Bitcoin Forum

How to run an Anarchy

My apologies if this sounds a little ignorant, but isn't the core foundation of anarchy that this question is never addressed ?

My apologies if this sounds a little ignorant, but isn't the core foundation of anarchy that this question is never addressed ?

Apologies in advance if these questions sound naive - I've not read any literature about anarchy.

That being said, how would such a society handle a) organized crime, and b) non-violent criminals (thieves, hackers)? To put it simply: who will help me if someone wants to beat me up or rob me of my possessions; and who will avenge me if I'm killed?

feeded by many competitive forces rather than just one.

Apologies in advance if these questions sound naive - I've not read any literature about anarchy.

That being said, how would such a society handle a) organized crime, and b) non-violent criminals (thieves, hackers)? To put it simply: who will help me if someone wants to beat me up or rob me of my possessions; and who will avenge me if I'm killed?

The same way we do today, except more efficiently.

the fact that they don't have to shoot people to do business, would drive them either out of business, or at least out of the killing business - it would do what decades of FBI attention could not: Drive the Mafiosos straight.

The prices are about the same, the service is about the same (but slightly better), and the salaries for employees in the new de-monopolized shops are about the same (but slightly lower). There are more shops though. This goes for cities. No idea how things are in the countryside.

I keep hearing this but nowhere am I told why it would be more efficient. Competing companies COULD be more efficient, but there's no guarantee.
I recently saw a government monopoly being broken up, and the end result is a rather large "meh". The prices are about the same, the service is about the same (but slightly better), and the salaries for employees in the new de-monopolized shops are about the same (but slightly lower). There are more shops though. This goes for cities. No idea how things are in the countryside.
That monopoly was probably run as efficient as it could be by anyone, private or state. A bit more waste now if you look at it from a resources perspective.
Still, I don't buy this "the government does everything poorly" argument that keeps popping up here. Perhaps you just have a shitty government. Then fix it. You have the tools. No revolution needed.

So essentially you're saying that there still is something like a police. Would it consist of volunteers or would they get paid? If it's the latter, who would pay them and what would happen to people who don't pay them (would there also be a tax system)? And in both cases, who makes sure that what they do is "right" (in the sense of being morally acceptable by all people, or at least a great majority)?

So what you're saying here is that removal of the Gov. monopoly resulted in more choices, and better service without increasing the price?
Sounds like more efficiently, to me.

Hm, that solves some of the problems, but I'm still having trouble to imagine such a system running without problems.


This sounds a bit too optimistic for me. While I do see how anarchy could eliminate a subset of the problems associated with organized crime, I'm pretty sure the fact that criminals with sufficient power would have little or nothing to fear in such a system would make things worse. If I had no conscience, and no strong retribution to fear, but had some power - i.e. lead an organized criminal group or possess weapons or whatever - I could and probably would use my power for blackmail, kidnapping, forcing people to pay protection money, and so on. All of these are very profitable (see e.g. Sicily - no offense to any Italians. Weak police, weak retribution, allows them to run all that profitable stuff I have described. In most cases they do not even need to be violent or "aggressive", people fear them and that is enough.)

About the second point you made, I agree that insurance and third-party protection provides some degree of security - but in this case we have the same trust issue that we have with governments today, dont we? We've gotta trust some people to take care of our posessions, or of our security. Now if they are a) incompetent or b) malicious we've got a problem. There not being a central authority to punish them, and us probably being less powerful than they are, there's not much we can do about this. At least in todays system - which has its fair share of incompetent and malicious insurance companies - it is possible to sue them (with some little chance for success)....

The only way I could see out of these problems is some kind of democratic organization which ensures peaceful conduct (provided that it operates according to a rule system that all people (or a great majority) agree with). This is not something that current political systems implement (I cant see true democracy in modern states, and people certainly dont agree with 100% of the rules), but to my current understanding anarchy strictly opposes such an organization, which could potentially make it even more unstable and even more unjust and unfair than the current system...

Am I wrong? If yes, how could anarchy solve these problems without retributive force?

@myrkul

I did understand the NAP, and I totally agree - it's pretty cool. But since the world doesn't only consist of holy people, how can we make sure that society abides by this rule, and does not fall apart? What do we do about the provable percentage of criminals or sadists or psychopaths in every larger community?

So essentially you're saying that there still is something like a police. Would it consist of volunteers or would they get paid? If it's the latter, who would pay them and what would happen to people who don't pay them

Where did you get that? I said it didn't change much. Almost nothing changed in fact. Service was the same, choices was the same, price was the same. I now have to walk 100 steps less to buy stuff, because I live in a city. Some more shops in the cities, probably fewer in the countryside although I don't know this for a fact.

Is the fact that they lowered the salaries what you call "more efficient"?

So no, not more efficiently. Not less either probably. Big benefit for the advertising companies, who got a whole new set of customers.

I didn't oppose the removal of this monopoly as I think the government has better things to do than to sell this kind of stuff, but the magical handwaving of "it'll be more efficient" is rather misleading.

I keep hearing this but nowhere am I told why it would be more efficient. Competing companies COULD be more efficient, but there's no guarantee.

Now, here I will differ from some anarchists, in that I do not support the use of retaliatory force, either. I see no need to inflict harm upon others who have harmed you in the past. What is done is done, and there is no turning back the clock. All that can be done is restitution.

Now, here I will differ from some anarchists, in that I do not support the use of retaliatory force, either.

Do you support prison abolition?

No one said that there are no rules.

I find the idea of putting someone in a cage, at the expense of the person whom they damaged, to be abhorrent. So, Yes, I do support the abolition of prisons.

I find the idea of putting someone in a cage, at the expense of the person whom they damaged, to be abhorrent. So, Yes, I do support the abolition of prisons.

Theft and fraud would seem to be very profitable if the perpetrators were immune from violence and threats of violence.

Are there courts?  And if so how is the court's decision enforced?

If there are no courts, how is it decided what is 'rightful' force (non-initiating, e.g. self defense) and what is not?

Non-violent crime is a less clear-cut area. It's hard to shoot a hacker to prevent him from stealing your bank balance, and once he has it, it's pretty hard to find him. In this instance, and other monetary-only loss situations, is where insurance steps in. The insurance agency recompenses you for your loss, and then it is in their best interest to track down and claim restitution from the thief. They have better access to the resources required to do so, anyway.

Another option is to hire a security firm. They will defend you or your property for you, and usually accept liability for your losses in the event they fail. Like the insurance agency, the security firm then has it in their best interest to find the thief and claim restitution.

A third option, but by no means the final, is to defend yourself. With no firearms laws, Every criminal will know that the house he is breaking into may be defended by an armed homeowner. I am sure there are options I have missed, and the Market will provide, but this should be enough to answer your questions.

Theft and fraud would probably be handled in the manner I explained earlier, by insurance agencies reimbursing the victim, and then seeking restitution from the perpetrator.

There would be no courts, since courts are State concepts. Instead, Arbitration and Mediation, two practices already in use to avoid going to court, would be used. Arbitration is the closest to a 'traditional' court.

Most 'enforcement' in AnCap society is economic. With force not a legitimate option, a person who refuses arbitration or refuses to abide by the result of the arbitration (unlikely, since he agreed to that result) would find himself outside of society. No one would trade with him, no one would work with him, and no one would offer him a job.

Worse, no arbitration firm or mediation group would contract with him, so he would be 'out in the cold' when it comes to dispute resolution... the original meaning of outlaw. Since learning this information would be part of growing up in the society, everyone would know it, so very few would refuse arbitration or fail to keep their end of the bargain.

Obviously, this is an extreme case. First time 'offenders' might still be able to find people to work with them, albeit at higher rates, with stricter contract requirements, more supervision, or payment required up front. Basically, Life, for the known - for lack of a better word - 'cheater', sucks.

Just making sure I understood these points correctly. So the enforcement of justice in an anarchy is supposed to work in two different ways and rests on some assumptions:

a) "economic" enforcement (criminals don't get jobs).
resting on the assumptions:
a1) people will uniformly and consistently deny to trade with, and offer jobs to, hard criminals. Sounds reasonable to me, apart from the problem of global knowledge (if someone is a murderer in Zhengzhou and then moves to Vienna, how do I now not to trade with him?)
a2) denying trade and jobs will actually be bad enough to deter criminals. Reasonable for single persons. I am not sure about organized crime (sorry about bringing this up again, but it's the biggest issue I'm seeing here). If I'm a member of a Somalian pirate society, I don't really care if anyone trades with me or offers me jobs. I'll just steal what I need, or kidnap someone and blackmail their family to give it to me.

b) "company" enforcement (security firms, insurance companies)
assumptions:
b1) these companies possess enough power to fight criminal groups. Plausible imho, its a big market.
b2) these companies will 1) always act justly, and 2) never abuse their power. This could be problematic. Now I do get that it's a free market, and that corrupt companies could go bankrupt. I'm saying "could" deliberately. The problem is with monopoly, and with very big companies. Take, for example, Microsoft. Before Linux they basically had monopoly on the PC OS market, and let's be honest, they sucked. Blue Screens, errors, malfunctions, etc. and bad support. If there were no laws and no customer protection etc., they probably would have been even worse, and no one could have done anything about it. Similar situation with telecom companies - e.g. mobile phone network providers - in some European countries. Everyone knows that they overcharge by more than 100%, but since in some countries they are all owned by the same big company, no one can do anything about it (people can't just decide not to use mobile phones anymore. and there is no competition to speak of since the network is owned by that company, and building a new network from scratch is astronomically expensive).
b3) I (or we) can choose the ruleset I (or we) want to abide by (and get my security firm to enforce it). I'm not sure. What if there just isn't any company enforcing rules that I can 100% agree with? Or what if there is, but it is less powerful than my neighbors company, which in effect would make me abide by the laws of my neighbor instead of my own?

Freedom means I have a lot of choice. However, the amount of choice always depends on power. Whoever has the most power has the most choice and can also limit the choices of others.
The following fact would make me very uncomfortable in my current understanding of an anarchist system: my freedom would be limited in a way I cannot control, a) by the consensus of the people around me (e.g. "this guy is gay, lets not do business with him" - I'm not, just an example of how this could be unjust imho); and b) by powerful companies whose decisions I have no way to influence.

And isn't the whole point of anarchy total freedom, or at least a high degree of freedom?

P.S.: @myrkul: I do believe the percentage of psychopaths and sadists to be very far below 50% - but I also believe more than 50% of the people to be egoists in the sense that they care more about their pleasure and their wealth than they care about other people or about justice. Sadly, this is something that has been researched and proven time and time again; and it is, apart from criminals, one of the factor causing injustice in societies.

There still remains the question of who decides what is violence and what is not.  If I use violence to prevent an act of violence, I would claim that I did not initiate because the threat existed.  But because the prevented act did not occur, who is to decide whether it would have?  What if an "accident" causes harm to someone and it is not obvious whether it was truly accidental or a cloaked deliberate act of violence?  How do people decide?  Is it mob rule where people vote with their pitchforks?  No law means there is no due process.

As to the accident, intent is irrelevant. Damage was caused, so damages are owed.

The answer to your entire post can be summed up thus:

Personal responsibility is hard.

Can't the murderer just refuse to comply if he decides that ostracism is better than the penalty?  Likewise if a thief is caught after the fact, he can refuse the penalty and continue stealing.

This is a non-answer.  These are not problems of personal responsibility.  People will have disputes regardless, and deciding which interpretation prevails is an epistemological problem that can't just be wished out of existence.  You can fantasize about a world where the existing problems are not problems.  That's what communists do.

