The transition to AnCap

[JoelKatz]

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.

It's not so much based on it, it's *identical* to it. The reason people phrase it in terms of "non aggression" is because that sounds better. The NAP is incoherent without absolute private property rights.

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".

Well that's the thing. For the NAP to work, you first need to know what is force and what is fraud, and you can't have that without a theory of property rights and a theory of government. To present the NAP as the core is deceptive because the NAP requires a foundation.

[myrkul]

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.

It's not so much based on it, it's *identical* to it. The reason people phrase it in terms of "non aggression" is because that sounds better. The NAP is incoherent without absolute private property rights.

Well, yeah, but that's tantamount to saying that the golden rule is just a sneaky way of saying that you should be nice to each other. We're getting really close to philosophical masturbation, here, and I'm not high enough for that.

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".

Well that's the thing. For the NAP to work, you first need to know what is force and what is fraud, and you can't have that without a theory of property rights and a theory of government. To present the NAP as the core is deceptive because the NAP requires a foundation.

This is rapidly approaching the logical and inevitable conclusion of any debate I have with you, Joel. Agreeing at each other at increasing volume. You're right, of course, that the Non-aggression principle is sort of a "ground floor" of libertarianism, while self ownership is the foundation. But just like a house, you don't need to see the foundation if the ground floor is sound. Sure, you can look around in the basement if you like, and any decent tour of the house is going to include it, but for most people, the ground floor is enough.

[fornit]

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.

lol, where exactly did i say i was talking about "different opinions"?
with limited resources there will always be situations in which one group of people doesnt have enough resources to survive. be it food, water, heating, electricity or the means to produce or transport any of those.
unless they get those resources for free, there will eventually be violence. as far as i understand ancap doesnt force anybody to give anything away for free, ever. so what exactly is the regulatory mechanism here that will stop violence from arising?

[JoelKatz]

lol, where exactly did i say i was talking about "different opinions"?
with limited resources there will always be situations in which one group of people doesnt have enough resources to survive. be it food, water, heating, electricity or the means to produce or transport any of those.
unless they get those resources for free, there will eventually be violence. as far as i understand ancap doesnt force anybody to give anything away for free, ever. so what exactly is the regulatory mechanism here that will stop violence from arising?

That would be a good counterargument to anyone who argued that an AnCap society wouldn't have any violence. However, I don't think anyone is arguing that paradise on Earth is possible. The idea is to avoid making a system that rewards violence and theft. But of course, there will still be the occasional case where people either irrationally resort to violence or, despite our best efforts, find themselves in a situation where violence will benefit them. In those cases, there will definitely be violence.

[fornit]

That would be a good counterargument to anyone who argued that an AnCap society wouldn't have any violence. However, I don't think anyone is arguing that paradise on Earth is possible. The idea is to avoid making a system that rewards violence and theft. But of course, there will still be the occasional case where people either irrationally resort to violence or, despite our best efforts, find themselves in a situation where violence will benefit them. In those cases, there will definitely be violence.

i am not talking about paradise on earth. i am talking about the thing between paradise and civil unrest. maybe i am understanding absolute property rights wrong, but to me it seems material wealth is the only source of power in an ancap. so it accumulates even faster than usual and the system will quickly become unstable, because there is nothing that provides a counterbalance to wealth.

[JoelKatz]

I am not talking about paradise on earth. i am talking about the thing between paradise and civil unrest. maybe i am understanding absolute property rights wrong, but to me it seems material wealth is the only source of power in an ancap. so it accumulates even faster than usual and the system will quickly become unstable, because there is nothing that provides a counterbalance to wealth.

If someone else has something that you want, there are only two ways you can get it from him. You can offer him something in exchange for it or you can take it by force. You seem to think these things need to balance each other out. However, I would say it's preferable to eliminate the latter leaving only the former.

If an AnCap society is working correctly, there really isn't any "power". Of course you can trade material wealth for other material wealth you may desire and you can trade your labor for wealth. But everything else we would hope would be cancelled out -- unjust force met with just retaliation with as little net effect as possible.

