The transition to AnCap

[FirstAscent]

I personally would not want to live in your fairy tale world precisely because of all the potential coercive violence.

Name one instance. Just one. Any one.

Every time I step off my property (assuming I'm lucky enough to own property in your world), I'm at the mercy of the landowner's property I'm on, and his taxes, fees, rules, regulations, guards, stipulations, and who knows what else. It is not a place I would want to live in.

[1715607628]

1715607628

[1715607628]

1715607628

[1715607628]

1715607628

[1715607628]

1715607628

[myrkul]

I personally would not want to live in your fairy tale world precisely because of all the potential coercive violence.

Name one instance. Just one. Any one.

Every time I step off my property (assuming I'm lucky enough to own property in your world), I'm at the mercy of the landowner's property I'm on, and his taxes, fees, rules, regulations, guards, stipulations, and who knows what else. It is not a place I would want to live in.

1) How is that different from now, with the exception that they come on to your property and enforce those, and 2) That's not coercive, because you don't have to step on to their property if you don't want to.

[FirstAscent]

I personally would not want to live in your fairy tale world precisely because of all the potential coercive violence.

Name one instance. Just one. Any one.

Every time I step off my property (assuming I'm lucky enough to own property in your world), I'm at the mercy of the landowner's property I'm on, and his taxes, fees, rules, regulations, guards, stipulations, and who knows what else. It is not a place I would want to live in.

1) How is that different from now, with the exception that they come on to your property and enforce those, and 2) That's not coercive, because you don't have to step on to their property if you don't want to.

I knew you'd respond so unimaginatively, entrenched within your fervent belief in the goodness of your idea.

1) How is it different? I'm guaranteed that where ever I live, I have access points that let me go essentially anywhere with consistent rules, and freedom of access.

2) Regarding coercion - how blind can you be to your own statement? It is so ridiculous! Look at what you just said. You're stating that I need only remain a prisoner of my own property if I don't wish to be coerced. Pathetic.

[myrkul]

1) How is it different? I'm guaranteed that where ever I live, I have access points that let me go essentially anywhere with consistent rules, and freedom of access.

2) Regarding coercion - how blind can you be to your own statement? It is so ridiculous! Look at what you just said. You're stating that I need only remain a prisoner of my own property if I don't wish to be coerced. Pathetic.

Yes, isn't it so horrible, that when you go into a McDonalds, they don't let you shit on the tables?

1)People don't want you to be trapped in your home. If you were trapped in your home, you could not purchase their goods or services. Freedom of travel is necessary for freedom of trade. Ergo, in a society built on free trade, there would necessarily be freedom of travel.

2) And once again, it's not coercion if you voluntarily agree to it, and can avoid it. Since you can avoid going into a person's property, it's not coercion if they ask you to follow their rules, or leave.

[FirstAscent]

1) How is it different? I'm guaranteed that where ever I live, I have access points that let me go essentially anywhere with consistent rules, and freedom of access.

2) Regarding coercion - how blind can you be to your own statement? It is so ridiculous! Look at what you just said. You're stating that I need only remain a prisoner of my own property if I don't wish to be coerced. Pathetic.

Yes, isn't it so horrible, that when you go into a McDonalds, they don't let you shit on the tables?

1)People don't want you to be trapped in your home. If you were trapped in your home, you could not purchase their goods or services. Freedom of travel is necessary for freedom of trade. Ergo, in a society built on free trade, there would necessarily be freedom of travel.

2) And once again, it's not coercion if you voluntarily agree to it, and can avoid it. Since you can avoid going into a person's property, it's not coercion if they ask you to follow their rules, or leave.

McDonald's operates within the context of the laws of the nation that hosts its restaurants.

1) Not consistently to all.

2) An utterly desperate and pointless statement. Didn't we just go over this? A resident does not have control over his neighbors, but at least in a governed society, he can expect some consistencies in rights of access from his residence to nearly anywhere else in the nation. In your world, there's no guarantee that a resident can rely on getting anywhere effectively over time from his residence. See 1, above.

[myrkul]

1) How is it different? I'm guaranteed that where ever I live, I have access points that let me go essentially anywhere with consistent rules, and freedom of access.