Monopolies are protected from actual free market forces, and they can externalize the costs of their inefficiencies onto the taxpayer

Externalizing costs aren't limited to monopolies. Currently regulations keep companies in some kind of line and keep them from externalizing too much of their costs. Without those regulations, and a controlling body to enforce them, how would you keep said companies from doing that?
Granted the overseeing isn't perfect today, but I have a feeling that it could be much worse. Better too obviously.

Not when you consider the reality of "regalatory capture" wherein the industries in question functionally come to regulate themselves because those professionals that are experts in the fields, who are the best persons to regulate an industry, all come from that same industry and return to it after their public tour is over.  This same effect magnifies the competitive advantages of the market leaders, because they have an outsized influence on those same regulators and their decisions as compared to their smaller competition.  This isn't quite the same as monopoly capture of a market, but it all but garrantees that said industry develops regulatory barriers to entry over time.

Externalizing costs aren't limited to monopolies. Currently regulations keep companies in some kind of line and keep them from externalizing too much of their costs. Without those regulations, and a controlling body to enforce them, how would you keep said companies from doing that?
Granted the overseeing isn't perfect today, but I have a feeling that it could be much worse. Better too obviously.

I agree that this is a problem that should be addressed. I have a feeling that it's not that hard to do.
What solution would you like to see instead of the current one?  How would you like to prevent externalization of costs to gain a competitive advantage?

Is it not coercive to force people to live under 'anarchy' if they don't want to, the same way it's coercive to force me to live under a fascist social democracy? Libertarians fail to make this distinction, they just assume everyone will go along with their plan.

Right, but there will always be people who depend on an overarching power structure (A government), and depriving them of that desire is still coercive. Under this decentralized Federation anyone would be free to shop around for any Government they so wished for, rather than forcing an entire geographic area to submit to one ideology.

Right, but there will always be people who depend on an overarching power structure (A government), and depriving them of that desire is still coercive. Under this decentralized Federation anyone would be free to shop around for any Government they so wished for, rather than forcing an entire geographic area to submit to one ideology.

It really is simple. Remove the barriers to entry and the support structure that allows the externalization.

I don't understand what you mean by the second part of your post. Externalization of costs is always an option unless there are rules to prevent it, and obviously some entity to enforce the rules.

Some externalization is always an option, say, for example, self-checkouts, or a reduction in service staff, but without a government to grant and enforce a monopoly, the customers will only take so much.

How do you suppose a company can externalize its costs without being in cahoots with the ruling government (who can backup such actions by force)?

I'd say that it can happen both with and without government interaction. And how would it be better with anarchy where there's no authority at all? What's to prevent a company from doing exactly whatever it wants? Today there is a ruleset, although weak one in places.

So the company is going to decide it's cheaper to deal with all the suits brought against it by the owners of the land they're dumping on, not to mention the customer base they lose?

So the company is going to decide it's cheaper to deal with all the suits brought against it by the owners of the land they're dumping on, not to mention the customer base they lose?

That's a very reactive way of dealing with problems. The damage has already been done by the time suits are filed, and the damage can be permanent.
And yes, it can be cheaper. I know for a fact at least one company I've worked for who has done so. Calculated potential damages and decided that it would cost more to fix their product than to pay those who got hurt by it.
And lost customer base isn't such a big problem as you might think it is. Bad press can be handled. Advertising does wonders. Besides, most people don't care if someone else was hurt in the process as long as they get the goods cheaply.

And you don't have to dump it on someone else's land. You can dump it on your own. It has happened, and it probably will again. I don't see anarchy fixing this. I have a feeling it'll get worse. And suing someone for "I might get sick 20 years from now" is quite hard.

Suits presume legal recourse.  It will be cheap to deal with angry letters.

I call this the 'Fight club equation' (The main character, played by Edward Norton, is the one who does this calculation for a 'major car company') And Yes, it goes on now, and no, Anarchy wouldn't do a whole lot to change that. BUT: What it would do is remove the limitations on liability and the protections on responsibility that corporations currently enjoy. This means that each individual person who had a hand in causing the harm could be found personally liable for the damages, from the guy who made the decision all the way down to the guy who drove the truck and did the actual dumping. Puts a few more variables into that equation, huh?

But that's not all. Dumping on your own property doesn't necessarily stop the contaminants from getting onto other people's property. If I'm down stream from you, You'd be liable for my damages even if you dumped in the river on your property. Even if the contaminants never leave your property, anyone who works there and is caused harm by it would - you guessed it - would be able to extract damages from you. All of which combines to make the people making those decisions think a lot harder before dumping, or deciding not to recall faulty safety harnesses, etc.

Regarding the dumping. So, it's like today then, except today there are laws to actually PREVENT you from doing the damage in the first place, instead of trying to do something after the fact. "Hey, sorry I poisoned your land. Here's some money. Go live somewhere else" sounds like a really shitty idea to me. As does getting money from lost limbs or anything else that could have been prevented by safety standards and laws.

You need guns, lots of guns.

I especially hate it when the police officer tells me I'm driving my car to fast, what does he know?

This bears the earmarks of someone who's not done a lot of study, but has applied a lot of thought.

Some suggestions:

Murray Rothbard
Pierre-Joseph Proudhon
Samuel Konkin III

Climb up on the shoulders of some giants. (Yes, I intentionally put conflicting ideologies in there)

I'd also add Kevin Carson and Anthony DeJasay to that list

What makes you think there would be no recourse? Binding arbitration and mediation are the cornerstones of AnCap Society.

Suits presume law.  Without law, you don't have suits, you have complaints.  Arbitration and mediation are also mechanisms of law.  Without law you have non-binding discussions.  You keep referring to the benefits of the legal system while also presuming its absence.


If binding arbitration and mediation are cornerstones of AnCap Society, I think the burden of proof is on you to explain how they are binding without law.

A different angle on the same question is, how are contracts are enforced without law?

Laws do not prevent anything. They outline consequences. These consequences often do nothing to help the victim, and often do harm to them (charging them to support the person, for instance)

As to you losing your house because you hired a 'Lazy asshat', No. The lazy asshat might, but not you. At least, as long as you can find the lazy asshat. Call it incentive to do due diligence.

[Facepalm] dude,do you even know what Anarcho-Capitalism is and how its propenets claim it operates?  Have you at the minimum looked it up on wikipedia?

Yes, let's argue semantics. That's productive.
Bad consequences for an action prevents you from taking that action, in most cases. Hence laws do prevent things.
How does safety standards laws harm those affected by it? It could hurt the profits of the firms, but then we're back to externalizing costs again. "It's cheaper to actually pay the guy who loses his arm $1mil than to fix the machines who take an arm a year from our employees". And as long as the safety standards are applied equally the playing field is even for everyone competing in the market.

I have a feeling that you've never had anything to do with running a company. It's hard enough to get people to take actions and show initiative. If they are personally responsible for unintended consequences they won't do anything not explicitly told. And finding out who did what and when in a situation where there's a punishment waiting for the person who did wrong is hard. Ask any policeman. So the end result is still that I would be knee deep in 'trouble' in any company of significant size, since it's nearly impossible to know what everyone is doing at any given time.

Look, I know the current system isn't the best, and I'm willing to change it to something better. AnCap isn't it imho.

I have read it and the answer is not there either.

Look here: http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=21217.msg268418#msg268418 (yes, that goes to this thread)

Yes, I acknowledged that before.  The only recourse against criminals is ostracism.

Good luck with that.

Yes, I acknowledged that before.  The only recourse against criminals is ostracism.

Good luck with that.

So everyone runs some sort of credit check before selling a sandwich.  Gotcha.

I'd say not being able to buy a meal or find a place to sleep is a better punishment than 'three hots and a cot'.

That's where you're wrong: Laws don't stop squat. Next time you get mugged, remind them that they're breaking a law. That'll stop 'em for sure. Better yet, keep a copy of the relevant statute in your breast pocket. That way, when they shoot you, the law against murder will deflect the bullet.

As for unsafe working conditions, Would you work at a machine that regularly mangled people? Do you suppose that everyone aside from you is a complete moron? If the answer to either of those questions is yes, then perhaps there do need to be standards in place to protect you from yourself. I suspect that both are 'no', however.

As to the rest, what that boils down to is: "If people actually had to think about the consequences of their actions, nothing would get done!" I'm sorry, I call bullshit on that one.

Do you actually believe that the drug addict/ADHD/schizophrenic who robs people on the street are the same that sits in a boardroom and makes calculated decisions about what actions the company should take next? Are you thick or are you just trying to make a cheap point? I'm hoping the latter, although it's a bit insulting. Laws stops normal people from committing crimes. People who care about consequences. The mentally ill/drugged up/desperate don't.

As to weather or not people would actually do something if they had to think about consequences. I'm sure some would. But if the negative consequences are greater than the reward, I think not. Better safe than sorry. I'll just go ask my manager what I should do next. Let him worry about the consequences of what we do.

Like I said, I have yet to hear a valid way to stop murderers from murdering.

My preferred method for dealing with a murderer is to catch them in the act, preferably stopping them from completing the act, and preventing them from ever attempting the act again. In other words, respond to deadly force with deadly force.

Has anyone on this thread ever been mugged?

More than once?

And if yes, where do you live?

And if they are captured after they have already murdered?

This seems to be a pretty high-brow thread, so I would like to join in: I have never once heard a compelling argument from an anarchist for why we shouldn't incarcerate murders.

Justice is pointless.

Definately not pointless.  Justice for a murderer (a real one, not an accidental one or an incidental one) is death.  Incarceration is not.

What is really gained in the end? A sense of egalitarian pleasure? How irrational.

As I said, I do not support retributive force. That said, I can think of no amount of restitution to make up for the loss of a human life. I'd like to think that a murderer might be rehabilitated, and for cases which the current legal system would define as 'Murder 2' and less, I would argue for that. To be honest, for premeditated murder, and serial/mass murder, I'd probably give the killer to the deceased's next of kin, and turn my back.

Definately not pointless.  Justice for a murderer (a real one, not an accidental one or an incidental one) is death.  Incarceration is not.

Justice is pointless. Coercing, injuring or killing the criminal has no real purpose besides as a disincentive for those who wish to commit unwanted acts. The disincentive is only functional when applied consistently and effectively, which is rarely done.

Punishment is a silly concept. It provides nothing. The only thing that is owed is repayment for the theft.

And that's exactly his point, Atlas. How do you repay for the theft of a life? The only thing that could come close would be lifetime indentured servitude.

Cool I murder in my spare time for fun. I like the idea that everyone will think punishment is a silly concept and believe in unconditional forgiveness. I also own a weapons company and use the most advanced weapons available. It seems that I will be able to have more fun in anarchy.

Cool I murder in my spare time for fun. I like the idea that everyone will think punishment is a silly concept and believe in unconditional forgiveness. I also own a weapons company and use the most advanced weapons available. It seems that I will be able to have more fun in anarchy.

Best of luck. What would you like your epitaph to read? "Troll to the end?"

Also:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_wrongs_make_a_right

You're not answering the question on how to stop a murderer from murdering again.  Forget the punishment or restitution, how do you stop them from continuing?

What is really gained in the end? A sense of egalitarian pleasure? How irrational.

I never said I was against it being used as a effective disincentive.