[fornit]

If someone else has something that you want, there are only two ways you can get it from him. You can offer him something in exchange for it or you can take it by force. You seem to think these things need to balance each other out. However, I would say it's preferable to eliminate the latter leaving only the former.

what about those that dont have much to offer? and those that dont need anything else? if trade is no option how do you ensure survival? i am not saying force should be the counterbalance to willing cooperation. i am saying poperty can itself be force and therefore needs another force to balance it.

If an AnCap society is working correctly, there really isn't any "power". Of course you can trade material wealth for other material wealth you may desire and you can trade your labor for wealth. But everything else we would hope would be cancelled out -- unjust force met with just retaliation with as little net effect as possible.

having things other people need is power. when there are no restrictions on what you can have and what you can do with the things you have, there is no limit to power.

[JoelKatz]

what about those that dont have much to offer? and those that dont need anything else? if trade is no option how do you ensure survival? i am not saying force should be the counterbalance to willing cooperation. i am saying poperty can itself be force and therefore needs another force to balance it.

Survival is not assured. There is no known system that can ensure survival. If a person cannot produce enough to ensure their own survival, then the only choice is for them to rely on the charity of others. The only question is whether such charity will be voluntary or coerced.

If an AnCap society is working correctly, there really isn't any "power". Of course you can trade material wealth for other material wealth you may desire and you can trade your labor for wealth. But everything else we would hope would be cancelled out -- unjust force met with just retaliation with as little net effect as possible.

having things other people need is power. when there are no restrictions on what you can have and what you can do with the things you have, there is no limit to power.

Okay, then there's no limit to that kind of power. But that kind of power is not harmful because pretty much the only way you can acquire it is by giving others what they most want. That's what will be compensated with wealth.

[FirstAscent]

But that kind of power is not harmful because pretty much the only way you can acquire it is by giving others what they most want. That's what will be compensated with wealth.

You've made a mistake here because the two are not related in the way you're implying. A process (giving a subset of people what they want) which provides an attribute (power) is a cause and an effect, but it implies nothing about what one can do with that power (such as make life miserable for any other subset of people or, even worse, cease giving others what they want and simply wielding one's power).

[myrkul]

But that kind of power is not harmful because pretty much the only way you can acquire it is by giving others what they most want. That's what will be compensated with wealth.

You've made a mistake here because the two are not related in the way you're implying. A process (giving a subset of people what they want) which provides an attribute (power) is a cause and an effect, but it implies nothing about what one can do with that power (such as make life miserable for any other subset of people or, even worse, cease giving others what they want and simply wielding one's power).

OK, let's say you're the richest man on the planet, in an AnCap society, Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, and Carlos Helu all rolled into one  How do you wield your wealth so as to make others miserable?

[asdf]

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.

I don't see how this invalidates the moral argument. Once people accept the moral argument, the transition is just a matter of implementation.

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".

I don't see what you mean by it being "dishonest"?

The moral argument is extremely effective. Whatever pragmatic argument someone wants to make for violence, all you have to do is point out the violence. Most people reject violence, but don't make the connection between the state and violence.

"We need a social safety net for the disadvantaged". You want to point a gun at me and force me to give money to poor people? Ultimately they are forced to admit that they advocate violence or that charity should be voluntary.

[fornit]

Survival is not assured. There is no known system that can ensure survival. If a person cannot produce enough to ensure their own survival, then the only choice is for them to rely on the charity of others. The only question is whether such charity will be voluntary or coerced.

in my opinion, a society that doesnt guarantee a minimal living standard for everyone is both barbaric and inefficient. all moral arguments aside, i just wouldnt want to live there.

Okay, then there's no limit to that kind of power. But that kind of power is not harmful because pretty much the only way you can acquire it is by giving others what they most want. That's what will be compensated with wealth.

how that power is aquired has really nothing to do how it is used. specificly, the harmful effects you can cause with your wealth dont need to have any proportion with the supposed good you did when you aquired it.

[fornit]

OK, let's say you're the richest man on the planet, in an AnCap society, Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, and Carlos Helu all rolled into one  How do you wield your wealth so as to make others miserable?

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

[myrkul]

Survival is not assured. There is no known system that can ensure survival. If a person cannot produce enough to ensure their own survival, then the only choice is for them to rely on the charity of others. The only question is whether such charity will be voluntary or coerced.

in my opinion, a society that doesnt guarantee a minimal living standard for everyone is both barbaric and inefficient. all moral arguments aside, i just wouldnt want to live there.

