If your version of statism exists only to protect the rights of the individual, and society from external threats, then yes.

However I strongly doubt that is what you mean.

I see that we need to return to first principles, Myrkul.

Correct me it I'm wrong, as I'm sure you will, but isn't one of the core principles of an AnCap society that every adult is soverign over their own affairs?

If that is true, is it not also true that my views about how I raise my children are a matter between myself, my wife and my children?

Just as you are soverign over your own affairs, and can raise your children as you see fit, as I have no say in your affairs; correct?

Do you not see the contradiction in your own philosophy?  One the one hand, you profess that men should be able to govern themselves (for which I agree) and see no problem with taking that to it's absolute (for which I don't agree); but on the other hand, you also profess that there is a "right" way and a "wrong" way to raise children.  Sure, you have the right to believe that, even to profess that; but you don't have the right to impose your beliefs upon others.  Should you choose to do so, and cannot get compliance with words alone, you have professed a moral obligation to use force.  Granted, violence is the last argument of the sovereign, but it is also about as likely to be his last argument ever. 

I do see the contradiction of anarchism, for it fundementally assumes that every adult has, not just the right, but also the willingness and ability to self-govern.  (This ability also presumes self-censorship, as in the skinhead in the barfight example; while none of us has the right to not be offended, offending others still has natural consequences) The root problem with this theory is that there will always be a subset of people for which this assumption does not apply.  Some will grow into it, others never will, but never can all the people be able to self-govern at the same time.  So what is the pensive ancap to do?  If you really believe that corporeal punishment is child abuse, are you not obligated to intervene?  But how, if every adult is presumed capable of self-government, and is sovereign over his own affairs?  If you step in personally, and things go sour, do you imagine that my children will be thankful that you have relieved them of a tyranical parent?  Or is it more likely that you would have started a blood feud between my surviving family members and your own?  This is not a trivial question, since we can't assume that everyone who lives in an ancap society would agree with your own belief system.

Granted, our real world has many contradictions.  Yet one sign of maturity is the ability to incorporate such contradictions into one's worldview.

And to the "point" about my not being a good Christain because I don't see the "Golden Rule" in the same context that you do, the best understanding in English for the Golden Rule is not "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" (otherwise you have this very event.. http://www.dilbert.com/strips/2012-12-09/ ) it's more correct to say "Do not do unto others for which you would not have done to you".  The distinction is not trivial.

If that is how you wish to look at it, go ahead, but it does not change the reality that your perspectives have zero bearing on my children.  Once again, I must point out that, (under this reality one such as an ancap) it's not your opinion that matters with regard to my children; it's mine.  Your opinion is inmaterial.


How exactly?  Are you of the opinion that the skinhead doesn't hold any responsibility for the outcome?  Or that the interloper was obligated to defend someone he doesn't know from the Praetorian Guards?


FTFY

Hmm, are you afraid to answer this question because I might use it against you?

Assuming that you have ever encountered one sibling attacking the other, what did you do?  Did you try to reason with the attacker?  Did you put her in a 'time out'?  While my methods certainly don't teach my children that hitting is wrong, what do your methods teach the victimized sibling about justice?  From my perspectives, it would teach them that the only way that they will get justice for being wronged by their sibling is to exact that justice themselves.  This is very much a problem with pre-K daycare centers, as all the children learn early on that the consequences of their actions that are likely to be imposed upon misbehavior by the caretakers are almost always less troublesome than the actions themselves.  Some children learn this, and take advantage of it while dominating their peers.  Others children learn this, and come to understand that the caretakers can't always watch over them, can't see all of them, and don't impose consequences evenly, nor in a fashion that is equatable to the crime; and those children learn to defend themselves in kind and exact their own form of justice, or they simply curl up and suffer.

I noticed that you never did mention how old your daughters were.  Have you ever had your daughters get into a fight?

You do realize that your ongoing rape strawman situation has next to zero to do with this topic right?

So sayaith Judge Dred himself, eh?

It doesn't, it merely conditions an irrational child to associate certain behaviors with certain consquences.  In the case of hitting his siblings, the natural consequences may not be enough of an incentive to deter him.  After all, if my son were to hit his big sister, what more could I have done that his sister would not have already?  Is the defense of the younger child also not the responsibility of the parent?  Or are the rules different simply because the aggressor also happens to be a child?  What if the neighborhood bully were to enter your own front yard to smack around your daughter?  Are you just going to try to reason with him, or are you going to intervene?  What difference does the age of the attacker, or the relative size of the defender, matter in tis context?  None at all, but you make special cases within your own mind to justify to yourself your own perspectives.  The truth is that there exists no consistant method of how to treat pre-age-of-reason children in any version of ancap or libertarian theories.  Usually the matter is left entirely unaddressed.  As such, my own interpretation is a valid as your own, you just refuse to accept that.