Also:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_wrongs_make_a_right

Yea your right Atlas, you did not explicitly say you were against using it as a disincentive. I agree the whole concept of punishment is irrational if the taken from the communities perspective. It is a complete waste of resources. Unfortunately it is one of the many costs of human interaction. We either bear the costs of interaction in a lawless society or the costs in a lawful society.

Yea your right Atlas, you did not explicitly say you were against using it as a disincentive. I agree the whole concept of punishment is irrational if the taken from the communities perspective. It is a complete waste of resources. Unfortunately it is one of the many costs of human interaction. We either bear the costs of interaction in a lawless society or the costs in a lawful society.

I would not be here if I didn't want change. I am not going to advocate an unproven method. Simple. In any engineering discipline, if there is going to be a complete overhaul of the system there will always be some sought of testing before proceeding with a dramatic change.

I would not be here if I didn't want change. I am not going to advocate an unproven method. Simple. In any engineering discipline, if there is going to be a complete overhaul of the system there will always be some sort of testing before proceeding with a dramatic change.

So, on one hand, you say that people won't care about the consequences of their actions, and on the other, you say they don't. The people who care about consequences, will still care about consequences, and the people who don't, still won't. What I suggest, is making those consequences benefit the victim, rather than punish the victim and culprit, and benefit the State.

As to the example you gave, in a poor economy, jobs are scarce. In a good economy, workers are scarce.

What I see you're saying is: First let's make ourself a victim, then let's compensate him/her.
I would prefer avoiding making victims if possible. Say, by putting up rules for how you are allowed to treat people?

Agreed with the economy analysis. So in a poor economy some people are expendable?

Interestingly enough, That's exactly what Agorism is: The construction of a voluntary system within the rotting shell of the old, coercive system. Testing it, step by step, until it's robust enough to replace the old one.

Don't forget Lysander Spooner, you spoony bard!

To be honest, for premeditated murder, and serial/mass murder, I'd probably give the killer to the deceased's next of kin, and turn my back.

That's fair. Ideally, if A kills B then we would put B's dead body in one chamber of a machine and A's live body in the other chamber of the machine and transfer A's life to B. Since we don't have a machine like that, the next best thing is to give A's life to B's heirs and they can do whatever they want with it, including public execution.

The blood thirst here is scary. How does another murder help anything? It just creates more victims. Even a murderer has family that cares about him/her. It might prevent more murders, although it's not the only way, and who knows if the person would ever kill again? And that's assuming that no mistake has been done finding the killer. What if you managed to find and kill an innocent, then what? Does another murder put that right?

Read fully the original post of mine that was quoted.

The blood thirst here is scary. How does another murder help anything? It just creates more victims. Even a murderer has family that cares about him/her. It might prevent more murders, although it's not the only way, and who knows if the person would ever kill again? And that's assuming that no mistake has been done finding the killer. What if you managed to find and kill an innocent, then what? Does another murder put that right?

Firstly, I never said that another murder would help anything. In fact, I explicitly said that I would rather a murderer be rehabilitated. Premeditated murderers and mass/serial murderers would most likely do it again, however. So, how would you suggest they be dealt with?

I agree, that killing an innocent person would not benefit anyone, which is why it is important to make sure you get the right guy, the same as it is in today's system.

I advocate imprisonment.

OK. Who pays? Who pays for the criminal's meals, medical care, housing, and protection? And if we goofed, who pays for that 'truckload of money'?

With slave labor the prison might turn a profit.

With slave labor the prison might turn a profit.

Do you have any idea what you're advocating?

OK. Who pays? Who pays for the criminal's meals, medical care, housing, and protection? And if we goofed, who pays for that 'truckload of money'?

Taxes. I thought that was obvious. Haven't I've been here long enough to let you guess that on your own?  ;)
Prisons are an operating cost of running a society.

Just wanted to hear you say it yourself. So, what you're suggesting, is that when someone murders someone, we should take money from not just the friends and family of the victims, but the entire society, people who have no connection to either the victim or the murderer, to pay for the care and feeding of the murderer? Rather than do something to redress the crime, and make those who were most hurt by it feel at least a little better, you would make them a victim a second time, and include the rest of us too, while you're at it? You would threaten, with violence or murder, millions of people, to support the life and needs of one murderer? Don't you see the hypocrisy there?

...and this includes capitial punishment, forgiveness, or even long term indentured servitude (but alas, the Constitution forbids indentured servitude and slavery).

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction

Not quite:

By deliberately violating the rights of others, they forfeit some of their own rights.  By threatening violence against me, you lose your right to have me not shoot you.

I know, I know.  You want criminal behavior to have no involuntary consequence, and you will just "capitalism" them to death.

Just wanted to hear you say it yourself. So, what you're suggesting, is that when someone murders someone, we should take money from not just the friends and family of the victims, but the entire society, people who have no connection to either the victim or the murderer, to pay for the care and feeding of the murderer? Rather than do something to redress the crime, and make those who were most hurt by it feel at least a little better, you would make them a victim a second time, and include the rest of us too, while you're at it? You would threaten, with violence or murder, millions of people, to support the life and needs of one murderer? Don't you see the hypocrisy there?

Not specifically. I would rather not institutionalize slavery and create criminal colleges, nor make an industry out of human misery.

And If violating a right forfeits your own, don't you think the punishment should fit the crime?

Of course the punishment should fit the crime.

For me, the whole question of retributive punishment hinges on one key: due process.  Without due process, the prisons or the heirs of the victim or "society" or whoever has absolutely no right to violate the rights of the accused criminal.  Only if the accused gets a fair and public trial, and a jury of peers unanimously decides against the accused, and the police have not violated any rights in the process of obtaining evidence, and a person knowledgeable about the law has assisted the accused, and the jury finds the punishment to be commensurate with the crime, only then can punishment be meted out with a clear conscience.

The problem I have with AnCap is I am not convinced that due process can exist because the courts will be tangled in questions of jurisdiction and paralyzed by moral relativism.  I would agree that retributive punishment cannot rightfully exist in such a system.

The problem is that some system will emerge nonetheless, where thugs who have no care for due process will deliver violent punishment for transgressions, and so there will still be a system of semi-institutionalized violence.  There will be a thriving industry of human misery.  It will just be outside of any due process or accountability in general.

So many people seem to think that there would be no justice system at all. There would be, But not a monopoly one. More accountability, not less.

You keep paraphrasing me with things I do not say, and you completely ignored the point that due process is impossible in your system.

I said courts as you envision would be tangled in questions of jurisdiction and paralyzed by moral relativism.  Those are the problems you need to address.  I also said that a system will emerge, the opposite of what you paraphrased me as saying.  I am only claiming the system that emerges will not have the qualities you want it to have.

Markets are a wonderful thing.  They embody freedom.  But freedom and force are not logically compatible.  They are antithetical to each other.  A choice as to which thug you want to extort you is not a choice, and as a practical matter, the thugs usually choose you, not the other way around.

I believe markets can work for everything except force.  And to some degree they can also work for force too, to the extent that people are allowed to vote with their feet.

3. The ability to pick and choose courts also means the ability to pick and choose interpretations of words.
4. Law that can be reinterpreted to mean what you want them to mean is the same as no law at all.
5. If we are not subject to lawful force, we will be subject to unlawful force.  And this is the difference between having due process and not.

I meant to imply that it was contingent on impossible conditions.  And it's not just due process but the entire legal system that is contingent on impossible conditions.

I am interested in knowing where you think things are different, so you can tell me which of these you disagree with, (or the logical step from one to another).

1. Assumption: any person or group can call themselves a 'court' and make decisions.  There exist a diversity of courts and a diversity of interpretations of law.
2. There is no way to determine which court will have jurisdiction, as parties will seek courts that agree with their interpretation.  If any person can be a court unto themselves, he can refuse the jurisdiction of any court other than himself.
3. The ability to pick and choose courts also means the ability to pick and choose interpretations of words.
4. Law that can be reinterpreted to mean what you want them to mean is the same as no law at all.
5. If we are not subject to lawful force, we will be subject to unlawful force.  And this is the difference between having due process and not.

The blood thirst here is scary. How does another murder help anything? It just creates more victims. Even a murderer has family that cares about him/her. It might prevent more murders, although it's not the only way, and who knows if the person would ever kill again? And that's assuming that no mistake has been done finding the killer. What if you managed to find and kill an innocent, then what? Does another murder put that right?

If you steal my TV, you owe me a TV. If you steal my life, you a owe me a life. I'm not sure why that's so complicated. Does me taking a TV from you make it so that you never stole my TV in the first place? No, but it's as good as we can do. Does taking your life and giving it to my family make it so that you never stole my life in the first place? No, but it's as good as we can do. Nobody here is thirsting for blood so spare me the negative labels. Either you have some argument of merit or you're just appealing to emotions.

First, let me state that I actually agree with your position that a complete anarchy is impossible for reasons similar to your line of thought above.  Which is why I'm a lib and not an anarchist.

That said, that above statements have an unstated assumption.  Namely that there isn't such a thing as a natural or common body of law. 

And until you can prove the existence of this natural law, then that will remain a correct assumption.

Had me right up to here. Last time I checked, Merriam Webster defined words, not the courts.

As for 'Lawful force', what does that even mean? How does writing down "i can kill you" make it so?

That said, that above statements have an unstated assumption.  Namely that there isn't such a thing as a natural or common body of law.  Thus, although #1 is true on it's face, it's not likely in practice.  Mediation is just another service, and people will seek out those who have a history dealing with this topic.  More likely, contract level disputes will already have a named court system to act as an arbitraitor, similar to the merchant courts of the last several centuries and the International Business Court of London.  Neither had any government backing, but their decisions are binding because businesses specificly refer to them as the court in juristiction in contracts.

#2 then falls flat, in most cases, because not only would most explicit contracts have a named court (and if that court is suspected of bias or corruption, a competing arbitraitor will take their business) but there will settle to be local arbitraitors to settle civil disputes among locals that didn't have such a contract.

#3 does not follow, because the meaning of words are not relevant in a natural law/common body of law court.  If the court tries to start making crap up that doesn't fit the public's understanding of the common law, they will start losing business.

And therefor #4 fails.

But I honestly don't know how to respond to #5, because just because a court makes a decision, doesn't make force lawful.  And words on paper and declared law by a group of rich men, democraticly elected or not, doesn't make force lawful either.  If you want to get technical, those aren't laws, they are statutes.  And if pressed, even they will make that distinction.  The term "the Law" used to have a very specific meaning in former colonies of the British Empire, and referred to the body of law that we now call British Common Law.  I live in a commonwealth state, that explicitly refers back to British Common Law as it's default body of law.

And until you can prove the existence of this natural law, then that will remain a correct assumption.

It doesn't need to be proved because it is held to be self evident that we are endowed with certain inalienable rights.  Remember?

Except it isn't self-evident and the burdern of proof is on those making the claim for this natural law.  Provide a evidence and we'll debate from there.  I cannot prove a negative and your claims are not true by default.

You should check again.  Courts are very much in the business of defining words.  I can point you to examples if you can't find any.

Lawful force is force that is constrained by previously written conditions, as contrasted with force that is applied by arbitrary whim.  You are correct in observing that lawful force is not the same as rightful force, unless the laws are right, which of course can not be assumed.

If the NAP were construed to be a law, then use of force consistent with NAP could be called lawful force.  So it's not really as foreign as you think.  The difference is that laws are generally much more specific and it is much less obvious whether they are just.  You can think of it as posting a sign that says "anyone caught stealing will be shot".

