Just dropping in to (re)emphasize the fact that the advice in this thread given by Ant, repentance, etc. is pure gold. I've never started a business (and have never felt particularly inclined to do so), but the information in this thread is both fascinating and invaluable. And, as others have said, it's not the sort of advice that people usually give out for free, especially to people with such ramshackle business "plans."

I did work as an assistant manager at a retail store for several years, though, and I can confirm that customers are, indeed, sociopaths. We didn't have a public bathroom, and customers would often get huffy when we told them to release their bowels elsewhere. Sometimes, they'd even seek revenge. I can't tell you how many times I had to pick up pissed-on shirts from the back corner of the store, and on multiple occasions, we found turds wadded up in clothing, with other pieces of clothing used as butt-wipes. And yes, theft was endemic as well.

E: I should maybe add that sometimes, customers would just barge into the back room and try to sneak/force themselves into the bathroom. There was a lot of stuff laying around back there, especially on the weekends (it was a donation-driven thrift store, and Sat. was the big day for both shoppers and donations). In retrospect, I'm kind of surprised that a customer making a b-line to the bathroom never tripped on something, broke their back, and sued the fuck out of us. All they'd have to claim in court was that we were negligent in our duty to prevent customers from accessing the back room. (Added to this, of course, is the possibility to get customers like this: http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=5ef_1346645520 ).

Since this was a thrift store, it's possible that we had more sociopathic customers than average (lots of poor, nutty people). But to reiterate what others have said, with this being a hookah bar in a college town, you're going to attract all sorts of people who have a taste for alcohol and more intensely mind-altering drugs, and you can be damn sure that some of them are going to go apeshit and damage either your property or themselves.

Dank, as life-affirming as it may feel, you can't just choose the most pleasurable stone in the public Sensorium and gaze into it all day, every day.

At some point, you're going to have to enter the Fortress of Regrets.

That's just how life is.

Just realized that that is totally tl;dr (I get carried away sometimes). But I should point out that this debate is speculative, and will likely remain speculative. If AnCap was a good way to (un)govern a state, one would think that it would have caught on somewhere in the marketplace of sovereign states. If Medieval Iceland is the only example of AnCap--and even that is subject to dispute--it doesn't seem to bode well. Hell, Milton Friedman and his Chicago boys had an opportunity to create an extremely libertarian state that would be enforced by a dictator, and even that ended up quite a bit of statism involved (e.g., Chile's version of Social Security is privatized, but it is very tightly regulated).

This well may be the case, in at least some cases. It's hard to speculate on what an AnCap society might look like, and on what the proportion of soldiers would need to be, because no modern, developed nation has ever become AnCap. And btw, what makes you so sure that 0.001% of the population would be enough for security, assuming that's what you mean by that number (unclear post, btw)? Nazi Germany would have steamrolled a nation with such small defenses. And there have been many instances throughout history when a military has invaded a neighboring rival nation, and even though the invaders were only an infinitesimal fraction of the population being invaded, they still managed to keep them under total control. Well-trained, well-equipped soldiers just seem to have a knack for this. And sure, some AnCap citizens might have guns and stuff, but a lot of the citizens will be either unfit for or unwilling to do battle (children, olds, infirms, etc.), and besides, it's hard to take out an armored tank with a Glock pistol. In other words: It doesn't always take a lot of soldiers to take over a large population, so you'd better hope that your local defense agencies don't decide that it'd be fun to use that old-school gang tactic of enforcing a "protection tax" on every business in the area--and if you don't pay it, well, those "bad guys that we're protecting you from" (read: defense agency thugs disguised as common hooligans) are gonna bust your kneecaps with a crowbar! Also, as a side note: I just imagined Columbus, OH using its local army to invade Ann Arbor, MI, after one of the totally biased football referees blew a call in favor of the Wolverines. Implausible example, I know, but it's food for thought/extrapolation....