I didn't say it justified their actions, I just pointed out that the potential of misinterpreting a situation is high, and carries it's own consquences.  I live in this world, your's remains theoretical.  Even so, there is a old principle known as "fighting words" that can be considered aggression in it's own right.  There is a very good reason that, historically speaking, armed societies were polite socities.  There is no reason to assume that an ancap society would be different in this regard.  This one certainly isn't.  If this same skinhead were doing the same thing to a group of young black men, would you have expected their reactions to have been differnet?  If not, why not?  And if it were these young black men who that guy with the 38 special had encountered, how would that have affected the accuracy of his interpretations?  Sure, he had the power to intervene, but should he have excersized that power?  Would he have done so, if he had boune witness to the confrontations that led upto the part he did see?  Hard to say, and therein lies the rub.  If it's hard to say, you shouldn't be inclined to jump into other people's businesses.


I feel the same about you, I must say.  I think having someone so cocksure of himself and so ready to default towards the use of force against others would be unwise to invite into my own sphere of relations under any conditions.  Most likley, however, you're not really a hypocrite; just young and inexperienced.  I'm sure that you will grow out of it.

Do you realize that your detractors have been achieving their core goals, right?  No matter what you do, it will not directly affect them (or me), yet each moment you spend responding to them delays your progress.  They are winning, whether or not they are correct.  While I, personally, don't agree that one bitcoin based business making agreements with establishment institutions in Europe has any great effect upon Bitcoin as a whole; I also don't view such a developement as automaticly a positive one.  Furthermore, I don't believe that you will actually be permitted to succeed.  If such a development actually is a net positive for Bitcoin, you will be undermined to your final bankruptcy at least.  If such a development survives six months, I will take that to mean that it's a net negative for Bitcoin, and avoid you like the plague.

That is, probably, the most rational thing you have said in this thread.  You are welcome to do exactly what you profess above.  You will, most definately, be shocked at just how unlikely it is that my children will take you up on your advice.

My logic assume no such thing.  This is why it's best to call the cops, even if you are an ancap, and let the agents of the state hash things out.  Under no conditions am I obligated to intervene at all.

Perhaps.  I'm pretty sure that he wanted to continue to beat on his little brother unhindered as well, before your strawman character walked around the corner.

And don't had me some bullshit about how peaceful and loving my children would have been to each other had I only tried to reason with them as toddlers.  If you actually believe that boys aren't naturally inclined to dominate each other (particularly their slightly younger peers) then you have no experience with children at all.  Girls will do the same thing, BTW; although they may not do so quite as readily.  One of the only things that will get my wife to go directly to corporal punishment with our children has always been one hitting the other.  My oldest child is female, and her little brother two years younger.  When he was still an infant, she treated him like a precious doll.  But once he was old enough to move around and play with "her" toys, she would regularly strike him (quite hard, mind you) in order to take the toy away, while screaming "MINE!"

How old are your daughters, BTW?  Now I'm curious.

And yet, you cannot see the error in your logic, even now.  

And you would not apologize and leave.  You would, at a minimum, have to face restitution for whatever harm you caused; even in your ideal ancap world.  And that's the best case scenario.  If your intentions were misinterpreted by the lovers, you'd as likely be shot; and under such case their interpretations of your intent would be the material one.

You insist on using a biased strawman argument, but whatever.  Again, defense is use of force.  Whether or not it is defensive in nature, in third party defensive situtations, is not dependent upon your interpretaion of the situation, but your presumed victim's.  Again, if you are wrong, you are the aggressor.  Everyting flows from the interpretaion after the fact, but in the heat of the moment there can be many interpretions.


Depends on too many factors that you have left unmentioned.  As I have already pointed out; would be good samaritains have gone to prison for miss-interpreting a situation.  One in particular that comes to mind, some years ago a man entered a bar that he regularly frequents, and immediately encounters a group of men beating upon a single man.  He assumes that the group of men were the aggressors, and pulls out a 38 special revolver.  He finds out, much later, that the group of men were off-duty policemen out having a good time, and that the man on the ground was a neo-nazi skinhead who, after discovering that a group of cops were in the bar, proceeds to sling slurs at the cops, calling them "pigs", and throwing small objects from the bar at them in a drunken state.   Granted, that guy went to prison for pulling a weapon on police, not for missinterpreting an encounter or harming anyone, and he shouldn't be there; but there he is.  I would ceratinly take much more care to understand such a situation, if for no other reason than the protection of people that I don't know is less of an obligation upon myself than protecting myself from the aggressions of any party to a conflict.  I am not obligated, by the NAP or otherwise, to intervene at all.