2) Regarding coercion - how blind can you be to your own statement? It is so ridiculous! Look at what you just said. You're stating that I need only remain a prisoner of my own property if I don't wish to be coerced. Pathetic.

Yes, isn't it so horrible, that when you go into a McDonalds, they don't let you shit on the tables?

1)People don't want you to be trapped in your home. If you were trapped in your home, you could not purchase their goods or services. Freedom of travel is necessary for freedom of trade. Ergo, in a society built on free trade, there would necessarily be freedom of travel.

2) And once again, it's not coercion if you voluntarily agree to it, and can avoid it. Since you can avoid going into a person's property, it's not coercion if they ask you to follow their rules, or leave.

McDonald's operates within the context of the laws of the nation that hosts its restaurants.

1) Not consistently to all.

2) An utterly desperate and pointless statement. Didn't we just go over this? A resident does not have control over his neighbors, but at least in a governed society, he can expect some consistencies in rights of access from his residence to nearly anywhere else in the nation. In your world, there's no guarantee that a resident can rely on getting anywhere effectively over time from his residence. See 1, above.

So you're saying that if the food safety laws in a country allowed it, McDonalds would let you shit on the tables?

Why is consistent preferable to just? Would not the roads with the best rules be the most traveled, and thus the most profitable, and thus, the most copied?

[FirstAscent]

So you're saying that if the food safety laws in a country allowed it, McDonalds would let you shit on the tables?

I'm not making a statement one way or another about that. What I'm saying is the McDonald's in your world is something we know nothing about because it doesn't exist, so I suggest you stop hypothesizing about it.

Why is consistent preferable to just?

We know nothing about how just things are in your world. Most likely, things are neither consistent nor just.

Would not the roads with the best rules be the most traveled, and thus the most profitable, and thus, the most copied?

The most traveled roads would be the ones that are most profitable. Anywhere else, and you're going to get zero consistency with regard to quality, price, reliability, closures, or even if they exist.

You make so many assumptions, it's ridiculous. I suggest you go watch a movie. Have you seen Woman in the Dunes?

[myrkul]

So you're saying that if the food safety laws in a country allowed it, McDonalds would let you shit on the tables?

I'm not making a statement one way or another about that. What I'm saying is the McDonald's in your world is something we know nothing about because it doesn't exist, so I suggest you stop hypothesizing about it.

Would you eat a restaurant that let people shit on the tables?

[FirstAscent]

So you're saying that if the food safety laws in a country allowed it, McDonalds would let you shit on the tables?

I'm not making a statement one way or another about that. What I'm saying is the McDonald's in your world is something we know nothing about because it doesn't exist, so I suggest you stop hypothesizing about it.

Would you eat a restaurant that let people shit on the tables?

Pointless question, as it does not pertain to my claims. If you need a reminder, my claims are not about patronizing establishments which invite customers. Again, you make too many assumptions.

[myrkul]

So you're saying that if the food safety laws in a country allowed it, McDonalds would let you shit on the tables?

I'm not making a statement one way or another about that. What I'm saying is the McDonald's in your world is something we know nothing about because it doesn't exist, so I suggest you stop hypothesizing about it.

Would you eat a restaurant that let people shit on the tables?

Pointless question, as it does not pertain to my claims. If you need a reminder, my claims are not about patronizing establishments which invite customers. Again, you make too many assumptions.

Why would you go on people's land uninvited?

[FirstAscent]

So you're saying that if the food safety laws in a country allowed it, McDonalds would let you shit on the tables?

I'm not making a statement one way or another about that. What I'm saying is the McDonald's in your world is something we know nothing about because it doesn't exist, so I suggest you stop hypothesizing about it.

Would you eat a restaurant that let people shit on the tables?

Pointless question, as it does not pertain to my claims. If you need a reminder, my claims are not about patronizing establishments which invite customers. Again, you make too many assumptions.

Why would you go on people's land uninvited?

Who said I would? You seem to be having difficulty following the discussion. I'll remind you again: we're discussing freedom to move about within one's world, where travels are most frequent closer to their place of residence. Since you keep trying to deflect the discussion into points which bear little relevance to that, I think it's time you call it a day. I have provided you a film title to watch, since you obviously need to take a breather from this discussion until you collect your thoughts into something more cohesive.