Then you don't accept the basic premise, then?  And choose not to present an argument as to why you don't accept the premise other than to lay the burden of proof upon myself.  Well, I can't prove it, that's why I stated it as a premise.  It's a given required in the further proof of natural laws of mankind. 

In logic, an argument is a set of one or more declarative sentences (or "propositions") known as the premises along with another declarative sentence (or "proposition") known as the conclusion. Aristotle held that any logical argument could be reduced to two premises and a conclusion.[1] Premises are sometimes left unstated in which case they are called missing premises, for example:

Socrates is mortal, since all men are mortal.
It is evident that a tacitly understood claim is that Socrates is a man. The fully expressed reasoning is thus:

Since all men are mortal and Socrates is a man, it follows that Socrates is mortal.
In this example, the first two independent clauses preceding the comma (namely, "all men are mortal" and "Socrates is a man") are the premises, while "Socrates is mortal" is the conclusion.

The proof of a conclusion depends on both the truth of the premises and the validity of the argument.

Ignoring the Burden of Proof: Generally speaking, he who asserts must prove. An assertion is a statement offered as a conclusion without supporting evidence. Since an argument is defined as a logical relationship between premise and conclusion, a simple assertion is not an argument. Writers sometimes forget this, and their articles can be littered with assertion after assertion. In the end, the duty to support an assertion is on the writer, not the reader (like the burden of proof is on the accuser in court, rather than the accused).

Since all men are mortal and Socrates is a man, it follows that Socrates is mortal.
In this example, the first two independent clauses preceding the comma (namely, "all men are mortal" and "Socrates is a man") are the premises, while "Socrates is mortal" is the conclusion.

The proof of a conclusion depends on both the truth of the premises and the validity of the argument.

The premises are assumed to be true, in the absence of contrary evidence.  I'll even use this logical argument as my evidence.  You cannot possible prove that all men are mortal, for that would, in fact, be attempting to prove a negative.  Specificly, you would have to be able to show that every man that has ever lived, has actually died, as well as every man that shall yet live, shall die, as well as show that it is not possible for you to have failed to include anyone.  We both know that proving the premise "all men are mortal" is, thus, actually impossible.  Therefore we assume that it's true in the absence of contrary evidence.

I have stated a premise, that I assume to be true in the absence of evidence.  I'm asking for any kind of such evidence from yourself, who seems to wish to invalidate the premise on the logic that I cannot prove it.

Fallacy: Burden of Proof



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Includes: Appeal to Ignorance ("Ad Ignorantiam")

Description of Burden of Proof
Burden of Proof is a fallacy in which the burden of proof is placed on the wrong side. Another version occurs when a lack of evidence for side A is taken to be evidence for side B in cases in which the burden of proof actually rests on side B. A common name for this is an Appeal to Ignorance. This sort of reasoning typically has the following form:


Claim X is presented by side A and the burden of proof actually rests on side B.
Side B claims that X is false because there is no proof for X.
In many situations, one side has the burden of proof resting on it. This side is obligated to provide evidence for its position. The claim of the other side, the one that does not bear the burden of proof, is assumed to be true unless proven otherwise. The difficulty in such cases is determining which side, if any, the burden of proof rests on. In many cases, settling this issue can be a matter of significant debate. In some cases the burden of proof is set by the situation. For example, in American law a person is assumed to be innocent until proven guilty (hence the burden of proof is on the prosecution). As another example, in debate the burden of proof is placed on the affirmative team. As a final example, in most cases the burden of proof rests on those who claim something exists (such as Bigfoot, psychic powers, universals, and sense data).

Examples of Burden of Proof

Bill: "I think that we should invest more money in expanding the interstate system."
Jill: "I think that would be a bad idea, considering the state of the treasury."
Bill: "How can anyone be against highway improvements?"

Bill: "I think that some people have psychic powers."
Jill: "What is your proof?"
Bill: "No one has been able to prove that people do not have psychic powers."

"You cannot prove that God does not exist, so He does."

Type: Informal Fallacy
Forms



There is no evidence against p.
Therefore, p.

There is no evidence for p.
Therefore, not-p.


Example:

[Joe McCarthy] announced that he had penetrated "Truman's iron curtain of secrecy" and that he proposed forthwith to present 81 cases… Cases of exactly what? "I am only giving the Senate," he said, "cases in which it is clear there is a definite Communist connection…persons whom I consider to be Communists in the State Department." … Of Case 40, he said, "I do not have much information on this except the general statement of the agency…that there is nothing in the files to disprove his Communist connections."


Source: Richard H. Rovere, Senator Joe McCarthy (Methuen, 1960), pp. 106-107. Cited in: Irving M. Copi, Introduction to Logic (Fourth Edition) (1972), p. 88.
 
Exposition:

An appeal to ignorance is an argument for or against a proposition on the basis of a lack of evidence against or for it. If there is positive evidence for the conclusion, then of course we have other reasons for accepting it, but a lack of evidence by itself is no evidence.
 
Exposure:

There are a few types of reasoning which resemble the fallacy of Appeal to Ignorance, and need to be distinguished from it:
 1.Sometimes it is reasonable to argue from a lack of evidence for a proposition to the falsity of that proposition, when there is a presumption that the proposition is false. For instance, in American criminal law there is a presumption of innocence, which means that the burden of proof is on the prosecution, and if the prosecution fails to provide evidence of guilt then the jury must conclude that the defendant is innocent.
 Similarly, the burden of proof is usually on a person making a new or improbable claim, and the presumption may be that such a claim is false. For instance, suppose that someone claims that the president was taken by flying saucer to another planet, but when challenged can supply no evidence of this unusual trip. It would not be an Appeal to Ignorance for you to reason that, since there is no evidence that the president visited another planet, therefore he probably didn't do so.
 
2.We sometimes have meta-knowledge—that is, knowledge about knowledge—which can justify inferring a conclusion based upon a lack of evidence. For instance, schedules—such as those for buses, trains, and airplanes—list times and locations of arrivals and departures. Such schedules usually do not attempt to list the times and locations when vehicles do not arrive or depart, since this would be highly inefficient. Instead, there is an implicit, understood assumption that such a schedule is complete, that all available vehicle departures and arrivals have been listed. Thus, we can reason using the following sort of enthymeme:
 There is no departure/arrival listed in schedule S for location L at time T.
Suppressed Premiss: All departures and arrivals are listed in schedule S.
Therefore, there is no departure/arrival for location L at time T.

This kind of completeness of information assumption is often called the "closed world assumption". When it is reasonable to accept this assumption—as with plane or bus schedules—it is not a fallacy of appeal to ignorance to reason this way.
 
3.Another type of reasoning is called "auto-epistemic" ("self-knowing") because it involves reasoning from premisses about what one knows and what one would know if something were true. The form of such reasoning is:
 If p were true, then I would know that p.
I don't know that p.
Therefore, p is false.

For instance, one might reason:

If I were adopted, then I would know about it by now.
I don't know that I'm adopted.
Therefore, I wasn't adopted.

Similarly, when extensive investigation has been undertaken, it is often reasonable to infer that something is false based upon a lack of positive evidence for it. For instance, if a drug has been subjected to lengthy testing for harmful effects and none has been discovered, it is then reasonable to conclude that it is safe. Another example is:
 
If there really were a large and unusual type of animal in Loch Ness, then we would have undeniable evidence of it by now.
 We don't have undeniable evidence of a large, unfamiliar animal in Loch Ness.
Therefore, there is no such animal.

As with reasoning using the closed world assumption, auto-epistemic reasoning does not commit the fallacy of Argument from Ignorance.


Resources:
<MAP NAME="boxmap-p8"><AREA SHAPE="RECT" COORDS="14, 200, 103, 207" HREF="http://rcm.amazon.com/e/cm/privacy-policy.html?o=1" ><AREA COORDS="0,0,10000,10000" HREF="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/redirect-home/thefallacyfil-20" ></MAP><img src="http://rcm-images.amazon.com/images/G/01/rcm/120x240.gif" width="120" height="240" border="0" usemap="#boxmap-p8" alt="Shop at Amazon.com">•Jonathan E. Adler, "Open Minds and the Argument from Ignorance".
 •Robert Todd Carroll, "Argument to Ignorance", Skeptic's Dictionary.
•S. Morris Engel, With Good Reason: An Introduction to Informal Fallacies (Fifth Edition) (St. Martin's, 1994), pp. 227-229.
 •Eric C.W. Krabbe, "Appeal to Ignorance", in Fallacies: Classical and Contemporary Readings, edited by Hans V. Hanson and Robert C. Pinto (Penn State Press, 1995), pp. 251-264.
 •Douglas Walton, "The Appeal to Ignorance, or Argumentum ad Ignorantiam", Argumentation 13 (1999), pp. 367-377 (PDF).

I. Argumentum ad Ignorantiam: (appeal to ignorance) the fallacy that a proposition is true simply on the basis that it has not been proved false or that it is false simply because it has not been proved true. This error in reasoning is often expressed with influential rhetoric.
 A. The informal structure has two basic patterns:
  Statement p is unproved.
Not-p is true.
  Statement not-p is unproved.
p is true.
 
   
 B. If one argues that God or telepathy, ghosts, or UFO's do not exist because their existence has not been proven beyond a shadow of doubt, then this fallacy occurs.
 C. On the other hand, if one argues that God, telepathy, and so on do exist because their non-existence has not been proved, then one argues fallaciously as well.
II. Some typical ad ignorantiam fallacy examples follow.
 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In spite of all the talk, not a single flying saucer report has been authenticated. We may assume, therefore, there are not such things as flying saucers.
 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No one has objected to Lander's parking policies during the last month of classes, so I suppose those policies are very good.
 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since the class has no questions concerning the topics discussed in class, the class is ready for a test.
 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Biology professor to skittish students in lab: There is no evidence that frogs actually feel pain; it is true they exhibit pain behavior, but as they have no consciousness, they feel no pain.
 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Johnson: It is impractical to send more men to the moon because the money spent for that project could be spent on helping the poor..
Hanson: It is not impractical.

Johnson: Why?

Hanson: Just try to prove that I'm wrong.  
 
  (Hanson is defending his claim by an ad ignorantiam, i.e., his claim is true, if Johnson cannot refute him.)

Sorry, doesn't work like that.  Watch...


Unicorns are real.


You cannot disprove it, therefore unicorns must be real.

Nice try, but I've seen mortal men, and I have known some who have died.  So I have some personal experience that would lend credience to the assumption that all men are mortal.  Even if you have seen a real unicorn, your readers have not, so there is no shared experience to base such an assumption upon.

I must admit, you are the best troll I have ever seen.

Try again.

I must admit, you are the best deflector of arguments I have ever seen.

AyeYo:  It seems like you have to stop at some premise and either attack it's logic or accept it, because otherwise you slide into infinite regression.  For example, I could say that the natural law that "all men own their own bodies" derives from the fact that all organisms deserve a chance at life, and in order for them to do so they must decrease entropy locally which requires economic ownership of not only their lives but resources around them.  But then you could ask me to prove that all organisms are entitled to a chance at survival.  I can't prove that.  It is an assertion.  The best I could do would be to say that by living you implicitly agree with my assertion.  However, then you could argue that only some organisms have a right to a chance at life. 

