The transition to AnCap

[asdf]

Joel makes some good points, as usual, but he's a minarchist.

I'm not exactly a minarchist. I know we have *way* too much government now and I know we could make things a lot better by getting rid of most of it. But I don't pretend to know just how much we can actually get rid of. It's entirely possible (though I don't think it's likely) that we get all the way to minarchy and decide we don't need the rest of government. But I'd prefer not to get bogged down in those theoretical issues because there's so much we just don't know.

And tactically, it's better to build a consensus on the direction we need to go and the fact that we need to go very far in that direction. That could make a broad consensus among Libertarians, Anarchists, Objectivsts, and Minarchists possible.

The problem with this attitude is that it rejects the moral argument that is central to libertarianism: Using violence to get what you want is wrong. As soon as you allow for a state, you're saying "violence is wrong except when the state does it".

From the Libertarian perspective, after you make this compromise, your fighting the wrong battle. You've gone from a philosophical revolution (war of ideas) to a plain old revolution (fighting the state directly, since you have condoned it's existence and rejected NAP).

[1715438605]

1715438605

[1715438605]

1715438605

[1715438605]

1715438605

[1715438605]

1715438605

[1715438605]

1715438605

[1715438605]

1715438605

[fornit]

The problem with this attitude is that it rejects the moral argument that is central to libertarianism: Using violence to get what you want is wrong. As soon as you allow for a state, you're saying "violence is wrong except when the state does it".

From the Libertarian perspective, after you make this compromise, your fighting the wrong battle. You've gone from a philosophical revolution (war of ideas) to a plain old revolution (fighting the state directly, since you have condoned it's existence and rejected NAP).

if thats really all that is to libertarianism, its a damn stupid idea. a large enough society cannot exist without violence. at some point, interests always collide. you can declare that senf-defense is justified, but very often there is really no specific line at which you can say its my survival thats threatened or just "what i want".

[justusranvier]

if thats really all that is to libertarianism, its a damn stupid idea. a large enough society cannot exist without violence. at some point, interests always collide. you can declare that senf-defense is justified, but very often there is really no specific line at which you can say its my survival thats threatened or just "what i want".

If you are unable to distinguish between self defense and aggression, and don't understand how to resolve differences of opinion without resorting to violence you should talk about these things with your therapist instead of projecting your limitations onto the world at large.

[myrkul]

if thats really all that is to libertarianism, its a damn stupid idea. a large enough society cannot exist without violence. at some point, interests always collide. you can declare that senf-defense is justified, but very often there is really no specific line at which you can say its my survival thats threatened or just "what i want".

If you are unable to distinguish between self defense and aggression, and don't understand how to resolve differences of opinion without resorting to violence you should talk about these things with your therapist instead of projecting your limitations onto the world at large.

+1. Leave your anger issues out of this.

[JoelKatz]

The problem with this attitude is that it rejects the moral argument that is central to libertarianism: Using violence to get what you want is wrong. As soon as you allow for a state, you're saying "violence is wrong except when the state does it".

First, I don't think that moral argument works. If I eat a banana, is that using violence to get what I want? Well, yes if it's your banana. But no, not if it's a mine. So that argument translates into an absolutist argument for defense of property rights.

Now, I actually agree with the absolutist argument for defense of property rights. The problem is, it just doesn't apply to the world we currently live in. It puts you straight into the transition problem. Who has morally clear title to "my house"? Well, right now, nobody, and it's not clear how anyone could get it.

From the Libertarian perspective, after you make this compromise, your fighting the wrong battle. You've gone from a philosophical revolution (war of ideas) to a plain old revolution (fighting the state directly, since you have condoned it's existence and rejected NAP).

There's no compromise involved. I still fully intend to condemn the state when it does wrong. And while I accept that concepts behind NAP, it makes a lousy rallying cry because it's a dishonest version of "property rights are absolute".