I should hasten to add that this is all hypothetical. I'm not saying that an AnCap society would necessarily become a police state. But it *could*, and if that happened, it'd qualify as an "actual problem." Also, another thought: Let's say that a cabal of private defense agencies took over Tallahassee, FL. Would Miami do anything to help, or would that be an unethical use of force?

And to return to the Iraq example: Sure, the insurgents did a pretty good job of defending themselves, all things considered, but the insurgents sure as hell weren't living the "good life of freedom" either (constantly hunted, hiding all the time, etc.). And the unique nature of that war--the (stupid) attempt by the US to try to "compassionately liberate" them by harming as few civilians as possible--isn't always how war goes. If the US wanted to nuke the fuck out of Iraq and take all the oil, it most certainly could. Don't get me wrong, I've been protesting the Iraq war since before it even started, but it stands as evidence that humans, while perhaps less stupid, cruel and violent than they once were (see that recent Steven Pinker book), they are still very capable of stupidity, cruelty and violence, and on epic scales. Will there be a Cold War II? Maybe, maybe not, but I wouldn't bank on it not happening, especially if you live in a society where there are lots of natural resources and other goodies to plunder, like the good ol' US of A. An AnCap society would have to find a way to prepare for this possibility (also, note that the Manhattan Project was basically a gov't program). Maybe it could, maybe it couldn't. All we can do is speculate.




Yeah, it is sorta like that, and it's also not an incoherent argument. In fact, your example aligns with it perfectly. The big difference is that your example doesn't address the broader implications. Yes, those women's bodies are their own private property with which they can do what they wish, and the ownership of one's own body is certainly integral to AnCap. But having your own private body is a given; everyone is born with that. Owning extra-bodily private property, on the other hand (e.g., land, business, belongings, etc.), is not a birthright--or rather, it is a birthright for some, but not for others, which skews the playing field from the get-go. This, I would contend, can in some cases (not all, of course) lead to an "actual problem."

Put another way: We're all born with our own bodies, but our freedom to exercise our bodies' capacities is severely limited if we don't own any extra-bodily private property that we have personal totalitarian control over; that's why Hammerton says that we are only truly free to the precise extent that we can reign supreme over our private property (the cornerstone of AnCap). Of course, part of the reason for one's lack of ownership might be laziness or ineptitude, which is within one's sphere of control (or, well, laziness certainly is). However, if we're born to parents that never acquired property and who can't afford to help out financially, we begin our adult lives stuck wandering through everyone else's property (i.e., everyone else's Micro-Totalitarian "property states"). Sure, we might be able to use our smarts/ambition to take some shit over and get our own property, but this is never a given, and even if it were, those who were born into lots of private property get a 10-mile head start in the proverbial marathon: you can run as hard as you want, but you still may not catch up with them, even if you're really fast. And unless you catch up and own some property, you are at the whims of everyone else. And yes, of course, people will let you use their property if they're generous or can make money from your usage/patronage of it, but their freedom will be far greater than yours, because they have the freedom to set the rules, and you don't. Examples: Pullman, IL in the 1800s, or a landlord who won't let you have pets or paint the walls, or a restaurant that won't serve you if you're black (and if it's a small town with only one restaurant, and you lack transportation, that'd really suck). And yes, you could always "vote with your feet" and leave Pullman Town or choose a different apartment or town, but it's not always that easy in reality (e.g., I don't consider "You can work in a sweatshop for 10 cents a day with a boss who rapes/beats you every morning, or you can starve to death in the streets" to be a real "choice"). And even if it were easy, you'd still have less freedom than the "owning class."

Research studies have been conducted that demonstrate the cause(s) of financial success in the USA (which is obviously not AnCap, but its mostly Cap, and I'd be willing to bet, for reasons I could explain if you wish, that these findings would be even more skewed in an AnCap society):

- Is willingness to work hard the best predictor of success? Answer: Nope, not really.

- Are academic success and SAT scores the best predictors? Nope, not those either.