AyeYo:  It seems like you have to stop at some premise and either attack it's logic or accept it, because otherwise you slide into infinite regression.  For example, I could say that the natural law that "all men own their own bodies" derives from the fact that all organisms deserve a chance at life, and in order for them to do so they must decrease entropy locally which requires economic ownership of not only their lives but resources around them.  But then you could ask me to prove that all organisms are entitled to a chance at survival.  I can't prove that.  It is an assertion.  The best I could do would be to say that by living you implicitly agree with my assertion.  However, then you could argue that only some organisms have a right to a chance at life. 

See, you've presented an argument for the claim made.  NOW we have somewhere to start from, and you've even gone a few steps ahead.  MoonShadow didn't want to do this because it leads to a dead end for him, so instead he just kept on the chant of wanting me to prove a negative.

Now...
I'll counter your idea of a "right to life" with the fact that life is taken away by forces out of our control ALL the time.  If there is a natural law that says living beings have a right to life, then nature wouldn't be constantly and arbitraritly taking that life away.  Natural laws CANNOT be disobeyed.  The laws of physics CANNOT be ignored.  The laws of mathematics CANNOT be altered.  If there was a natural law granting a right to life, nothing would ever die.

I'll counter your idea of a "right to life" with the fact that life is taken away by forces out of our control ALL the time.  If there is a natural law that says living beings have a right to life, then nature wouldn't be constantly and arbitraritly taking that life away.  Natural laws CANNOT be disobeyed.  The laws of physics CANNOT be ignored.  The laws of mathematics CANNOT be altered.  If there was a natural law granting a right to life, nothing would ever die.

See, you've presented an argument for the claim made.  NOW we have somewhere to start from, and you've even gone a few steps ahead.  MoonShadow didn't want to do this because it leads to a dead end for him, so instead he just kept on the chant of wanting me to prove a negative.

Now...
I'll counter your idea of a "right to life" with the fact that life is taken away by forces out of our control ALL the time.  If there is a natural law that says living beings have a right to life, then nature wouldn't be
constantly and arbitraritly taking that life away.  Natural laws CANNOT be disobeyed.  The laws of physics
CANNOT be ignored.  The laws of mathematics CANNOT be altered.  If there was a natural law granting a
right to life, nothing would ever die.

Ahhh philosophy.

What set of rules do we use to distinguish between the murderer and the environment?

Is not the murderer the environment?

And I guess that it's impossible to fly, since there is a natural law that we call "gravity", huh?

See, I can pull your bullshit too.

Now...
I'll counter your idea of a "right to life" with the fact that life is taken away by forces out of our control ALL the time.  If there is a natural law that says living beings have a right to life, then nature wouldn't be constantly and arbitraritly taking that life away.  Natural laws CANNOT be disobeyed.  The laws of physics CANNOT be ignored.  The laws of mathematics CANNOT be altered.  If there was a natural law granting a right to life, nothing would ever die.

rather than vomiting your ignorance all over this thread.

Actually, I don't think that flying is violating the law of gravity because to do it you actually have to take gravity into account. I.E. create enough thrust or lift to counteract it. Would you agree?

How does Anarchy, Liberalism deal with AIDs infected babies?

Friends, families, loans, begging on the street, Or here's a crazy thought: the mother could start a charity.

People always ignore entrepreneurship.

What if there are not charities?

You think that this is a better solution than what we currently have? Honestly?

Voluntary help vs helping someone or we shoot you? Yeah, I think that's better.

Voluntary help vs helping someone or we shoot you? Yeah, I think that's better.

Where is the love, man?

None if nobody is willing to help.

There is today, even if nobody is willing to help.

Resist your brainwashing. Taxation is not love.
also: Welfare is not love.

Resist your brainwashing. Taxation is not love.
also: Welfare is not love.

To the one in need it matters little if the help comes from the willing or the unwilling.
A drowning man doesn't care if you swam out to him because you're a nice guy or because I held a gun to your head. He will be saved, that's all that matters to him.

Taxation might not be love, but what you can do with it can be. Brainwashed? Oh, I see, you're the only one able to think for yourself while everyone else are brainwashed sheep.
Tell me, do you have to be an arrogant prick to be an AnCap, or is that optional? If it's optional I suggest you stop.

Hmmm...
Double quotation, calling me an 'arrogant prick'...

Yeah, I think I touched a nerve.

Frankly, I am not obligated to help someone. I am not obligated to save a drowning man. Nor pay for the care of an AIDS baby. If you feel that it is so important that this person be helped that you are willing to threaten my life to get it done, do it yourself.

Way to miss the point by the way. I was talking about if your reason for helping someone matters to the person being helped. It doesn't.

I got your point. I just don't care. It matters to me why I helped the guy. If I helped them because someone held a gun to my head, I've been extorted, no less than if I was forced at gunpoint to hand over cash to a mugger.

And I guess that it's impossible to fly, since there is a natural law that we call "gravity", huh?

See, I can pull your bullshit too.

You've actually made the best argument against a positive right to life I have ever seen.

That said, I counter it with a negative right to life: I have the right to not be murdered before my naturally decreed time.

Let me restate my position:

When a man is drowning, a bystander who is good will jump in and help.
an evil bystander will force another to jump in and help.

I say again: If it matters that much to you, do it yourself.

What you are arguing is not natural law and has little to do with natural law.

Natural law is not the laws of physics.  Natural law has a specific meaning with regard to philosophy and the rights of people.  In this specific definition it is understood to be an axiom, which can be accepted or not, and it cannot be proved or disproved.

Since you seem so skilled at looking up stuff on Wikipedia, why don't you start there, rather than vomiting your ignorance all over this thread.

Using your definition of good and evil bystanders:
If you were drowning, and there were no good bystanders, would you like to have an evil bystander present?

No even remotely close, not ballpark, not even universe.

Flight is accomplished by use of the LAWS OF PHYSICS to OVERCOME the force of gravity.  It is NOT accomplished by violating the law of gravity.

Keep trying though.  I'll keep laughing.  :D

Oh, I'm sure that you have been laughing the whole time, I doubt it not.  That is, after all, the primary motive of agitators like yourself.

Just keep laughing.

I'm well aware of that.  And this fact, basically by definition, means that "natural" rights are in fact not natural at all, but a construct of society and only have meaning if excepted by that society.

As already pointed out, anything truly natural exists with or without people there to fight for its existence.  If I don't force society to grant me the right to not be murdered, then I do not have that right.

You can't redefine words to mean whatever you want them to mean, and still have a meaningful discussion.  You could argue that it is improperly named, but you can't redefine natural law to mean something else and then argue against that other thing which is not what people are calling natural law.

AyeYo is effectively saying, "What you are calling 'rights' I interpret as unicorns, and unicorns do not exist!  Or at least the burden of proof is on you to show that unicorns exist."

If you want to argue that might makes right, you are free to argue that, but please don't call it natural law or unicorns or some other thing which does not mean what you want it to mean, even if you pay it extra (http://grammar.about.com/b/2009/06/05/varieties-of-verbs.htm).

At the time, you're right, I wouldn't care. I certainly wouldn't refuse the assistance!

After the fact, I would support and bear witness to any claim that the 'neutral' bystander who was forced to help me had against the 'evil' one.

You don't think that's a little hypocritical? Without the "evil" bystander you would be dead. You owe him your life, yet you would like to punish him for saving it.

You don't think that's a little hypocritical? Without the "evil" bystander you would be dead. You owe him your life, yet you would like to punish him for saving it.

As already stated, I'm well aware of the concept of natural rights.  As I just pointed out in the last post, the concept is extremely flawed for multiple reasons.  

It's accepted by many people because on the surface it appears reasonable - most European and Asian based societies seem to share the same ideas of morality in spite of their separate origins.  However, when you start to examine the practices of native societies in other areas, what appeared to be the obvious truth of natural rights suddenly vanishes.

Here's is the bottom line, as it has always been:

The truth of natural rights is not the issue at hand. The issue at hand is that libertarianism FORCES those that do not agree with it 100% to nevertheless abide by its rules.  You attempt to justify this by saying it's based on some "natural law" and "natural rights", but the fact of the matter is that not everyone agrees with you, in fact most don't.  No matter how you want to spin your belief system, no matter how you redefine words, no matter how arbitrary you are with your application of standards, the bottom line will always remain the same: your belief system is hypocritical because it is based on non-aggression, but it is inherently aggressive against those that do not subscribe to it.

No, I owe the forced bystander my life. The 'evil' one committed an aggressive act against the person to whom I owe my life, so of course I would like to see that he is justly compensated.

The forced bystander wouldn't have saved you. Had it not been for the "evil" one, you would be dead.  HE saved your life. HIS actions rescued you. Yes, he did so by forcing another, but the intent was to save a life. Didn't you say that intent matters not too long ago? Perhaps the "evil" one couldn't swim, so he took the second best option.

You're praising someone who would have let you die, while punishing the one who saved you. While I don't object to you praising the person who did the actual rescue, vilifying the facilitator isn't right.

The forced bystander wouldn't have saved you. Had it not been for the "evil" one, you would be dead.  HE saved your life. HIS actions rescued you. Yes, he did so by forcing another, but the intent was to save a life. Didn't you say that intent matters not too long ago? Perhaps the "evil" one couldn't swim, so he took the second best option.

You're praising someone who would have let you die, while punishing the one who saved you. While I don't object to you praising the person who did the actual rescue, vilifying the facilitator isn't right.

There are better ways to 'facilitate' than with force. Offering compensation, for instance. I'm not 'vilifying' the facilitator, it's his methods I take issue with. pulling a gun is not the 'second best' option, it's way down the list.

Arguing that the ends justify the means is a very dangerous thing.  Even if it seems correct in one very specific case, the broader principle leads to tremendous injustice and misery and suffering.

So even if the force seems valid in this context, it is irrelevant because it fails when generalized.

I agree that the end doesn't always justify the means. But sometimes it does.
The key is to find a balance. The world isn't as black and white as people here tend to think.

What is it that AnCaps use to say about incentives? That incentives influences actions? So in your society, if I need to resort to force to help someone, I'll be punished for it. Isn't that an incentive for people NOT to help?

Thanks, but your system sucks compared to the current one, where I can break laws to assist someone, as long as those actions are justifiable. At least in this scenario we just discussed. Perhaps we can find some other area where AnCap is actually better than the current system. I'm sure there are some.

Incentives do indeed influence actions. Maybe you should offer some other incentive to the bystander other than not dying? Terror tactics aren't acceptable, no matter the cause.

Saving a life is terror now? What school did you attend? The Orwell school of linguistics?  ::)

No, pointing a gun at someone and forcing them to do something is terror.

Rest assured I would gladly go into debt to a rescuer who would only rescue me for a fee.

No, pointing a gun at someone and forcing them to do something is terror.

Rest assured I would gladly go into debt to a rescuer who would only rescue me for a fee.

FINALLY, at least now you are talking about the same thing.  The 'flaws' you think you pointed out earlier were about something else.

It is aggressive against those who are aggressive, regardless of whether or not they subscribe to any belief system.  It only forces those who attempt to force.  It does not force people to agree.

Let's say, because of your differing belief system, you redefine 'aggression' to exclude X, while anarchists include X as being aggressive.  If you then engage in X, which is nonaggressive-according-to-AyeYo, then anarchists have no problem engaging in X against you also.  You cannot then switch and complain about aggression being used against you, because you have said X is not aggressive.

Stating something twice does not make it any less incorrect.

It is true that belief systems exist in a world were not everyone is 100% of the same opinion.  Non-aggression allows these to coexist as long as they don't use force against each other.  It is not based on absolute absence of aggression, it is based on the minimum possible aggression, and only in specific limited circumstances.  There is nothing self-contradictory about that.