[myrkul]

Now, I actually agree with the absolutist argument for defense of property rights. The problem is, it just doesn't apply to the world we currently live in. It puts you straight into the transition problem. Who has morally clear title to "my house"? Well, right now, nobody, and it's not clear how anyone could get it.

Well, you've come to the right thread.

I see two main options, at least in this case. We'll - for the moment - ignore the fact that if you're in the US or Australia, the land your house was built on was probably taken by force from the natives that occupied it, and if you're in Europe, or most of the rest of the world, your land has been fought over more times than we can count.

If you've paid off your house, We don't even need to ask this question, you own the land free and clear, the only people claiming obligation from you is the Tax man, and we won't be needing to worry about him in this discussion.

If you're in a mortgage, that's where the two possibilities come in:

1.: You entered a binding contract with the lender, and that debt still needs to be paid off, though the denomination might need to change, and you might be able to renegotiate.

2.: That contract was entered in bad faith on the part of the lender, and should be repudiated.

So in a transition scenario, either you own your house outright, or you still owe the bank, just you now have to pay it something other than Gov't fiat scrip. (renters still have to pay their landlord, but the landlord might have a property free and clear now, resulting in a reduced rate)

[JoelKatz]

If you've paid off your house, We don't even need to ask this question, you own the land free and clear, the only people claiming obligation from you is the Tax man, and we won't be needing to worry about him in this discussion.

I can't find any moral grounds to accept a "flag day" on which everyone who lawfully possess property under the law prior to the flag day is deemed to have moral title to it under the just laws after the flag day. I don't believe that I have just moral title to my house because I acquired such title under the present laws.

For one thing, the laws of the United States of America presently make possible to private property owners only a fee simple interest in property. I'd have to acquire allodial title by magic. No private property owner in the United States today owns their property free and clear. And the folks I bought this property from never had such ownership and could never have transferred to me something they themselves did not have.

If you're going to make a society-wide gift of free and clear property ownership, I can't see how giving it to those who most prospered under the unjust system you are replacing is a sensible distribution plan.

It's a transition problem, of course. It's not a criticism of AnCap itself. My larger point is though is that we don't have to address these issues now. We can't predict what problems we will face as such a transition begins, so it's all just wild guesses. We need a consensus on the direction that we have to move, and then we'll see what goes right and what goes wrong and, with luck, we'll maintain a consensus to move in that direction.

There won't be a great moral victory because the moral claims aren't really right yet. They translate into absolute respect for property rights, and nobody yet has any property rights deserving of that respect because they've not been justly acquired.

[myrkul]

There won't be a great moral victory because the moral claims aren't really right yet. They translate into absolute respect for property rights, and nobody yet has any property rights deserving of that respect because they've not been justly acquired.

So, you don't ignore the fact that nobody's land was gotten peacefully in the first place?

What would be an equitable arrangement for determining property rights, in that transition? Any theories?

[JoelKatz]

There won't be a great moral victory because the moral claims aren't really right yet. They translate into absolute respect for property rights, and nobody yet has any property rights deserving of that respect because they've not been justly acquired.

So, you don't ignore the fact that nobody's land was gotten peacefully in the first place?

I can't ignore it. I think it's not logical to advance arguments about absolute respect for property rights in a world where most property was acquired unjustly unless you make clear that it only applies to justly acquired property.

What would be an equitable arrangement for determining property rights, in that transition? Any theories?

That's why I advocate a gradual transition. I don't think anyone has any idea how to do this, and I don't think the problem will actually arise during any foreseeable transition.

Fortunately, I don't think it matters all that much. The initial distribution of wealth in a fair system won't matter all that much in a few hundred years. But I honestly cannot reject out of hand those who argue for a massive redistribution of wealth as part of a transition to a just government.

It is a very, very thorny problem. And I think advocates of AnCap are doing precisely the opposite of what they should be doing by ignoring or dismissing the transition problem. It's the transition that's the key to a non-violent AnCap, if there's ever going to be one.