[myrkul]

Who said I would? You seem to be having difficulty following the discussion. I'll remind you again: we're discussing freedom to move about within one's world, where travels are most frequent closer to their place of residence. Since you keep trying to deflect the discussion into points which bear little relevance to that, I think it's time you call it a day. I have provided you a film title to watch, since you obviously need to take a breather from this discussion until you collect your thoughts into something more cohesive.

You're cute, you know that? Let me lay some truth on you:

In a world* where roads, and indeed all property, is private, roads and other means of transportation would, in fact, be "establishments which invite customers," and which are free to eject them, as well. Just like at McDonalds.

If you wish to move about, you would be patronizing these establishments. They want your business, either because you're eyes on their billboards or because you pay the subscription fee, or entry tolls, or however they monetize. Since they want your business, they cater to your needs. Just like at McDonalds.

Since they want your repeat business, they will endeavor to make your experience pleasant. This means that if you do not want to be harassed by people going above a specific speed, there will most likely be a road company that requires drivers to keep to a speed limit. If you wish to be unfettered by speed limits, there will most likely be a road company that allows that. The freedom to choose ensures that everyone gets the service they desire. Just like at Burger King.


*(if you like, you can imagine Don LaFontaine saying this)

[bb113]

I recommend this thread to go watch some deadwood. It basically depicts the opposite scenario. Ancap -> State.

[fornit]

You're cute, you know that? Let me lay some truth on you:

In a world* where roads, and indeed all property, is private, roads and other means of transportation would, in fact, be "establishments which invite customers," and which are free to eject them, as well. Just like at McDonalds.

If you wish to move about, you would be patronizing these establishments. They want your business, either because you're eyes on their billboards or because you pay the subscription fee, or entry tolls, or however they monetize. Since they want your business, they cater to your needs. Just like at McDonalds.

Since they want your repeat business, they will endeavor to make your experience pleasant. This means that if you do not want to be harassed by people going above a specific speed, there will most likely be a road company that requires drivers to keep to a speed limit. If you wish to be unfettered by speed limits, there will most likely be a road company that allows that. The freedom to choose ensures that everyone gets the service they desire. Just like at Burger King.


*(if you like, you can imagine Don LaFontaine saying this)

you really believe in such a naive scenario?
what happens, if, for whatever reason, like racism, religion, personal grudge, you become an unwanted customer to the road company owner? you buy a helicopter?

[myrkul]

You're cute, you know that? Let me lay some truth on you:

In a world* where roads, and indeed all property, is private, roads and other means of transportation would, in fact, be "establishments which invite customers," and which are free to eject them, as well. Just like at McDonalds.

If you wish to move about, you would be patronizing these establishments. They want your business, either because you're eyes on their billboards or because you pay the subscription fee, or entry tolls, or however they monetize. Since they want your business, they cater to your needs. Just like at McDonalds.

Since they want your repeat business, they will endeavor to make your experience pleasant. This means that if you do not want to be harassed by people going above a specific speed, there will most likely be a road company that requires drivers to keep to a speed limit. If you wish to be unfettered by speed limits, there will most likely be a road company that allows that. The freedom to choose ensures that everyone gets the service they desire. Just like at Burger King.


*(if you like, you can imagine Don LaFontaine saying this)

you really believe in such a naive scenario?
what happens, if, for whatever reason, like racism, religion, personal grudge, you become an unwanted customer to the road company owner? you buy a helicopter?

Or get on a different road. There's more than 1, you know. Monopoly is the problem we're looking to solve here, remember?

[fornit]

get the monopoly of an essential resource, then blackmail your society.

Do you know a system that prevents this? I mean, other than "if you have what we want, even if you justly acquired it, we'll take it from you".

It is extremely difficult to build a monopoly without using force. If you used force to get it, nobody disputes that others can take it away from you by force. If you somehow do manage to build it without force, it's going to be very temporary. And the more you leverage it, the more incentive others have to find some resource that replaces it.

