and to disagree means the opposite.  That would definitely tell me something about your intelligence level in the discussion of philosophy and dissent.

I will allow you to retract your statement.



D

People aren't being taught how to think only what to think. This is the number one problem the current education system has, kids never learn that if they want to think correctly, i.e. think in a way that will yield the best possible resaults they need to correctly apply reason/logic and empirical observation.

Instead kids are bombarded with facts that they must memorize in order to pass a test, not to mention that while being taught these fact they are also subtly being taught obedience to authority and the fallacious virtue of a violent state.

Yes, I believe some form of influence especially ones that can be only performed if you have lots of capital are bad and harmful.  It is a case by case basis so I can not blanket all influence and propaganda.  Let me say that currently, a majority of it is bad and harmful.  Currently.

What makes you think that only profit would drive everyone? For that matter, what makes you think that all profit is monetary?

Yes, that's called advertising. It's not a problem.

Which children? At what school? And what's keeping the parents from switching schools, once they see what's happening?

Now we have an area of agreement we can build from.   I agree so much.  I actually want to teach a class on "how to think 101" & "critical analysis". 

1.  I don't think all profit is monetary.  I don't but that is the common message these days and many people fall into herd mentality. 

2.  Advertising is a problem.  We don't need the complete commercialization of our society of lives.   I didn't volunteer for that but it is forced on my everywhere.  There are many South America cities where they have outlawed billboards and they are much more pleasant to walk around and they have a vibrant commercial district with annual growth of their lower and middle class.

3.  At this point, most children and most schools.  If they change, they are still getting the same type of schooling so there is not escape unless you have money for a private boarding school.  Most parents are two busy running around to make one or two incomes provide for their family to even be that involved with their childs schooling.  Its tough out there. 

No. It's a symptom of the problem we just both agreed on. Advertising has minimal effect on me because I studied it's effect and try to be self aware about my actions. Plus because I studied it I do my best to avoid it (thank luck we have adblock  ;D)

Why do you continually point at the failures of the current system in an attempt to refute the one we advocate?

I mean seriously, that's my main beef with your posts too.

I point these things out because they would persist in both systems.

It must be nice to all repeat each other.  Its like an echo chamber.  Don't worry, I got enough for all of you.

Except they wouldn't. When all schools are private, they will be affordable, and teach the curriculum the parents want taught, not some wealthy businessman (unless, of course, the parents agree with said businessman). I can explain why these things would be true, but it can be best summed up by this statement: Even the poorest people in America can afford a color TV and a cell phone.

Yes they would.   Your patently wrong in this assertion.  The list I mentioned which in most part already is private would still be subject to that type of perverse influence.  Keep dreaming Myrkul.   

I can back my assertion with logic, can you say the same?

I do not believe you can.

I note that this is not a yes, indicating that you cannot. That's beside the point, however, so I won't address it.

As I said, I can explain why private schools would be affordable, and why they would teach the curriculum the parents want, and as I said, it can be summed up by the fact that even the poorest Americans can afford color televisions. Think about that for a few minutes before continuing.

OK, is it good and soaked in? Have you thought about why even the poorest people in America have color TVs? The answer is the market. People want color TVs. People want education. Because the people want these things, other people, seeking to make a buck, provide these things to those people. They know that the more people that can afford to buy their product, the more money they will make from selling that product. So they sell it at a price that people can afford. If they cannot sell it a profit, they can reduce the featureset until they get a profitable product for that pricepoint. A basic television is cheap to produce. Likewise a basic education (Reading, writing, and math, and most importantly how to learn) can be provided very cheaply, and not take too long to instil. Extra features (classes) can be added on, but they raise the price a little bit. If a school does not offer the curriculum that the parent wants, then they will enroll the child in a different school, which does, or they can always teach the child anything that they want beyond the basics themselves.

Monopolies do not serve the customers. Companies in market competition do. That is why private schools would be more affordable and teach the curriculum that the parents (their customers) want.

Cool! Education for the rich.

I think you may be confusing education and schooling.

Schooling for the rich, education for the masses.

You mean a reduced and cheap product for the masses, graduated in such a way as to insure the poor get the least education. How thoughtful.

Once again, you're confusing schooling and education. Everyone gets the same education (as I said, reading, writing, and math, and most importantly how to learn) but not everyone gets the same schooling - classes, curriculum, etc.

So you're saying they really don't get the same thing? Some get the Yugo of education, and others get the Rolls Royce of education.

Everyone gets basic education. Some get more schooling. Schooling ≠ Education.

Freedom is a government with low amounts of power

Freedom will be possible only in a world without the monetary system !

.

Peddle your robocommunism elsewhere.

It is not a victimless crime.  I could shoot a gun in public, randomly waving it about, and not hit a single person, but it's still a bad idea because the CHANCE of hurting another person was increased due to my actions.  The fact that I didn't actually hit anybody doesn't change anything.