NOT EVERYONE AGREES WITH THAT STANDARD.  NOT EVERYONE AGREES WITH HOW YOU APPLY IT.

What will it take for you to be able to wrap your mind around that?

Intent is key. Your definition certainly isn't the common definition btw.

So, is there an upper limit as to how much debt you'd go into to be rescued form a life threatening situation?

I fully understand and I AGREE that not everyone agrees on the standard or how it is applied.

I never said everyone agrees.  I never said it required agreement.  I am saying that it is not self-contradictory.

Does non-contradiction require complete agreement in AyeYo's little universe?  That would be a convenient way for everyone who disagrees with you to be self-contradictory.

Non-contradiction requires that your system supposedly based on non-aggression not be inherently aggressive.  No system can be non-aggressive because there will ALWAYS be SOMEONE that doesn't agree with the system and thus needs to be FORCED to abide by it.  It's as simple as that.

No system can be non-aggressive because there will ALWAYS be SOMEONE that doesn't agree with the system and thus needs to be FORCED to abide by it.  It's as simple as that.

A system can be non-aggressive against those who are non-aggressive, and that is all that NAP claims.  There is no contradiction unless you misconstrue it to mean the complete absence of aggression under any circumstances, which nobody ever suggested.

+1

The only system that would be completely non-aggressive would be pacifism and likely would not last long.  No one is arguing that libertarianism is pacifist, only that it is non-aggressive EXCEPT against those who initiate aggression.  There is no contradiction there.  AyeYo, you are right in saying that some people would be aggressed against in an AnCap society, but only those who initiate force.   

True disagreement with the system would require you to steal or murder.

So now, simple disagreement with the system is "initiation of force"?  I LOVE these arbitrary defintions!

I do not want to be subjected to the chaos that would insue from for a libertarian society, but you're forcing me to be subject to it under threat of violence.  That's no different than the crying you're doing against the current system!  You don't want liberty, you want YOUR form of tyranny.

Anarchy: We will leave you alone, Whether you want it, or not!

Except that in a libertarian or anarcho-capitalist society you and all the people who agree with you can set-up your own government where all those who want to can voluntarily submit themselves to the security of a State with democratically elected officials and tens of thousands of arbitrary, confusing laws, theft of 30-50% of your livelihood, etc.  The only catch is anyone who wants to gets to opt out, so you can't force your system upon us.  Only those who want will partake of it.  

But that's exactly what we have now.  No one is forcing you to be here.  You can leave at any time if you don't want to partake of it.

Anarchy: We will leave you alone, Whether you want it, or not! (™)

But that's exactly what we have now.  No one is forcing you to be here.  You can leave at any time if you don't want to partake of it.

ter·ror·ism –noun
1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.

Hmm. Seems to match.

As to the upper limit, a standard fee/reward would develop. em3rgentOrdr suggests 10BTC. At the moment, this would break me, (as far as my BTC savings) but I'd gladly pay it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism
No universal definition exists. Common definition is that there is a political, religious or ideological ground.
Going with Merrian-Webster we have a look at that terror is "violent or destructive acts (as bombing) committed by groups in order to intimidate a population or government...". Hence terror, or terrorism isn't done on an individual level. No, I don't think your definition fits. I'd agree to criminal behaviour, but not terrorism.
Also, from wikipedia "The use of similar tactics by criminal organizations for protection rackets or to enforce a code of silence is usually not labeled terrorism though these same actions may be labeled terrorism when done by a politically motivated group."


So you think that while you're drowning you'd say: "Hmm, I don't have enough money to pay what he's asking. Guess I'll just drown in peace."? Or do you think you'd agree to pretty much anything?

Also, how much debt would you be willing to go into to save someone who is unable to haggle for price himself?
"So you want $100 to rescue that drowning man, well I've only got $70 so I guess he's a goner then. Too bad for him"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism

So you think that while you're drowning you'd say: "Hmm, I don't have enough money to pay what he's asking. Guess I'll just drown in peace."? Or do you think you'd agree to pretty much anything?

Also, how much debt would you be willing to go into to save someone who is unable to haggle for price himself?
"So you want $100 to rescue that drowning man, well I've only got $70 so I guess he's a goner then. Too bad for him"

Most people would derive value from just saving the drowning man. A libertarian society does not ban human empathy.

See, here's the thing, people like to come up with very arbitrary and specific situations to try to prove how anarchy would fail, but often these situations would be just as bad or worse under government.  For example, the situation with the drowning man.  If there is a man drowning in the ocean, and there are two people on the beach.  One of the people on the beach has a gun, but can't swim.  The other has a boat, but no gun.  The NAP says that the man with the gun should not force the man with the boat to save the drowning man.  However, most laws in countries I know of also say that you can't put a gun to a person's head to force them to do something unless you are the government.  So if the man with the boat does not want to help the man drowning the man with the gun will have to call the police and wait, and the man in the ocean will drown anyway.  

The thing is it's pretty hard to imagine a situation like this, most people would care to help a drowning person, even for no monetary reward because of things like human empathy and compassion.  

But say, for example under anarchy this situation exists and the man with the gun violates the NAP and forces the man with the boat to save the swimmer.  The man with the boat takes the man with the gun to court.  The court finds the man with the gun guilty of violating the NAP and essentially stealing the mans boat and time without paying for it.  He will then have to pay restitution for the amount that the man's time and labor and use of the boat was worth.  Perhaps, also some "emotional resitution" for putting a gun to the person's head but since the man wasn't physically hurt I doubt this would be that much.  

I suppose, but what I'm trying to get through here is that the world isn't quite as simple as people would like it to be. Sometimes it's necessary to choose the lesser of two evils, like breaking the law (or the NAP) to save a life.

I suppose, but what I'm trying to get through here is that the world isn't quite as simple as people would like it to be. Sometimes it's necessary to choose the lesser of two evils, like breaking the law (or the NAP) to save a life.

I believe it's more evil to sacrifice and violate other lives to save just one.

To sacrifice a life to save another obviously isn't going to be acceptable. Nor is killing one to save a few others.  One life isn't worth more than any others, but it's worth more than your feelings.

To sacrifice a life to save another obviously isn't going to be acceptable. Nor is killing one to save a few others.  One life isn't worth more than any others, but it's worth more than your feelings.

See, here's the thing, people like to come up with very arbitrary and specific situations to try to prove how anarchy would fail, but often these situations would be just as bad or worse under government.  For example, the situation with the drowning man.  If there is a man drowning in the ocean, and there are two people on the beach.  One of the people on the beach has a gun, but can't swim.  The other has a boat, but no gun.  The NAP says that the man with the gun should not force the man with the boat to save the drowning man.  However, most laws in countries I know of also say that you can't put a gun to a person's head to force them to do something unless you are the government.  So if the man with the boat does not want to help the man drowning the man with the gun will have to call the police and wait, and the man in the ocean will drown anyway.  

The thing is it's pretty hard to imagine a situation like this, most people would care to help a drowning person, even for no monetary reward because of things like human empathy and compassion.  

But say, for example under anarchy this situation exists and the man with the gun violates the NAP and forces the man with the boat to save the swimmer.  The man with the boat takes the man with the gun to court.  The court finds the man with the gun guilty of violating the NAP and essentially stealing the mans boat and time without paying for it.  He will then have to pay restitution for the amount that the man's time and labor and use of the boat was worth.  Perhaps, also some "emotional resitution" for putting a gun to the person's head but since the man wasn't physically hurt I doubt this would be that much.  

Statutory law or statute law is written law (as opposed to oral or customary law) set down by a legislature (as opposed to regulatory law promulgated by the executive branch or common law of the judiciary in a typical democracy/republic) or by a legislator (in the case of an absolute monarchy).[1]

Statutes may originate with national, state legislatures or local municipalities. Statutes of lower jurisdictions are subordinate to the law of higher.

(I'm sorry, I don't know the proper term...if hijacking is stealing airplaines and carjacking is stealing cars, then I'm calling stealing boats to be boatjacking, since maritime hijacking or piracy doesn't quite have that right connotation here). 

Connotation be damned. this is the state we're talking about, remember? They'll charge you with Piracy because you stole a boat.

:) yeah, great way to lump me in with Red Beard, Johnny Drop, violent Somali maritime extortors, and no to mention those throngs of illegal filesharers.  Thanks a lot.

OK, We've defended our case, now, it's your turn. What happens if the man with the boat (or the swimming skills) tells the man with the gun, 'No'?

The "gun" in the example above was more of a figure of speech, a way to show force. But let's for the sake of argument say it's a real gun.
First of all you'd have to be very brave to say no to a man with a gun. You have no idea if the guy you're refusing is someone like me who cares about saving lives and wouldn't kill you, or if it's someone who would go to any length to save his drowning brother, including killing you if he had to.
That said, I'm sure people could get creative in ways to force you to help, without actually killing you.
I'm not sure courts here would free you from wrongdoing if you shot someone though, even if you saved someone.

Very well, not a gun. Would you actually torture someone to make them save someone else? Empty threats are just that. Don't pull out the weapon if you're not willing to use it.

You've never played poker have you? Bluffing is an effective tool in your arsenal, even in real life. You just have to know when to use it.

What I can and can't do is decided by courts after the fact. I am allowed to go very far to save and protect, but there is a line, and if I cross it I will go to jail.
Can I start executing people on the beach until someone saves the drowning man? Obviously not. Can I stab someone to get it done? Probably not. Hit you over the head a few times? Probably? Steal anything from you, including by force, to be able to save him myself? Likely.

+1.  Excellent points.  Critics somehow that us anarchists trying to form some sort of utopia.  But in the weakest utilitarian form, all it means to be an anarchist is that you believe that "Private courts/law/security are preferable to monopoly courts/law/security".  Again, it is simply a preference in its weakest utilitarian form of the argument.  (For right now I am ignoring moral arguments about self-ownership).  You don't even have to have a strong belief that anarchy would work or that it would last forever or that an anarcho-capitalist world would come about within the next millennium.  But since I strive for a better world, and since my logic and evidence lends me to believe that anarchy is preferable, therefore I call myself an anarchist and seek to bring it about (by promoting technologies such as bitcoin).


+1.  It gets worse under statism, since the state considers the armed boatjacking as a Statutory law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statutory_law) - essentially a crime against the state - instead of only a common law offensive crime against the boat owner who momentarily had his boat seized.


What this means is that even if the boat owner decided that he did not wish to peruse criminal charges against the boatjacker (for whatever reason...maybe the "victim" realized that based on the circumstances at that moment of crises, that he himself would have done the same thing that his "attacker" just did), then the state can still charge the boatjacker with boatjacking (I'm sorry, I don't know the proper term...if hijacking is stealing airplaines and carjacking is stealing cars, then I'm calling stealing boats to be boatjacking, since maritime hijacking or piracy doesn't quite have that right connotation here).  And you can bet that the state will press charges since the looters could always use some more money from fines and bail bonds.

So that's why you're an anarchist? Because you've lost touch with reality?  ::)
You think you'd be convicted for crimes against the state for assisting someone in need? And that they'd do it to extort money from you? Yeah, that makes perfect sense. If you live in a fantasy.

Never run afoul of one of these laws, have you?

I have. Not fun. (not these specific laws, but laws where the state presses charges)

Never run afoul of one of these laws, have you?