[myrkul]

The initial distribution of wealth in a fair system won't matter all that much in a few hundred years.

This is pretty much the soul of my argument, It doesn't really matter where you start, so long as the system is fair.

FWIW, if someone can show, or even give a really good argument as to, the land I reside on being ancestrally theirs and taken by force, I probably would at least give them some manner of reparations.

[JoelKatz]

This is pretty much the soul of my argument, It doesn't really matter where you start, so long as the system is fair.

I agree. So I guess the best we can do is start where we are.

FWIW, if someone can show, or even give a really good argument as to, the land I reside on being ancestrally theirs and taken by force, I probably would at least give them some manner of reparations.

I would hope that rising prosperity would lead to enough voluntary charity that inequities from the starting position could be wiped out even faster. I think there's a general consensus that these are at least in part unjust.

I still believe the only realistic chance AnCap has is to form an alliance with other groups that advocate for smaller government and to move in that direction. We don't need to sell the roads day one, and I don't think we can. And I think we can't have any confidence that AnCap is right until we start shrinking the government and see what happens. Getting rid of the courts and police will be something people can only have the confidence to do if getting rid of other things works as AnCap advocates hope.

And seriously, what AnCap advocate wouldn't consider a minarchy a vast improvement over what we have?

I honestly, I think AnCap advocates and Libertarians should ditch the NAP argument. It's just a deceptive way of trying to convince people in absolute private property rights while pretending to be arguing against force or fraud. Taxation isn't force if the government is taking money that is legitimately its money because that's what the law say.

[myrkul]

This is pretty much the soul of my argument, It doesn't really matter where you start, so long as the system is fair.

I agree. So I guess the best we can do is start where we are.

FWIW, if someone can show, or even give a really good argument as to, the land I reside on being ancestrally theirs and taken by force, I probably would at least give them some manner of reparations.

I would hope that rising prosperity would lead to enough voluntary charity that inequities from the starting position could be wiped out even faster. I think there's a general consensus that these are at least in part unjust.

I still believe the only realistic chance AnCap has is to form an alliance with other groups that advocate for smaller government and to move in that direction. We don't need to sell the roads day one, and I don't think we can. And I think we can't have any confidence that AnCap is right until we start shrinking the government and see what happens. Getting rid of the courts and police will be something people can only have the confidence to do if getting rid of other things works as AnCap advocates hope.

And seriously, what AnCap advocate wouldn't consider a minarchy a vast improvement over what we have?

No argument with anything up to this point except to say that we needn't get rid of anything, just remove the monopoly and the forced payment.

However...

I honestly, I think AnCap advocates and Libertarians should ditch the NAP argument. It's just a deceptive way of trying to convince people in absolute private property rights while pretending to be arguing against force or fraud. Taxation isn't force if the government is taking money that is legitimately its money because that's what the law say.

This is a load of bull. The NAP is not "deceptive", it's straight out based on absolute private property rights, starting with ownership of your own body. Writing words on paper, even if that writing is done by someone who has been selected by a majority, does not make applying those words to the people who disagree any less "force".

Democracy: Two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
Representative Republicanism: Two wolves and a sheep voting on who picks dinner.

[FirstAscent]

Hey, we'd like to ensure the safety of our students, what can we offer to get you to agree to never install landmines?

Once they work out a deal, they'll include a rider where that contract gets incorporated into the next (and all subsequent) owner's purchase agreement.

Problem solved.

Problem solved? How funny. Because to me, it sounds like a problem in the making.

[myrkul]

Hey, we'd like to ensure the safety of our students, what can we offer to get you to agree to never install landmines?

Once they work out a deal, they'll include a rider where that contract gets incorporated into the next (and all subsequent) owner's purchase agreement.

Problem solved.

Problem solved? How funny. Because to me, it sounds like a problem in the making.

How so? Edge effects and migratory patterns and all that other agenda 21 bullshit you're always on about doesn't apply here.