Violence and freedom are inexorably linked.  This is because violence can always overpower nonviolence, unless you have for example a non-violent shield or other defense-- however this only encourages the violent to come up with better violent tactics.  At some point the effort required to maintain defense -- the people killed manufacturing the shield -- becomes so expensive in both property AND human life that the most ethical thing to do is to kill the attackers.

Non-aggression only works until it doesn't.

You've got it all wrong. It's not a bad idea because you might hurt someone, it's a bad idea because others might think their lives are in danger and they'll hurt you to stop you. Same goes for speeding.

This prove that you dont know what the Zeitgeist Movement is really about !

Apparently, adding exclamation points to sentences that don't need it. Let's see if any of this sounds familiar:

"a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the population as a whole. "

Does that sound anything like Zeitgeist?

So let me get this straight, waving a gun in public and randomly discharging it is not a bad idea because you might hurt someone?  But instead it is because someone might hurt me?   That is one of the most selfish statements I have ever heard.  I am sorry but unless you restate this, you discredit yourself on the grounds of your lack of judgement and common sense.  How can we take your opinions on this as reasonable if they is your thoughts on waving and firing a gun in public randomly.   

Apparently you misread that.

I did not misread anything, trying reading again.  Here is the direct quote.  I know your not stupid so what gives?

Hazek  - "It's not a bad idea because you might hurt someone, it's a bad idea because others might think their lives are in danger and they'll hurt you to stop you. "

Above comment was in response to:  " I could shoot a gun in public, randomly waving it about, and not hit a single person, but it's still a bad idea because the CHANCE of hurting another person was increased due to my actions.  The fact that I didn't actually hit anybody doesn't change anything."

I am, but I have my doubts about Dalkore.


lets try that again:
This is why it's a bad idea:

And this is what happens when you act on that bad idea:

Ok, your discredited as well.  I am done with this, I feel comfortable that Myrkul and Hazek's lack of common sense on something so basic is proof enough that you do not have the capacity to setup AnCap or any other system in a manner that would be beneficial and safe for the people in it.  I am serious.  I'll just let your comments on this stand and people and judge them all they want.  

Me personally, have enough common sense and compassion to know I would not randomly discharge a firearm in public because I would not want to hurt someone, not because someone might hurt me. 

Just leave them be, they have shown themselves and discredited their opinions based on a lack of common sense or a sense or right and wrong.  Can't trust what they say at this point.  I would not feel safe around them in person with these attitudes. 

I am sad actually, I was surprised to see this reckless comment.  It is really telling in my opinion on how they see the world. 


Quite scary that the threat of harm against them is what would stop them from randomly firing a gun in public, not that they might hit an innocent.  Scary.

It seems your whole argument hinges on the selection of the word "might" in hazek's post. Let's try again with a different word:
This is why it's a bad idea:

And this is what happens when you act on that bad idea:

Is that better?

No its not better at all.  You literally don't get it.   Good luck. 

Dalkore, blablahblah, and others,

These same absolutely absurd things have been discussed over and over, a year and more ago. What these scenarios reveal, is what you guys are coming to realize. And the arguments are circular as well, meaning that they keep following an extraordinarily long and crazy form of logic which ignores key points until you're right back at the beginning, having to go through it all again.

Were any of you here during the discussion about the knife juggler on the inflatable life raft with four other individuals, floating in the ocean, with sharks swimming around? The conversation was actually rather creepy in what it revealed about these people. There was even mention of the first guy in the life raft as having a claim of ownership on the raft, but then it proceeded on to discussion about the knife juggler practicing juggling on board the raft...

You're right, I don't understand your position. Are you arguing that they will not think (correctly) that their lives are in danger? Or that they will not hurt you to stop that danger? Or are you disputing that it's a bad idea?

Accepted. I don't mind a little disagreement, that's how progress gets made. Just try not to get stressed over some random stranger being wrong, and your life will be much calmer for it. ;)

No, it doesn't. But regardless of whether or not they actually have any chance of getting shot (you're shooting over their heads, whatever), it's still a bad idea to make them think you are endangering their lives. It's also a bad idea to actually harm anyone. This, however, is for entirely different reasons, and not particularly relevant. Unless you think that the gunman's intent was to harm, rather than just fire some shots randomly, not caring if anyone gets hurt?

What makes you think I haven't examined Buddhism? In fact, I have examined every philosophy I could get my hands on, over the course of several years.

Now your trying to change what the discussion was about.  Pretty pathetic.   That will not work.

This scenario was about what was going on in the shooter's mind and that is all.   

If it was, this is the first indication of that fact.

It might be wise to re-quote the original post of the discussion:

Seems like the only discussion about what was going on in anyone's mind is about those he's (potentially) shooting at. The shooter's mind isn't discussed at all. So, who is trying to change the topic of discussion?

Creepy.

So let me get this straight: You think that to solve a problem that actually exists of people doing stupid shit and endangering others is best solved by them deciding not to do it because they might hurt someone and if they still decide to do it there should be words on a piece of paper that tell them not to do it?