I have. Not fun. (not these specific laws, but laws where the state presses charges)

So, wrongly convicted of a crime you didn't commit? Like the A-team? Or did you break a few laws and had to pay the price for it?
I can understand that it isn't fun to be prosecuted, but it rarely happens to innocents.

There is no perfect system, because Humans aren't perfect.  Or rather, we are perfect Humans and cannot be boxed by any system(or non system) of Government.   In any Benevolent or Malevolent system(or anywhere in between) there will always be opposition(covert or overt).  This makes it imperfect.

Exactly. Which is why letting people choose or create their own system, provided they don't force anyone else to live by it, is the only sane solution.

No, Not an A-team situation.

It's not a situation I'm particularly proud of, but one the Police being called did NOT improve.

True. But they didn't help the situation for anyone involved. They hardly ever do.

So you did something wrong, got arrested for it, and you're butt hurt because the police suck.  The police do suck and we'd be better off if there were far fewer of them and they had much less power.  That's one thing I'll agree with you on.  However, that's no reason to do a 180* and throw the entire system down the drain.

You're right, it's not. The fact that You and I are forced to pay for that incompetence, and cannot hire competent ones with that money, instead, is. The fact that I have never once seen "Officer Jenkins" on a ballot, is.

You're right, it's not. The fact that You and I are forced to pay for that incompetence, and cannot hire competent ones with that money, instead, is. The fact that I have never once seen "Officer Jenkins" on a ballot, is.

I've had to do with the police a few times. Not once have I regretted it. Every single time they've been professional, courteous, and given assistance. Among those are car accidents, beaten by a gang, domestic accidents and caught speeding. The officers giving me a fine apologized for it, even though I was the one in the wrong.

And "Officer Jenkins" is done what he's told. Find a good leader for the police and you'll have a good force.

I'm glad you've had pleasant experiences with the Police. To continue that trend, stay off BART. ;)

Just following orders didn't work at Nuremberg, It won't work in the US, either. Try again.

BART?

You're coming close to Goodwin's Law here. What I was saying was that with a rotten leader you get a rotten force. Put good leaders in and you'll have a good force.
I can agree that you need a better culture in law enforcement. Less macho would be a good start.

Personal responsibility. A bad leader shouldn't matter if you have good 'soldiers'. A good leader doesn't matter if you've got bad 'soldiers'.

Not encouraging cops to think of themselves as soldiers would help, too, of course.

A horrible accident with a gun and someone dies. But I thought you wanted more guns on the street?

You're not dealing a lot with groups as a leader are you? Leadership matters. It matters a lot.
Agreed, cops aren't soldiers. Or shouldn't have to be. I wonder if there's something wrong with US culture? Switzerland has more guns per person than the US does, yet they have very few shootings, and the police there are quite nice.

I don't think any of us disagree about the fact that Switzerland is a country to look up to.

Guns don't kill people, idiots with guns kill people.

Maybe those bold things have something in common? ;)

Why? It's a very socialistic country. Free healthcare. High taxes. Hard regulations on labour and environment. Very democratic. Doesn't seem like a country you'd like.

But I thought you wanted more guns on the street?

Oh please, not that old "guns dont..." it's boring.

What are you suggesting, that the police are nice because people have guns? You're aware that you're generally not allowed to carry a gun in Switzerland, right? The police can be as nasty as they please because the guns people have are locked in their houses.
I think the police have a better culture and better leaders in Switzerland. And they don't have to worry as much about being shot from a random idiot with a gun whenever they stop someone.

Freer monetary system. Far less centralized.

"In the land of the blind, the one eyed man is king"


If guns kill people, do pencils make mistakes?

Boring don't stop it from being true.

And maybe the police are nice because they're less overworked because there's less crime because all the houses are protected... by owners with guns?

Far less centralized than the US? Perhaps. But isn't Anarchy the goal? Switzerland is very far from anarchy. It's at the other end of the spectrum.
A very strong government, central bank, a wellfare state. It seems to be pretty much everything AnCaps/Liberts hate.
A previous thread of mine brought up Sweden, which is quite similar to Switzerland, but that country isn't something to look up to. I was told.

It's easier to write with a pen than without one.

I told you already. In the land of the blind, the one eyed man is king.

Sweden is very different from Switzerland, which you would know if you bothered looking into either country.

Again: if guns kill people, do pencils make mistakes?

It's only true if you're a member of the NRA or so. Guns make it very easy to kill someone, far easier than any other tool, so in effect guns do kill people. Most people recognize this. Only those with an agenda does not.

So you want more police and more social programs for the poor? More officers makes each one less overworked, and more social programs, like they have in Switzerland, reduce crime.

Hammers make it much easier to pound in nails. Does a hammer build a deck?

Right, social programs reduce crime. That's why Harlem and Watts are such models of social order.

A witty saying proves nothing. But yes, you could say that tools get the job done, if you like.

Excellent. I'll buy a hammer, some nails, and some wood, set the hammer outside with the nails and wood, and Hey Presto, a new deck. That's how it works, right?

No, you have to look at it too. Please go right away and come back here when it's done.

OK, so can we agree that tools are tools? Or would a better hammer suddenly make the deck leap together? Maybe, a Nailgun?

So, in the absence of anarchy you'd go for socialistic Switzerland?

I have looked into them. I've been to both. I know people from both countries. Please tell me a few significant differences that you see.

Asked an answered. Look at my response to myrkul you you don't understand the answer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxation_in_Switzerland
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banking_in_Switzerland

If I had to pick a specific country to go to, Hong Kong would actually be my first choice.

It's only true if you're a member of the NRA or so. Guns make it very easy to kill someone, far easier than any other tool, so in effect guns do kill people. Most people recognize this. Only those with an agenda does not.

Would that be this?

I still haven't seen any reports of guns jumping up off a table and shooting someone in the face, nor hammers leaping from belts and self-assembling decks. Say what you want, guns do not kill people, any more than hammers build decks. Hammers are used to build decks. Guns are used to kill people. Hammers are also used to dismantle decks, just as guns are also used to defend people.

Yes a person is required, but that same person without a gun wouldn't have killed.

No, They would still have killed, with a knife or a club, or a sword, even. People have been killing people since the dawn of time.

And if you think that more guns = more killing, I suggest you look at Kennesaw, Georgia (https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Kennesaw,_Georgia)

Better read up a little more.  Hong Kong is just as regulated as any other country, they just have effective regulations.

http://www.info.gov.hk/hkma/

http://www.mallesons.com/MarketInsights/marketAlerts/2011/Leaps_and_bounds_how_the_Hong_Kong_regulatory_landscape_will_change_in_2011-12/Pages/default.aspx


So where are you off to now?  Keep pointing out prospering countries and pretend they're libertarian leaning, and we'll keep pointing out how strong their central authority actually is.


Know where all the countries closest to libertarian ideas are?  Right here:

http://www.admin.uio.no/fa/felles/countries/africa/images/Africa%20Satellite%20small.jpg

I have a feeling you wouldn't want to move to any of them though.  Better to stay here and enjoy the cushy, yet terribly, terribly oppressive and oh so  coercive living of a "socialist" nation.

I want to live in a country with a decentralized government, a resource/commodity backed currency, a free market economy, and where people are free to defend themselves and their family without persecution.

Currently I don't live in a country like that.

 It takes real balls to kill someone with a knife - any idiot can pull a trigger though.

If you're going to argue pro-gun, then use the only argument that holds up: if guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns. i.e. anti-gun laws only affect people willing to follow them, they are preventative laws that punish people that haven't done anything wrong.

Yes it would.
Look at gang violence. If we were to take away all their guns. We can safely assume that they would use other tools to go at each other. Do you think they will be as effective killing opposite gang members?
People who are dead today are so because the assailant had a gun. Had they just had a knife or something else they wouldn't be. Effectively you can say that guns kills people.
Yes a person is required, but that same person without a gun wouldn't have killed.

It's ok that you don't want to understand.

Here we run into the difference between Law and laws

Law is social order, and can be achieved without laws, which are codified consequences for specific behaviors. Laws result in an inflexible legal system, in which something that is not prohibited, even though it is wrong, is not punishable, and worse, allows for punishment of some act simply because it is prohibited.

While criminals will create problems due to not following Law, most people in the group will thus creating a stable environment for the group to flourish.  This is ofcourse assuming the laws are just and freely accepted by all.

A person shall be guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it.

Punishments.

(1)Offences under this Act shall be punishable either on conviction on indictment or on summary conviction.

(2)A person convicted on indictment shall be liable—

(a)for an offence under section 1 or section 2 of this Act, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years; and

(b)for an offence under section 3 of this Act, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years.

(3)A person convicted summarily of any offence under this Act shall be liable—

(a)to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months; or

(b)to a fine not exceeding the prescribed sum for the purposes of [F1section 32 of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980] (punishment on summary conviction of offences triable either way: £1,000 or other sum substituted by order under that Act),

Let me show you:

Definition of specific, prohibited behavior.


Definition of consequences.

(both of these are from the Theft act of 1978, UK. Just happened to be the easiest law to find)

Geez it's like talking to a wall.

It's called a Penal Code.  Easily Googled on the Internets.....

Laws create structure and stability within a group.  You are correct Laws don't stop criminals, but just as in pre-recorded history, if you broke the rules binding a tribe together you were ostrcized from that group and no longer had its protection or resources.

While criminals will create problems due to not following Law, most people in the group will thus creating a stable environment for the group to flourish.  This is ofcourse assuming the laws are just and freely accepted by all.

I was just showing you an error in your argument.  If you don't consider your argument anything of substance that's on you ;)

I was unaware that Socialism, as in Angola, is Libertarian.

Most African countries are ruled by dictators. Try again.

The exceptions are Botswana (which certainly isn't great but has been improving rapidly compared to its neighbors) and Somalia (which has been invaded by UN backed thugs repeatedly, yet is still light years ahead of where it was under communist dictatorship).

It would seem you are arguing with a stereotype of Libertarians rather than bothering to see what we actually stand for.  Again I ask myself why I even bother.

PROTIP: Read the time indicated by the articles you are providing.

The articles you are providing on Hong Kong are indicating that there WILL BE new regulations, something I already knew. They still aren't even marginally as pervasive as those elsewhere. Up until recently, Hong Kong had no minimum wage, either.

At any rate, I indicated the country I would prefer to go to right now, not whether it is trending in a libertarian direction. That is an entirely different issue (before you ask, Iceland would be one of the better performing ones in that category). You do realize there is a reason I am not bothering to move anywhere, right?

Know where the country closest to your ideals is? Right here:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/dprk/images/dprk-dmsp-dark.jpg

Clearly you missed (or intentionally overlooked) the link to Hong Kong's central bank/centralized financial planning institution, which is much more powerful and proactive than the Fed in the US.  On the other hand, most non-developed African nations are free of regulations, functioning governments, order, police forces, etc.  They are FAR closer to being libertarian than any nation in the developed word.

However, I do understand the desire to link your beliefs with a well-off, developed nation that is prospering (no matter how unlibertarian it actually is).  More accurating linking your beliefs with chaotic hell hole nations just doesn't bode well for your system.  It's so much better to point to one or two unregulated areas in an otherwise heavily centrally planned nationed and claim it's prospering because of libertarian principles.  ::)

OK, so can we agree that tools are tools? Or would a better hammer suddenly make the deck leap together? Maybe, a Nailgun?

Do robots count?

Sure would be cool if you had the slightest idea what libertarianism advocates.

Also, go out and learn what "incidental" and "essential" traits are.