Furthermore, your interpretation of this strawman situation is critical.  If I were, as a matter of fact, some nutcase ruthlessly beating a child (mine or someone else's), then your interference; whether of the passive aggressive type you claim, or of the more normally aggressive variety, is entirely justifiable.

However, if instead, you were to see me simply spanking my miss-behaving child (already a very unlikey event, in my case) in a public place, and you chose to intervene (by whatever method) you would still be an aggressor.  You would have to be able to justify your actions (assuming you survived the encounter), and you cannot do that without my child agreeing with your perspectives.  In most places in these United States, corporel punishment is legal (whether you like that or not) and the law treats the parents as 'guardian ad litem', or guardians under the law, and thus the child's rights are exercised by the parents until of legal age. (18 unless the parents chose to 'emancipate' as noted earlier)  So, unless you can convince a judge to appoint another 'guardian ad litem', you would have to ask the parents to agree with your perspectives.  Do you not see your problem?  There is nothing in ancap theories, nor in the non-agression principle, that solves the root disagreement here.  We disagree on this very core issue, and your problem is that you can't seem to fall back upon your own ancap principles and accept that, as the parent, I have the greater claim to my own children and their interests.

Wow, you are thick.

I did not say that stopping a rapist wasn't an aggressive act, I said that no one does it like you are trying to imply.  Stopping a rape certainly is an aggressive act, which is one reason that you had best be certain that you have interpreted the situation correctly.  If you happen upon a screamer and her boyfriend having wild, consentual, sex in some seedy area's backally; and you interfere, you are the aggressor no matter how it is you believed the situation.  If it's a true rape, use of force to protect the victim is justifiable (if you are correct) but it is still force.  This is a case in point about outcomes, it's not your perceptions that matter, but the woman's.  If you are wrong, and her boyfriend is harmed, you are liable for that harm.

Yet, that is still beside the point, because this is not the situation that your original strawman implied, and by now you know it.  I interpreted your statement "I will intervene just as if I see a mugging on the street" cannot be interpreted in the way (passive aggressive) that you claim that you intended it.  It can only, rationally, be interpreted that you inplied tht you would intervene with deliberate and immediate force.  That is why I responded in the way that I did, and you continue to claim that I am wrong.  I, quite literally, can't be wrong in this situation; because I'm the character in this strawman play that is interpreting your intent.  What you may have wanted to imply, or say, or convey; is entirely irrelevant.

Of course not.  no one does this to stop a rapist...


Although I do have to admire your persistance, even if your rationality is is question.

Well, for starters, simply making the deliberate act of seperating a child from their parent in a public space is an act of aggression.  But as I have already noted, that's not the same strawman that Myrkul started with, although that's the one that he would have prefered once I hit him with reality.  Even still, his odds of making through such a confrontation without harm are higher in my presence than most, and still not very high even if he didn't intend to cause harm.  His actions would not have been interpreted that way, even by someone who was rational.  Anyone less than rational is unlikely to have interpreted his actions in any way more favorable than I anyway.

Don't bother.  It's a specialized occupation that requires much geekiness to become profitable.  You're much better off offering some service to the community in exchange for bitcoins.  Most people are the same.  I have personally never mined anything.


That's no longer possible.  This forum has been messed up for years.

Best for what purpose?

Not one to pick an easy task, are you?

I can't really help you here, but I can locate potential problems pretty fast.  Assuming that you can develop such a distributed reputation database, that can't be undermined or hacked, what prevents people from developing multiple online identities to game the rep systems?

This is the point that Myrkul has become the aggressor against myself, and thus the point at which everything that happens later is beyond his control.


FTFY


Potentially shoots Myrkul.  Wheterh or not I actually did, and whether or not I was prosecuted in my own state, depends entirely upon the details.

And yet, this strawman is entirely beside the point.  As noted, Myrkul orriginally stated that he would treat me as if I were a (presumedly violent) street mugger.  To later state that he intended that we would  simply step between us(even if theat were possible) is irrational.  One does not deal with a mugger by stepping between a violent person and his current target, and then try to talk to them.  Therefore, it would have been irrational for me to have assumed that he intended anything other than the deliberate use of force against myself, or my child, inorder to affect change.  That makes him the aggressor, from my perspective, and the results predictable.  To argue that my perspectives are not correct is irrelevant, for those would be the first impressions of anyone who were in such a situation that Myrkul describes.  I simply turned his strawman situtation around upon him, and told him how the real end result of such an unlikely encounter.  To later backpedal and state that he didn't intend it the way I interpreted it is, again, beside the point.  To interprete his original statements how he, later, professes them would have been irrational.