[FirstAscent]

Hey, we'd like to ensure the safety of our students, what can we offer to get you to agree to never install landmines?

Once they work out a deal, they'll include a rider where that contract gets incorporated into the next (and all subsequent) owner's purchase agreement.

Problem solved.

Problem solved? How funny. Because to me, it sounds like a problem in the making.

How so? Edge effects and migratory patterns and all that other agenda 21 bullshit you're always on about doesn't apply here.

Don't be an idiot twice over.

1. You're not as bright as you think you are with regard to the environment.
2. Nobody said the problem had anything to do with the environment.

Your problem is your optimism with regard to your fantasy utopia. Think harder about your proposed solutions. I shouldn't have to play devil's advocate for you. If you want people to respect your ideas, then hit them hard yourself and see where it gets you.

[myrkul]

Hey, we'd like to ensure the safety of our students, what can we offer to get you to agree to never install landmines?

Once they work out a deal, they'll include a rider where that contract gets incorporated into the next (and all subsequent) owner's purchase agreement.

Problem solved.

Problem solved? How funny. Because to me, it sounds like a problem in the making.

How so? Edge effects and migratory patterns and all that other agenda 21 bullshit you're always on about doesn't apply here.

Don't be an idiot twice over.

1. You're not as bright as you think you are with regard to the environment.
2. Nobody said the problem had anything to do with the environment.

Your problem is your optimism with regard to your fantasy utopia. Think harder about your proposed solutions. I shouldn't have to play devil's advocate for you. If you want people to respect your ideas, then hit them hard yourself and see where it gets you.

It's your claim, back it up, or back down.

[FirstAscent]

Hey, we'd like to ensure the safety of our students, what can we offer to get you to agree to never install landmines?

Once they work out a deal, they'll include a rider where that contract gets incorporated into the next (and all subsequent) owner's purchase agreement.

Problem solved.

Problem solved? How funny. Because to me, it sounds like a problem in the making.

How so? Edge effects and migratory patterns and all that other agenda 21 bullshit you're always on about doesn't apply here.

Don't be an idiot twice over.

1. You're not as bright as you think you are with regard to the environment.
2. Nobody said the problem had anything to do with the environment.

Your problem is your optimism with regard to your fantasy utopia. Think harder about your proposed solutions. I shouldn't have to play devil's advocate for you. If you want people to respect your ideas, then hit them hard yourself and see where it gets you.

It's your claim, back it up, or back down.

I don't have to back it up. That's because your idea has no traction anyway. But you, on the other hand, do need to identify the problem, if you want a robust solution. You're like kids playing in a sandbox - all make believe. Find the problem, expose it, and then try and find a solution. Until then, know that your ideas are being laughed at.

[myrkul]

I don't have to back it up. That's because your idea has no traction anyway. But you, on the other hand, do need to identify the problem, if you want a robust solution. You're like kids playing in a sandbox - all make believe. Find the problem, expose it, and then try and find a solution. Until then, know that your ideas are being laughed at.

...by a child.

[FirstAscent]

I don't have to back it up. That's because your idea has no traction anyway. But you, on the other hand, do need to identify the problem, if you want a robust solution. You're like kids playing in a sandbox - all make believe. Find the problem, expose it, and then try and find a solution. Until then, know that your ideas are being laughed at.

...by a child.

Such a response only reveals your inability to self analyze your own plan. My participation would only encourage you to make your plan stronger, if you were able. You're the one who ultimately loses if I choose not to participate. Good luck with your whimsical fantasies.

[myrkul]

My participation would only encourage you to make your plan stronger, if you were able. You're the one who ultimately loses if I choose not to participate. Good luck with your whimsical fantasies.

That sounds strangely similar to something else I heard lately....

I can't reveal my business plan, that would ruin it.

So, typical of your posts, you toss out an empty denigration of the proposal, but never back up your assertion.

Just like Pirate, you can't reveal your secret, because you don't have one to reveal.