AnCap~Organized crime?

[JoelKatz]

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

That's actually a better argument and not one that can be readily dismissed. Anyone who promises that AnCap will produce total non-violence is, of course, kidding themselves. The idea is to build a system where it is as difficult as possible to use violence or coercion to obtain power without enshrining the use of violence or coercion in the system in the first place.

[myrkul]

Anyone who promises that AnCap will produce total non-violence is, of course, kidding themselves. The idea is to build a system where it is as difficult as possible to use violence or coercion to obtain power without enshrining the use of violence or coercion in the system in the first place.

What kind of system makes it difficult as possible to use violence or coercion to obtain power without enshrining the use of violence or coercion in the system in the first place?

You really gotta ask?

[myrkul]

You really gotta ask?

We could both try to answer that question. You are more well read, and firmly believe ancap is possible. You would have the better answer for that question than I would.

I probably would, but I don't think it's necessarily education that determines the better answer. Some very well-read and well educated people have been utterly and completely wrong.

[JoelKatz]

Anyone who promises that AnCap will produce total non-violence is, of course, kidding themselves. The idea is to build a system where it is as difficult as possible to use violence or coercion to obtain power without enshrining the use of violence or coercion in the system in the first place.

What kind of system makes it difficult as possible to use violence or coercion to obtain power without enshrining the use of violence or coercion in the system in the first place?

That's the crux of AnCap. Whether you think it will achieve that goal is, of course, another matter.

[myrkul]

Quantity vs quality of education... etc... You know more about ancap than I do. Can someone just answer my question? I have two responses and no answer.

lol... Joel gave you a pretty straight answer.

AnCap. Remember that the core concept of AnCap is that you own yourself, and thus I have no right to aggress against you.

[myrkul]

Quantity vs quality of education... etc... You know more about ancap than I do. Can someone just answer my question? I have two responses and no answer.

lol... Joel gave you a pretty straight answer.

AnCap. Remember that the core concept of AnCap is that you own yourself, and thus I have no right to aggress against you.

His answer seemed like a no answer to me. An "I don't know". Whether I think it will achieve that goal is, of course, another matter. Maybe you guys can't think of a good answer right now. I can wait. I am honestly curious as to what answer you will give me.

Aggress me? At first I thought you meant address. So I looked it up. "To initiate an attack, war, quarrel, or fight." I usually would say I want to discuss. I don't want to discuss. I just want food for thought.

Well, since you admit you're not as well-read on AnCap and related issues, feel like remedying that?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle

That is the founding principle (along with self ownership) of an AnCap society.

[JoelKatz]

His answer seemed like a no answer to me. An "I don't know". Whether I think it will achieve that goal is, of course, another matter. Maybe you guys can't think of a good answer right now. I can wait. I am honestly curious as to what answer you will give me.

Well, you don't really have a question. You're now basically down to "convince me that AnCap will actually work". That's, of course, a pretty tall order. If you agree on the principles though, then the next question is what system best furthers those principles, and you should be able to at least agree that current governments are many times larger than they should be. If not, you still don't agree with the goals of AnCap and there's not much point in arguing over whether it will achieve them.

I'm not fully convinced AnCap will actually work. That's why I advocate moving in that direction and seeing what happens. As we see what works and what doesn't work, we can see how far we get. If we stop at a minarchy, I'll still be totally thrilled.

[im3w1l]

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.

Yes, I definitely get this. However, enforcement of the NAP, requires the use of violence. The entities that wield the power to use that violence are "private courts", "private police forces", "private prisons".
If they have good people at the top, they may respect the principles of NAP, as understood by the AnCap proponents on this board. If they are not, they must somehow be replaced. If the private justice organization in question has no way of changing leaders (e.g. popular vote), this requires either a revolution, or an attack from another organization.

If all of these organizations are, and push for each other to be, democratic, that could maybe be more stable. I assume however that you think this would be an unacceptable violation of the fundamental right to own any kind of company.

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.

I describe it as violent, because all systems are necessarily violent. You can't just wish away rule breakers (whatever your rules might be), they need to be dealt with, violently. So a natural question is who gets to wield this power. A benevolent gang leader in the AnCap case.

[im3w1l]

His answer seemed like a no answer to me. An "I don't know". Whether I think it will achieve that goal is, of course, another matter. Maybe you guys can't think of a good answer right now. I can wait. I am honestly curious as to what answer you will give me.

Well, you don't really have a question. You're now basically down to "convince me that AnCap will actually work". That's, of course, a pretty tall order. If you agree on the principles though, then the next question is what system best furthers those principles, and you should be able to at least agree that current governments are many times larger than they should be. If not, you still don't agree with the goals of AnCap and there's not much point in arguing over whether it will achieve them.