Can you not see the idiocy of this?

And lets not forget that you indirectly hold the exact same position. You want those words on a piece of paper and men in blue costumes with guns to enforce them which also boils down to "don't do it or these men in blue costumes will hurt you" and not some magical utopian "don't do it cause you might hurt someone".


And damn straight this is selfish, how could it not be when your mere existence is selfish if you are honest with yourself.

It's not a bad idea because you might hurt someone, it's a bad idea because these men in blue costumes will hurt you to stop you.

Creepy.

You merely need to look outside to see all the gory evidence of people doing horrendous things to other people simply because they know they are untouchable. I never said it would take a threat of being hurt to stop me personally from endangering others because I actually care about other people but unfortunately not all people do and you can bet your life nothing other than the threat of violence will stop those kind of people.

And by demanding laws and a police force to enforce them you implicitly agree with me!

The only difference between my view and yours is that I want to reserve my freedom to protect myself. I don't need a police force and their rules and I don't agree to be a subject to their rules without my explicit consent. And I don't consent.

It's a bad idea because you might hurt someone. But if you're a sicko, it's also a bad idea because these men in blue costumes will hurt you to stop you.

Not creepy.

That's meaningless because those who know they may hurt others and know that hurting others is wrong wont do it, only those who don't know that or don't know they might hurt others will do it therefor it really is just a bad idea because others will hurt you.

It's a bad idea because you might hurt someone. But if you're a sicko, it's also a bad idea because others might think their lives are in danger and they'll hurt you to stop you.

Not creepy.

It's a bad idea because you might hurt someone. But if you're a sicko, it's also a bad idea because others might think their lives are in danger and they'll hurt you to stop you. But if those others aren't up to the task of hurting you, it's also a bad idea because men in blue suits will either hurt you and/or try and put you in jail. Best also if you never had a device in the first place which can kill people in a second from hundreds of feet, and kill many people in a group separated by many feet and at a distance in seconds.

Not creepy.

It's a bad idea because you might hurt someone. But if you're a sicko, it's also a bad idea because others might think their lives are in danger and they'll hurt you to stop you. But if those others aren't up to the task of hurting you, it's also a bad idea because men in blue suits will either hurt you and/or try and put you in jail. Best also if those other people never had a device in the first place which can hurt you to stop you.

Creepy.

When regulated and trained and employed for the purpose of enforcing laws, yes. But note that countries with strict and effective gun control do not need their law enforcement members to draw and use their guns as often as those in America do.

I notice you say "enforcing laws," and not "protecting the citizenry" or even "keeping the peace." I wonder why that is....

I never said that and that was not the original discussion.  Maybe I need to quote it for you again because your lack of comprehension skill in context.  I have bolded what you preceded to defend in latter comments.

Hazek  - "It's not a bad idea because you might hurt someone (this is being spoken as the shooter), it's a bad idea because others might think their lives are in danger and they'll hurt you to stop you. "

Above comment was in response to:  "I could shoot a gun in public, randomly waving it about, and not hit a single person, but it's still a bad idea because the CHANCE of hurting another person was increased due to my actions.  The fact that I didn't actually hit anybody doesn't change anything."

Hazek's comment was not being spoken as the shooter. It might be being spoken to the shooter, as evinced by the fact he uses "you" instead of "I" or "me," but it's clearly not being said from the point of view of the shooter. Luv2drnkbr's comment, however, was made from the perspective of the shooter, as evinced by the use of "I," and "my." And he never references his state of mind, or intent.

Most of the law enforcers will simply refuse to follow his orders.

That's an interesting theory. How has that worked in the past?

Quite well, given a well thought out government. We learn as much and more from the common cases than the outliers.

Care to present some of those "common cases"?

You mean all those in aggregate hundreds and hundreds of years the world's nations having not made the headlines because their leader was not another Hitler?

Myrkul, try for once to convince me that your untested, unrealized, and unaccepted idea for no government is actually appealing. Try to convince me that 300 million guns is not enough, and one billion guns in the hands of everyone is what we want. Try to convince me that aspiring nuclear bomb owners who can actually obtain said devices are what we want. Try to convince me that your uninhibited money buys rights and justice is what we want.

Meaning, you don't actually have any examples, but you're sure they happened, right?

So you're saying every time there's an example of your imagined Hitler event not happening, it doesn't count as an example?

No, remember, we're looking for examples of this happening:
Not examples of this not happening:
And you don't have any.

On the topic:

...a state of mind.

Myrkul, Im quite tired of this closed-minded cat spaming the same hyper-libertarain stuff everywhere..

Your message would be more received if you show more open minded message, and not spamming that much certitude from your point of view...

Only mad folks did'nt changed mind, or at least, take a serious look at different opinion.

Seems you like to post provocative thread, to then refute each and every point that did'nt fit your mindset..

Enought for me.. wont read more from you ;)