In any event, who cares? I'd gladly trade the remote possibility of some temporary blackmail for living under those conditions permanently where the government has an eternal monopoly on a long list of things.

its not totally preventable, no. but leaving essential resources at somebodies personal whim greatly increases the likelyhood of resources being used in a fashion that is very unfavorable for a society. there are no magic market mechanisms that force a person to do whats best for his society to gain profit. its a fun theory, but the world never actually worked that way.
a government can, to some extent, ignore profitability and effectiveness. and i believe it can also be designed in manner that the power of any single person inside the government is small. i admit that we are, at this point, far from having any governments that is both able and willing to pursue the best for its people.
on the other hand, its very unfair to compare current implementation of governments with some sort of ideal ancap.
you either have to compare current implementation of both or the ideal implementation of both. in practice, ancap isnt implemented anywhere, so it cant be compared. in theory, i like an ideal government better than an ideal ancap. can an ideal government exist? probably not. but at least we still got very very much room for improvement within existing systems. id say improving existing governments is a much more viable option than trying to transition into an utopia, that, in my opinion, is neither possible nor desirable.

Or get on a different road. There's more than 1, you know. Monopoly is the problem we're looking to solve here, remember?

yeah, redundancy is an awesome solution. i really want ten roads to my house, ten water pipes, hundreds of overlapping wireless networks...thats soooo much more effective than whats currently done 

[myrkul]

Or get on a different road. There's more than 1, you know. Monopoly is the problem we're looking to solve here, remember?

yeah, redundancy is an awesome solution. i really want ten roads to my house, ten water pipes, hundreds of overlapping wireless networks...thats soooo much more effective than whats currently done 

Yes, your house is on one road. Good for you. If you don't like the rules of that road (more likely, community), don't move into that house. As for the water pipes, electricity system, and such, those are "dumb pipes" and can be operated as a co-op by the various providers, no need for duplication. "hundreds of overlapping wireless networks"... sounds like a mesh network to me, a very good idea.

Roads is such a non-issue to be stuck on. Road operators want traffic. They can be predicted to do things that will maximize traffic.

[fornit]

Yes, your house is on one road. Good for you. If you don't like the rules of that road (more likely, community), don't move into that house. As for the water pipes, electricity system, and such, those are "dumb pipes" and can be operated as a co-op by the various providers, no need for duplication. "hundreds of overlapping wireless networks"... sounds like a mesh network to me, a very good idea.

Roads is such a non-issue to be stuck on. Road operators want traffic. They can be predicted to do things that will maximize traffic.

i really wonder what planet you live on. maximizing profit by creating artificial shortages happens all the time. maximizing profit is an optimization process in which number of sales is just one parameter.
look at oil for example. saudia-arabia isnt producing at maximum capacity. they intentionally hold back to increase the price. and if, for whatever reason, russia and saudia-arabia decided not to sell oil anymore, the consequences would be devastating. like millions of deaths-devastating.
others nations would never accept that and react with violence, and rightly so.

[FirstAscent]

Myrkul seems to overlook the fact that in AnCap World, there is no stipulation or grand plan that says the landowners around my residence give a crap about being in the road business at all. Also, land changes ownership, and new owners may have new plans.

[JoelKatz]

Myrkul seems to overlook the fact that in AnCap World, there is no stipulation or grand plan that says the landowners around my residence give a crap about being in the road business at all. Also, land changes ownership, and new owners may have new plans.

If the government ran all the supermarkets, you'd say the exact same thing about food. You would worry that all the grocery stores would close and you would starve. But, the thing is, in an AnCap world, there's money to be made by solving real problems. If the problem you've identified is a real one, then someone will find a way to solve it and charge you for that solution. And then someone else will find a better way to solve it and charge you less. And before you know it, the problem's gone. Problems are opportunities.

You might think it sucks to have to pay for everything. But the fact is, you're paying for everything now. It's just being done by an inherently inefficient government with little to no incentive to innovate and facing no competition.

As for the land ownership issue, there's a more specific response. Land ownership includes some bundle of rights. And society, if it's going to have property, has to work out what that bundle of rights is. It may be that preventing people from reasonably crossing your land to access other people's land isn't in that bundle of rights. It may be that shooting anyone who accidentally stumbles onto your land isn't in that bundle of rights. Just as, for example, taxing satellites that pass over your land likely wouldn't be.

Also, covenants can run with land and can specifically exclude some rights for the benefit of nearby land owners. A society has to come up with rules for how those covenants can be enforced, whether they can be valid in perpetuity, and so on.