I'm not fully convinced AnCap will actually work. That's why I advocate moving in that direction and seeing what happens. As we see what works and what doesn't work, we can see how far we get. If we stop at a minarchy, I'll still be totally thrilled.

Benevolent dictatorships can work a long time. Since an unworkable system can work for a long time, there is a very real risk that you take it to far without realizing, until it is too late.

[myrkul]

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.

Yes, I definitely get this. However, enforcement of the NAP, requires the use of violence. The entities that wield the power to use that violence are "private courts", "private police forces", "private prisons".
If they have good people at the top, they may respect the principles of NAP, as understood by the AnCap proponents on this board. If they are not, they must somehow be replaced. If the private justice organization in question has no way of changing leaders (e.g. popular vote), this requires either a revolution, or an attack from another organization.

If all of these organizations are, and push for each other to be, democratic, that could maybe be more stable. I assume however that you think this would be an unacceptable violation of the fundamental right to own any kind of company.

Well, yes, enforcement of the NAP requires violence. Considering that the violence is only directed at those individuals (or organizations) that start violence, that's typically not seen as a problem.

And no, a revolution is not necessary. If your insurance company starts being a dick, you don't overthrow them, you just switch companies.

[im3w1l]

Well, yes, enforcement of the NAP requires violence. Considering that the violence is only directed at those individuals (or organizations) that start violence, that's typically not seen as a problem.

And no, a revolution is not necessary. If your insurance company starts being a dick, you don't overthrow them, you just switch companies.

I mean things like harassing innocent people.

[myrkul]

Well, yes, enforcement of the NAP requires violence. Considering that the violence is only directed at those individuals (or organizations) that start violence, that's typically not seen as a problem.

And no, a revolution is not necessary. If your insurance company starts being a dick, you don't overthrow them, you just switch companies.

I mean things like harassing innocent people.

Well, that's aggression, innit?

[im3w1l]

Well, that's aggression, innit?

Which means you need war/revolution to take them down.

[myrkul]

Well, that's aggression, innit?

Which means you need war/revolution to take them down.

No, you need defense agencies to do their job. I think you are assuming a monopoly, just a private one instead of a state-run one.

[im3w1l]

No, you need defense agencies to do their job.

This was what I meant by war.

[myrkul]

No, you need defense agencies to do their job.

This was what I meant by war.

Then you have a poor definition of war.

From Wikipedia:

War is an organized, armed, and, often, a prolonged conflict that is carried on between states, nations, or other parties typified by extreme aggression, social disruption, and usually high mortality.

What I describe is simply law enforcement. Not war.

[im3w1l]

Organized

Armed

Prolonged: could be, or not
Extreme aggression: Possible, even probable in an oligopoly scenario.
Social disruption

High mortality

No matter what you call it, it could turn really ugly.

[myrkul]

No matter what you call it, it could turn really ugly.

Oh, for certain.

And expensive. And the companies know that. So rather than using force, arbitration is used, to recompense the victims of aggression, as opposed to simply punishing the aggressors.

[interlagos]

The structure of society will eventually reflect the collective consciousness of the people participating in it.
As more and more people shift towards non-aggression, aggressors will have a hard time surviving in that environment at least economically if not physically. Use of force as self-defense is not considered an aggression.

Again one cannot impose one particular system on people over another - it's always a reflection.
One can think that the current system is imposed on us against our will, but as long as majority of people allows it to happen that's what we'll have. You cannot force people to follow NAP if they like to express themselves violently or tolerate aggression to others.

On a positive note, what we're seeing now is a shift in consciousness towards non-violence.
The wars fought by governments are largely disapproved by population, so the old system is running on a borrowed time and is destined to collapse giving way to the new one.
What that will be - we will see in time.

[myrkul]

Well, since you admit you're not as well-read on AnCap and related issues, feel like remedying that?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle

That is the founding principle (along with self ownership) of an AnCap society.

... Hmm ... Non ... aggresssssion ... principle ... Self ownership...
Never heard of them. I also have not  lerked around in the bitcointalk forums. While I wasn't there I never read any threads. I have not read anything outside of bitcoin talk, to see what those people were talking about.  I also have not read anything outside of my browser either. Especially not topics involving similar topics to this thread.
Still not an answer.

OK, you apparently have the functional IQ of Quartz. I'll spell it out in no uncertain terms.

What kind of system makes it difficult as possible to use violence or coercion to obtain power without enshrining the use of violence or coercion in the system in the first place?

AnCap.