- Well, pray tell, what is the best predictor? Answer: The wealth of the parents that you, luckily or not, happened to be a child of. That's why we have things like Pell grants, which do indeed "steal" from the affluent, but are aimed at (partially) leveling the playing field for the next generation.

And again, this is not to say that AnCap is entirely flawed. All political systems are flawed in some way. But it is to say that it doesn't always distribute freedom perfectly efficiently. Undoubtedly, there many are people out there who are smarter, more talented, and more ambitious than Tagg Romney, but they're not yet able to fully exercise their freedom through property ownership. And even if they do, few will ever attain the freedom-level of Tagg. Why? because Tagg got a lucky roll of the dice, which has nothing to to with actual merit. For every "rags to riches" story, there probably 10 (or 100, or 1000) "rags to more rags" stories, and many of these people busted their asses their whole life but were still beholden to the whims of property owners.

There are a variety of actual problems with AnCap, if only because there are actual problems with all political systems. Here's one off the top of my head. (and I didn't write this, James A. Hammerton did; the essay is really about libertarianism in general, but it applies. Anyway, it's from here: http://web.archive.org/web/20010407063531/http://www.tardis.ed.ac.uk/~james/politics/libcrit.txt )

"I will now discuss a consequence of the `freedom as absence of coercion'
position which makes it sit uneasily with libertarian ideology. If we
take this definition of freedom then the amount of freedom a person has is
the extent to which they can act without being coerced to do (or not to do)
something against their will. In a libertarian society you cannot
(legitimately) do anything with another's property if they don't want you to,
so your only _guaranteed_ freedom is determined by the amount of property you
have. This has the consequence that someone with no property has no
guaranteed freedom, and that the more property you have, the greater your
guaranteed freedom. In other words a distribution of property is a
distribution of freedom, as the libertarians _themselves_ define it.
Thus, taking this definition of freedom, and a belief in the free market
together, the libertarians are saying that the best way of promoting freedom
is to allow some people to have more of it than others, even when this leads
to some having very little or even none (as I believe is quite likely in a
free market). I don't think that this is what libertarians want, I think
they want everyone to have a sphere of equal guaranteed freedom, but a free
market does not give everyone such a sphere, and does not guarantee anyone
any freedom at all."

Also, on the subject of defense: Private defense firms could band together and establish oppressive mini-police states with little fear of reprisal. Considering that the "let's dominate those bitches and kick their fuckin' asses!" mentality is common among military personnel everywhere (this mentality is really just part of some people's innate nature, and these people are often drawn to the military), this doesn't seem too outlandish. Note that in Africa--where governments are so impotent that, for all practical purpose, they function quite a bit like anarcho-capitalist societies--military coups are rather common.

Well, whoever it is, they should've had the foresight to hire a private Power Outlet Police agency.

I'll try my hand:

The Triumph of Warmth

‘Tis the dead of winter, the tree-boughs stark,
the basement is deep and cold and dark.
O’er my bed, a cruel succubus roils;
my body feels dead, but my psyche still toils.

I arise from bed and log into the internet,
for I cannot quite into sleep enter, yet.
I meander through sites, I scroll down pages:
my artificial “joy,” for what has seemed like ages.

Just when my thoughts turn to suicidal ideation,
I encounter a newsflash that’s sweeping the nation.
“Mitt Romney’s tax forms have just been purloined,
and they’re demanding a ransom--to be paid in Bitcoin!”

What is this so-called “Bitcoin,” I wonder?
And why was it chosen as a payment method for plunder?
I peruse Wikipedia, study its purpose and design...
and a long-lost warm tingle flutters up my spine.

“Bitcoin, of course!” I cry out aloud!
“Satoshi’s a genius; were I him, I’d feel proud!”
“An anonymous currency, with no regulation!”
“A perfect hobby to supplement masturbation!”

