AnCap~Organized crime?

[im3w1l]

I've recently been thinking that what AnCap proposers describe sound very similar to organized crime, in several ways.

1. Organized crime does not respect the laws and the social contract.

In a sense, they are living as if the society we have, right now is AnCap, treating prison as a cost of doing business.

2. There are rival organizations working in a free market.

You can choose what gang you want to be affliated with. They supply protection, insurance and "private courts".

3. There are occasional clashes.

Just as one would expect when there are "competing courts", sometimes there are clashes. Most of the time there is peace, for economical reasons.


Thoughts? Would you like to live in Mexico? Be part of a gang?

[1714945532]

1714945532

[1714945532]

1714945532

[1714945532]

1714945532

[1714945532]

1714945532

[1714945532]

1714945532

[1714945532]

1714945532

[im3w1l]

What do you mean by social contract? Because Anarchy does not require that you ignore a "social contract". Quite the opposite in fact. For me to have liberty, I must respect the liberty of everyone else in the world. That's the only way it works.

I thought the current social contract was seen as illegitimate. That was what I was referring to.

[myrkul]

What do you mean by social contract? Because Anarchy does not require that you ignore a "social contract". Quite the opposite in fact. For me to have liberty, I must respect the liberty of everyone else in the world. That's the only way it works.

I thought the current social contract was seen as illegitimate. That was what I was referring to.

That's because the current social contract is a) involuntary, and b) imposes a positive obligation on you.

In AnCap, the only "social contract" like that is to not fuck with people. You can (and most would) accept a voluntary positive obligation to enter arbitration for any disputes, either by signing something like this, or by signing a contract with a defense agency that includes something like this:

Any controversy or claim arising out of or relating to this contract, or the breach of this contract, shall be settled by binding internet arbitration by Myrkul (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=4602) in accordance with his arbitration agreement. The arbitrator's decision shall be final.

And that's the difference between organized crime and AnCap: We respect another's right not to be fucked with, whereas they do not.

[silverfuture]

AnCap has as its central principle the NAP. I would say that organized crime is philosophically closer to the statist model than AnCap due to the willingness to commit aggressive acts or fraud toward peaceful people for financial gain.  Protection schemes are pretty much identical regardless of the "legitimacy" of the organization if the contract is involuntary, signed under duress, or coerced.  AnCaps generally promote a model of protection or dispute resolution supplied by market actors who rely on a positive reputation and results to attract voluntary contracts for service.

[FirstAscent]

That's because the current social contract is a) involuntary, and b) imposes a positive obligation on you.

In AnCap, the only "social contract" like that is to not fuck with people. You can (and most would) accept a voluntary positive obligation to enter arbitration for any disputes, either by signing something like this, or by signing a contract with a defense agency that includes something like this:

Any controversy or claim arising out of or relating to this contract, or the breach of this contract, shall be settled by binding internet arbitration by Myrkul (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=4602) in accordance with his arbitration agreement. The arbitrator's decision shall be final.

And that's the difference between organized crime and AnCap: We respect another's right not to be fucked with, whereas they do not.

AnCap is GangLand. Make no mistake about it. By the way, I don't believe you have completed my first movie recommendation to you. It was Woman in the Dunes (relating, of course, to the discussion in which it was recommend). Since we're now on the subject of gangs, my next movie recommendation for you is Pale Flower.

[myrkul]

That's because the current social contract is a) involuntary, and b) imposes a positive obligation on you.

In AnCap, the only "social contract" like that is to not fuck with people. You can (and most would) accept a voluntary positive obligation to enter arbitration for any disputes, either by signing something like this, or by signing a contract with a defense agency that includes something like this:

Any controversy or claim arising out of or relating to this contract, or the breach of this contract, shall be settled by binding internet arbitration by Myrkul (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=4602) in accordance with his arbitration agreement. The arbitrator's decision shall be final.

And that's the difference between organized crime and AnCap: We respect another's right not to be fucked with, whereas they do not.

AnCap is GangLand. Make no mistake about it. By the way, I don't believe you have completed my first movie recommendation to you. It was Woman in the Dunes (relating, of course, to the discussion in which it was recommend). Since we're now on the subject of gangs, my next movie recommendation for you is Pale Flower.

If I haven't read the propaganda books you recommend me, what makes you think I'm going to watch the shitty foreign movies you suggest? Now if you have something to add to the discussion, please do. If not, go jack off again to the picture of the spotted owl.

[JoelKatz]

I've recently been thinking that what AnCap proposers describe sound very similar to organized crime, in several ways.

AnCap utterly rejects the legitimacy of using force to take what someone else has earned from them. It's the very opposite of organized crime. You're finding superficial trivial similarities, exaggerating them, and ignoring the substance.

[silverfuture]

You're finding superficial trivial similarities, exaggerating them, and ignoring the substance.

...which is great for trolling, but not much else.

[FirstAscent]

If I haven't read the propaganda books you recommend me, what makes you think I'm going to watch the shitty foreign movies you suggest? Now if you have something to add to the discussion, please do. If not, go jack off again to the picture of the spotted owl.

AnCap is gang land. There is nothing within the proposed society which precludes it, and everything to motivate it.

Now let's look at what you define as shitty:

Women in the Dunes - RTC:100%; RTP: 92%; RE: Rated one of the great movies of all time.
Pale Flower - RTC:86%; RTP: 85%; RE: Rated one of the great movies of all time.