Also, strong central banks are irrelevant, seeing as how just about every nation (including pseudo-nations like the "rebels" in Libya) has a central bank. Notice how I didn't say it was anything approaching perfect, it was just better than the alternatives.

http://binarydissent.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/strawman.jpg

If I had no conscience, and no strong retribution to fear, but had some power - i.e. lead an organized criminal group or possess weapons or whatever - I could and probably would use my power for blackmail, kidnapping, forcing people to pay protection money, and so on. All of these are very profitable (see e.g. Sicily - no offense to any Italians. Weak police, weak retribution, allows them to run all that profitable stuff I have described. In most cases they do not even need to be violent or "agressive", people fear them and that is enough.)

That's just it though, I agree that it's better than the alternatives.  It's not more libertarian than the alternatives are though.  In fact, it's far far less libertarian than the alternatives.  That was my point.

A strong central bank is something that everyone has. If you can find me a country with absolutely no central bank, please point me in its direction. Otherwise, that is a bit like saying "tigers and rabbits essentially the same because they are both found in cages"

No.  Nearly everyone has a central bank.  Not everyone has a strong, PROACTIVE central bank like Hong Kong, Sweden, China, etc.  There's a huge difference between the central bank of Sudan that simply loans out money to other banks, and the central bank of Hong Kong that actively manipulates the economy and business markets.

With the exception that nearly everyone in a Western nation has one like that, notably the Bank of Japan but also the ECB and (despite what you were just saying) the Federal Reserve. Actually, the Fed is arguably more proactive, it is just far less open in its operation due to (A) not being a strictly governmental organization and (B) the fact that it would be far less effective in its actions if they were obvious.

Come to think of it, the Bank of Japan is just as, if not far more, manipulative than that of Hong Kong. Yet we all know where Japan ended up with that. Furthermore, Japan had actual resources that came along with it, an industrialized base, and several hundred million more people. The distinguishing factors would be Hong Kong's comparable lack of worker protections, most regulations, etc.

Again, superficial difference. The tiger is in a cage smaller than that of the hamster, therefore the tiger must be smaller than the hamster.

Well you know what they say, if you want it to be a duck and it has two legs, even though it walks, talks, and acts like a person... it's a duck.

Being in a pond doesn't make it a duck, the essential attributes of ducks make it a duck.

Exactly my point.  You're pointing to something that has only a single attribute of a duck and you're calling it a duck because you want it to be a duck.

Ducks are off topic.

Sorry. Got a bit carried away with the metaphor.

Like I said, you'll make it whatever you want to make it because it suits your worldview.  Hong Kong can be Neverland, Narnia, Middle Earth, or whatever makes you happy.  The one thing it's not is libertarian.

Interesting side note about Japan, they have the lowest wealth disparity (most well-off poor people) in the world.

The fact that Japan has teh lowest wealth disparity does not lead to the conclusion that they have the most well-off poor people in the world.  I demand support to this claim.

Bottom line, Hong Kong is not even remotely libertarian, therefore the comparison is worthless.  It's like saying a two year old would be the best driver in the world because a 40 year old drives better than a 90 year old, and 40 is closer to 2 than 90 is. 

Average incomes are in the top bracket worldwide and they have the lowest wealth disparity in the world.  Obvious conclusion, they've got the most well-off poor people in the world.

Anarchy in science means the choice exists in the law of conservation.

Science is without anarchy if you have no choice.

Some evolve and think that is the first choice.

The wise know the second choice is greater than other needs; possible origin.

Maybe just difference in age in how people react about anarchy, not like any new point was being made today.

The infinite does not allow any point of origin; how does anarchy agree? There is no disagreement in the medium of exchange over periodic occurrences.

People can pick cents up off the ground; mind readers know the magic of non-sense; coincidence of judgement; or, "you're" job?

Somewhere on your world people do not make sense; do nothing.

My meditation spot is over here. Another geolocation is over where this is read. This is down to Earth. That makes us higher. Should we talk about oil? Or, lets make it harder for our enemies.

The normal demonstration on the Internet is to call each other a bot when they first meet, and then ask each other if they are a bot. No wonder they do not make sense to each other. Nothing changed, and something needs to change to make a dent in physical science.

Life is harder with canned responses, and so did my attempt to reply to the original post.

FAIL!

I did not contest the claim that the Japanse have the lowest wealth disparity in the world, I was demanding support for your conclusion.  It does not follow that low wealth disparity implies that the poor are magicly those most affected.  The "most well off people in the world" is a vague metric, and I was giving you the chance to support this claim.  I actually know already that it's false by almost any real metric available; but quality of life is a hard thing to measure.  The poor in Japan certainly have access to much more quality of life than the poor in Kenya, but absolute comparisons are rarely instructive.  Your probably thinking of the UN's MDG metrics.  http://unstats.un.org/unsd/mdg/default.aspx  These would imply that Japan has long been in a tight matchup with some states in Europe for the top spot, but that's based upon the percentage of total national wealth that the bottom 20% possess.  This metric alone actually means very little with regard to quality of life, because nations like North Korea are automaticly removed from the comparisions because the government owns everything, so there is a bias from the start.  Also, how do you compare the lifestyle of a poor japanese family in Kyoto to that of a poor American family in Spokane?  Which has access to quality health care?  Living space per household member?  Effective public transportation?  Consumer products?  Internet?  Most of these issues are about comparable between nations except living space per person.  By any measurement, Americans (of any class) have, on average, the most living space per person compared to any of their class peers anywhere in the world; while Japan sits at the other extreme among first world nations.

This was in regards to income, not some vague, non-measureable sense of quality of life.  Nice try though.

Income isn't the best metric to determine the "most well off people in the world", as different thinkgs cost different amounts in different cities.  That was the point of it all, and even based upon income of the bottom quintile, which is what the UN metric measures as compared to the rest of the same socieity, Europeans win.

And we all know that Europeans are some raging libertarians.  ::)

Quality of life is a totally separate discussion that once again, ironically, though not surprisingly, does not favor "libertarian leaning" nations.

And we all know that Europeans are some raging libertarians.  ::)

Quality of life is a totally separate discussion that once again, ironically, though not surprisingly, does not favor "libertarian leaning" nations.

There is a squat (an abandoned house which has been illegally occupied) somewhere. I (note: one of the users of the "cpunks" account, the number of whom shall remain unspecified) occupied it with friends, and has been using it for 2 years now. Mostly as a factory.

Recently some guy, probably a short-term inhabitant of a neigbouring summer gardening slum (also a squat, specifically built on squatted land, just with no political tendencies), saw a lot of aluminum on the ground floor of the workshop (cut and readied for welding, since we build stuff there). That sight overcame his ethics. Thus one morning, when everyone had left to various errands, he brought a big hammer and started hammering the concrete beam cast around the lower part of the window bars.

He successfully broke in, and took a look into the corridor, where a large bottle of argon and various interesting stuff was located. That's when the motion sensor noticed him and dispatched an alert to a handful of people. One of the people activated the eavesdropping functionality of the alarm system, and confirmed that this was intrusion, not a false alarm.

That person had a car nearby, so they grabbed 2 cans of pepper spray, a revolver, a camera, a phone (we don't have autonomous emergency communication unfortunately, though I want this to change at some point) and sped off towards the squat. That person then called another one, who got a taxi, and likewise got on their way to the site, together with their friend. A third inhabitant couldn't be reached until a later time, and a fourth was out of town, etc. Some non-inhabitants were also called, and some set on their way to the house, awaiting more info about the situation.

The person with the car arrived first, parked it 50 m away behind a natural obstacle, approached and assessed the situation, confronted, suprised and thorougly pepper-sprayed the thief (in compensation for their hard work at breaking and stealing shit). The thief tried throwing a crowbar at them, but having been throughly pepper-sprayed, failed miserably. Since the anarchist had no intent of attempting to stop the thief from running away, he settled with taking a photo of the guy to aid future recognition (this actually failed, since the anarchist in question was not very competent at handling two pepper spray cans and a camera simultaneously) and finally fired a warning shot from a blank cartridge at the thief who was already running away (to emphasize the reasons why he should not return, even if he could raise some more theft capacity).

Then, others arrived and helped carry the stuff back into the house, and cast the window bars back in place. The squat is again fortified to its usual degree. The thief will need to wash their face for about 2 days, since they got a quite extraordinary quantity of pepper spray (reserved for managing a confrontation with at least 4 nazis in case of problems). The thief will also need to acquire (steal, probably) a new demolition hammer, crowbar, pair of pincers, rucksack and handbag. Then, they can figure out if they want to continue stealing or perhaps gather scrap metal instead. Enough of that lying around from Soviet times (yeah, I've partially disclosed my location by telling this). Or perhaps they'll prefer to get otherwise occupied with some productive form of activity. Perhaps if he needs some stuff badly enough, he can visit the local freeshop where people bring stuff which they don't need, and get it for free.

Funny thing about Germany, though; Up until it joined the Eurozone, its central bank was one of the least intrusive central banks in the world, leading to German money becoming a relatively safe store of value. Going by the train of logic you were riding earlier:

Hong Kong: Very few regulations/taxes + large central bank = FAR AWAY FROM LIBERTARIANISM

Germany: A fair amount of regulations/taxes + a small central bank = VERY CLOSE TO LIBERTARIANISM

Seeing as how you think central bank size is the most important measure of how close a country is to the standard of being libertarian, this makes Germany one of the most libertarian nations in the world using your logic.

Regarding anarchist ways to deal with crime...

You're back to the "2 year olds are the great drivers because 40 year olds drive better than 90 year olds and 2 is closer to 40 than 90."

What was that you said about Hyperbole?

No, that's called applying the same logic to other scenarios: e.g. the fact that Germany MAY have some SLIGHTLY more libertarian characteristics THAN the United States, doesn't NOT make Germany libertarian or make any comparison using it in an attempt to prove true libertarians principles even the slightest bit valid.

That fact that I'm MORE dark than an Irish person doesn't make me a black person, nor does it make me an adequate substitute for a black person for example purposes.

I don't consider Germany to be libertarian (though it is, frankly,  closer than almost all of Europe barring possibly Estonia and arguably Poland), I was exposing your inconsistency. It would seem your definition of "libertarian" is "warzone" or "in a state of chaos".

Although this is probably a waste of time, I will demonstrate in detail:

I say: Hong Kong is reasonably close to being libertarian because it has few regulations and few taxes.

You say: Hong Kong has a strong central bank so it isn't libertarian

I say: Oh? A single statist feature (strong central bank) overrides every other feature that is more market oriented? Well then, presumably you assume that the aforementioned single statist feature (strong central banks) is an incredibly important one if it overrides everything else, so that means a country with some measure of taxation/regulation IS libertarian if it has a weak central bank. Ergo, Germany is libertarian.

Stop hiding behind vague, empty claims.

State of chaos is as close to libertarian as you're going to get in the real world.


Hong Kong is not "reasonably close" to being libertarian because it has a few LESS regulations than the next guy, any more than a dog is "reasonable close" to being a elephant because they both have four legs and two eyes.

I'm afraid I'm at least partially to blame for that... I have a tendency to conflate "libertarian" with "anarchist" due to the fact that I consider Anarchism to be the inevitable end of following libertarian principles in a consistent fashion.

No worries.  If it could exist in the real world (and it can't) libertarian society would very quickly degrade into anarchy, which is why I tend to interchange the two.

tl/dr

lol. Imagine if a physicist wrote the constitution. I couldn't find any loopholes.