Any society that attempts to guarantee a minimal living standard for everyone becomes barbaric and inefficient. The only way to do so is through force (barbarism) and government programs (inefficiency). Private charities can help, but as they are voluntary, there's no guarantee that they will provide for everyone.

OK, let's say you're the richest man on the planet, in an AnCap society, Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, and Carlos Helu all rolled into one  How do you wield your wealth so as to make others miserable?

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

Which resource?

[JoelKatz]

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.

[myrkul]

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.

In other words, "The solution to a feared concentration of power is not a concentration of power."

[Coreadrin_47]

the easiest transition to AnCap is for people to opt-out of the state system.  use private arbitration, do as absolutely much business as possible in the gray market for cash/barter/metals/bitocins, etc., withhold as much of your resources as possible from the state and just watch it shrivel up and die.

I think Pennsylvania is one of the greatest studies in peaceful transitions to AnCap.  Penn thought he was getting on the easy train by imposing his taxes and such, but the Quakers would have none of it.  They didn't forcibly resist, just laughed at his attempts to impose violence, and for all intensive purposes just ignored what he asked and went on with their lives.  It was the beginning of an era of great prosperity, and hardly a drop of blood was shed to get it there, and Penn (the current governor) ended up going completely bankrupt.  Beautiful.

The mathematics are already in on this thing.  Decades of the future have been mortgaged away, and there is absolutely no avoiding the collapse that always, without exception, ensues from it.  We libertarians and ancaps are lucky in a few ways that not many are - we understand morality and economics better than 99% of the population, and therefore we can see it coming and no why it's coming, and we have NOTHING to do with it, so we are one of the few parties that any blame could possibly be assigned to (we have been dead opposed to virtually everything that has led up to this moment, right from the get go).  We can position ourselves as what people will turn to during the coming years and decades, but it won't be easy.  We are eventually looking at a hyperinflation (or at least a "mini" one, as temporary reprieve for the greatest con-artists in mankind's history), and virtually all hyperinflations are followed by severe tyranny - THAT is what we have to try to avoid, otherwise humanity gets set back not a generation or two, but a century or two.

Statists and their damned crazy religious zealotry get all of the credit for what is to come.  All of it.  I will make sure they f**king know it in their bones.

[FirstAscent]

You want to point a gun at me and force me to give money to poor people? Ultimately they are forced to admit that they advocate violence or that charity should be voluntary.

Your moral argument is a pure contrivance. That's the problem. You seem to think that there actually exists the concept of ownership outside the boundaries of a society which acknowledges it. Whatever society you are in might acknowledge that concept within the context of its own paradigm. Within the context of, say, the United States, or perhaps Germany, or some other nation, ownership has one meaning, and it might have another in your fairy tale world.

This violence you speak of, which weakens your case considerably because it demonstrates a lack of critical analysis, is no different than the violence you would speak of if in your fairy tale land, if you choose not to abide by the various contracts that exist, as per the method of living within your fairy tale world.

I personally would not want to live in your fairy tale world precisely because of all the potential coercive violence. My suggestion to you is to use the other half of your brain and realize how silly and weak your use of the term coercive violence is with regard to your rants. It's not original at all, and doesn't indicate any critical thinking on your part.

[justusranvier]

Your moral argument is a pure contrivance. That's the problem. You seem to think that there actually exists the concept of ownership outside the boundaries of a society which acknowledges it. Whatever society you are in might acknowledge that concept within the context of its own paradigm. Within the context of, say, the United States, or perhaps Germany, or some other nation, ownership has one meaning, and it might have another in your fairy tale world.

This violence you speak of, which weakens your case considerably because it demonstrates a lack of critical analysis, is no different than the violence you would speak of if in your fairy tale land, if you choose not to abide by the various contracts that exist, as per the method of living within your fairy tale world.

I personally would not want to live in your fairy tale world precisely because of all the potential coercive violence. My suggestion to you is to use the other half of your brain and realize how silly and weak your use of the term coercive violence is with regard to your rants. It's not original at all, and doesn't indicate any critical thinking on your part.

...and that's what pure, undiluted evil looks like.

Unfortunately for our aspiring O'Brian there is no room 101 yet.

[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.