RTC = Rotten Tomatoes critics. RTP = Rotten Tomatoes public opinion. RE = Roger Ebert.

Seems that perhaps your uneducated opinion needs some tuning.

[myrkul]

If I haven't read the propaganda books you recommend me, what makes you think I'm going to watch the shitty foreign movies you suggest? Now if you have something to add to the discussion, please do. If not, go jack off again to the picture of the spotted owl.

AnCap is gang land. There is nothing within the proposed society which precludes it, and everything to motivate it.

Now let's look at what you define as shitty:

Women in the Dunes - RTC:100%; RTP: 92%; RE: Rated one of the great movies of all time.
Pale Flower - RTC:86%; RTP: 85%; RE: Rated one of the great movies of all time.

RTC = Rotten Tomatoes critics. RTP = Rotten Tomatoes public opinion. RE = Roger Ebert.

Seems that perhaps your uneducated opinion needs some tuning.

Because other people like the movie does not mean I will. Because you recommended them, in fact, I am inclined against them. If You can honestly say you believe this:

AnCap is gang land. There is nothing within the proposed society which precludes it, and everything to motivate it.

Your judgment is automatically suspect.

[FirstAscent]

Because you recommended them, in fact, I am inclined against them.

Funny! Look for continued discussion via PM.

[myrkul]

Because you recommended them, in fact, I am inclined against them.

Funny! Look for continued discussion via PM.

Yeah, no.

Thanks for that... I actually got a chance to click "delete," and make your idiotic words go away. Feel free to give me that opportunity again.

[justusranvier]

When people who aren't deliberately trolling describe volentarism as being violent it's typically because they recognize the inherent brutality of modern society but have to project it onto "anarchy" for psychological reasons.

What we have now is lawlessness and the rule of organized crime. The violence that people fear so much when you talk about a stateless society is the violence they live in fear of every day but can't/won't acknowledge.

[JoelKatz]

AnCap is gang land. There is nothing within the proposed society which precludes it, and everything to motivate it.

Well, nothing except that the entire system is built on the notion that society exists primarily to effectively prohibit taking other people's property by force.

[FirstAscent]

AnCap is gang land. There is nothing within the proposed society which precludes it, and everything to motivate it.

Well, nothing except that the entire system is built on the notion that society exists primarily to effectively prohibit taking other people's property by force.

How AnCap attempts to prohibit taking other people's property is through organized gangs. Likewise, organized gangs are used to take other people's property. It's essential to combat the wealthy. Think of them as unions without too many scruples.

[JoelKatz]

How AnCap attempts to prohibit taking other people's property is through organized gangs.

If by "organized gangs" you just mean groups of people that work together, well then yes.

Likewise, organized gangs are used to take other people's property.

Yes. The difference is that AnCap recognizes that those actions are illegitimate whereas other systems enshrine them with societal acceptance.

It's essential to combat the wealthy. Think of them as unions without too many scruples.

You could describe every government that way. Whether they will or won't have scruples isn't something you get to choose. The idea is to design a system so that there's as little incentive as possible to centralize and misuse power.

[FirstAscent]

How AnCap attempts to prohibit taking other people's property is through organized gangs.

If by "organized gangs" you just mean groups of people that work together, well then yes.

Likewise, organized gangs are used to take other people's property.

Yes. The difference is that AnCap recognizes that those actions are illegitimate whereas other systems enshrine them with societal acceptance.

It's essential to combat the wealthy. Think of them as unions without too many scruples.

You could describe every government that way. Whether they will or won't have scruples isn't something you get to choose. The idea is to design a system so that there's as little incentive as possible to centralize and misuse power.

It's been discussed many times over how AnCap puts power in the hands of the wealthy. Unions (and gangs) are likely to evolve to counter-balance that.

[JoelKatz]

It's been discussed many times over how AnCap puts power in the hands of the wealthy. Unions (and gangs) are likely to evolve to counter-balance that.

Right, but that's the *opposite* of the argument being made in this thread. The argument in this thread is that AnCap *directly* puts power in the hands of gangs. The idea that it puts power in someone else's hands and then gangs will counterbalance that is the exact opposite.

However, both arguments fail. The argument in this thread fails for the very reason you have rejected it and switched to the opposite argument. But the opposite argument also fails. Consider someone proposing a system that seems like it gives power to the right people. Would you reply: "Yes, your system does put the power in the hands of smart, honest people who will use it only for good and never for evil. Gangs will likely evolve to counter-balance that."

[FirstAscent]

It's been discussed many times over how AnCap puts power in the hands of the wealthy. Unions (and gangs) are likely to evolve to counter-balance that.

Right, but that's the *opposite* of the argument being made in this thread. The argument in this thread is that AnCap *directly* puts power in the hands of gangs. The idea that it puts power in someone else's hands and then gangs will counterbalance that is the exact opposite.

However, both arguments fail. The argument in this thread fails for the very reason you have rejected it and switched to the opposite argument. But the opposite argument also fails. Consider someone proposing a system that seems like it gives power to the right people. Would you reply: "Yes, your system does put the power in the hands of smart, honest people who will use it only for good and never for evil. Gangs will likely evolve to counter-balance that."

You argue that both arguments fail. I rather think they both succeed. AnCap is a petri dish for gangs.

[myrkul]

You argue that both arguments fail. I rather think they both succeed. AnCap is a petri dish for gangs.

This is why I don't trust you to pick dinner.