And then I learned of this thing called “mining”;
in the dark cloud hanging o’er me, I saw a silver lining.
I’ll order some graphics cards, pay an electricity fee,
and then I shall acquire this currency, for free!

The cards arrive the next day (overnight shipping).
I make a mining rig room, and then start equipping
it. The temperature rises; I begin to feel feverish.
But that dead winter cold? It hath now been banished!

And so out of this encrypted aether now flows
a trickle of Bitcents, and my wallet slowly grows.
I know not the source of these Bitcoins, nor their end;
but their value keeps growing, so they I shan’t spend.  

Wow, I thought they weren't even going to bother with that installment, seeing that the first one flopped like a flaccid, um, something.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/movies/2011/04/atlas-shrugged-producer-critics-you-won-hes-going-on-strike.html

To be fair, the cost of living in Chicago is high, and some of their gripes are legit (e.g., lack of air conditioning in a room full of rambunctious 6-year-olds) but yeah, this is awful. My wife is* a public school teacher, and even she thinks this is awful. Then again, she lives by the "It's all about what's best for the kids" motto about as strictly as anyone could.

And yeah, education reform is in order, and charter school experimentation should be a part of this process. But I think we need to stop over-obsessing on standardized testing (and the concomitant pedagogical necessity to "teach to the test" and demand lots of rote memorization), and look at what Finland's been doing over the last few decades, i.e., focusing on the critical-thinking and problem-solving skills that help one negotiate todays career-oriented (as opposed to "job"-oriented) economy.

*Or, well, was. She just got laid-off due to savage cuts to public education in our state. All teachers with less than four years of experience got axed (layoffs determined by seniority; we sure wish we could get that $700+ we gave the union back). Gym, art and music classes may be eliminated entirely, at least temporarily.

A=A.

Seems like a logical starting point to me.

No, and no, not really.

That is a real argument that has been made by political philosophers regarding anarcho-capitalism: If you don't like your country, "vote with your feet" in the marketplace of sovereign states. Hong Kong, for instance, is much more libertarian than the United States, and Somalia has almost no rules at all. I wish I could remember who argued this (it was a highly developed and nuanced argument from an actual scholar), but I can't. So I might be oversimplifying and/or leaving holes here.

And true, none of us signed a contract to live our own country, but we were born in it, so our parents basically signed it for us. After all, we were babies. You have to start somewhere. It's not like there's a magical neutral place where we can grow up, develop adult consciousnesses, and make an informed decision from afar. A rough metaphor for such a place would be counter at a fast food restaurant: We can hang back in line for a while and choose our favorite from the menu. But in the real world, we're born with a cheeseburger already in front of us, even if we'd really prefer some chicken McNuggets.

In any case, it is true that we can all do whatever the hell we want, within the limitations of our physical and mental capacities, and to the extent that we can conquer powerful people that we might disagree with (e.g., the US gov't and its military). But that's a truism, and therefore not particularly useful, which is why some thinkers don't think that anarcho-capitalism is a particularly useful concept. Such a society could never be established in a democracy, anyway.

I forgot to introduce myself before I posted. I'm just interested in the Bitcoin project, which is among the most interesting internet endeavors going on these days.

Not bad!

This, I think, is a very important question, considering that the actual Bitcoin market economy (i.e., the actual buying/selling of goods) doesn't extend very far outside of Silk Road. For Bitcoin to succeed, it'll need to go far beyond that, but I haven't (yet) seen any marketplaces through which a significant amount of goods are traded.

I suppose that the best thing would be for places Amazon to accept BTC, but they're obviously not doing that.

Also, I'm sure this has been discussed countless times on the forums, but I guess that's why I'm a newbie!

I think the custom in these situations is to provide a sample of your artistic work. Provide, plz.

I'm just surprised that people are surprised that he reneged. From the beginning, it seemed pretty likely to me that these "bets" were little more than boastful talk. And that includes the people that bet against Pirate. I'd be surprised if even 50%+ would've paid Wright if he won.