In an AnCap society, would it be possible to eat your children?

[myrkul]

Please identify to me significant statistical results demonstrating that a "look the other way" policy does in fact provide a solution to rescue the child from further abuse and I might be inclined to give some credence to your attempts to smear the notion that laws have no effect.

Please quote where any of us said that looking the other way is the solution.

It is in fact implicit in AnCap, unless I am mistaken. Otherwise, explain the solution.

You are mistaken.

Could you hire a defense company to intervene in a conflict you are not part of, to protect for example children, the uninsured, the mentally handicapped or demented elderly?

In a word, yes. It may end up in a rather hairy arbitration, but in general, you can defend a third party, and by extension, can delegate that ability.

[FirstAscent]

Please identify to me significant statistical results demonstrating that a "look the other way" policy does in fact provide a solution to rescue the child from further abuse and I might be inclined to give some credence to your attempts to smear the notion that laws have no effect.

Please quote where any of us said that looking the other way is the solution.

It is in fact implicit in AnCap, unless I am mistaken. Otherwise, explain the solution.

You are mistaken.

Could you hire a defense company to intervene in a conflict you are not part of, to protect for example children, the uninsured, the mentally handicapped or demented elderly?

In a word, yes. It may end up in a rather hairy arbitration, but in general, you can defend a third party, and by extension, can delegate that ability.

So you're saying that the party that discovers the abuse just happens to have to be the party willing to undertake the necessary fees required to hire the defense agency? That sucks.

[myrkul]

So you're saying that the party that discovers the abuse just happens to have to be the party willing to undertake the necessary fees required to hire the defense agency? That sucks.

You're just one big collectivist minefield, aren't ya?

He could always intervene himself.

[FirstAscent]

He could always intervene himself.

Explain. Provide an example. Demonstrate how 'could', and the opposite choice, 'could not' both result in getting the job done. 

[myrkul]

He could always intervene himself.

Explain. Provide an example. Demonstrate how 'could', and the opposite choice, 'could not' both result in getting the job done. 

Your question is unclear. I'd be glad to provide an example, but I'm not sure what you're looking for.

[Fjordbit]

The children should have thought of that risk before deciding not to get insurance  

Serious question: abortion. How would you deal with it?

Assuming that that a justice company comes to the "wrong" conclusion, and starts protecting innocent fetuses from violence / starts protecting the choice and own-body-ownership of innocent women, how would you deal with that?

Fetuses violate the NAP as trespass on the woman's body. It's ethical to remove them.

[tiberiandusk]

"Justice Company"

[FirstAscent]

He could always intervene himself.

Explain. Provide an example. Demonstrate how 'could', and the opposite choice, 'could not' both result in getting the job done. 

Your question is unclear. I'd be glad to provide an example, but I'm not sure what you're looking for.

Maybe I'm unclear on who 'He' is, with regard to the one who intervenes. If 'He' is the guy who discovers the parent doing the child abuse, then my question is how that results in saving the child. We must assume that 'He' could intervene, or not intervene. We would like both choices (intervening, and not intervening) to result in saving the child. In a society with laws and child services, 'He' merely needs to report the event, without burdening him with hiring a defense agency, which costs money, and can be a deterrent to getting the child to safety.

[myrkul]

Fetuses violate the NAP as trespass on the woman's body. It's ethical to remove them.

Well, that's an interesting interpretation.

Maybe I'm unclear on who 'He' is, with regard to the one who intervenes. If 'He' is the guy who discovers the parent doing the child abuse, then my question is how that results in saving the child. We must assume that 'He' could intervene, or not intervene. We would like both choices (intervening, and not intervening) to result in saving the child. In a society with laws and child services, 'He' merely needs to report the event, without burdening him with hiring a defense agency, which costs money, and can be a deterrent to getting the child to safety.

Ahh. So you would like for both "taking responsibility" and "not taking responsibility" to result in favorable outcomes. Sorry, the world doesn't work that way.

[FirstAscent]

Maybe I'm unclear on who 'He' is, with regard to the one who intervenes. If 'He' is the guy who discovers the parent doing the child abuse, then my question is how that results in saving the child. We must assume that 'He' could intervene, or not intervene. We would like both choices (intervening, and not intervening) to result in saving the child. In a society with laws and child services, 'He' merely needs to report the event, without burdening him with hiring a defense agency, which costs money, and can be a deterrent to getting the child to safety.

Ahh. So you would like for both "taking responsibility" and "not taking responsibility" to result in favorable outcomes. Sorry, the world doesn't work that way.

Actually, the world currently does work that way. You're the one who wants to put the cost of saving the child onto the person who discovers the abuse, rather than removing the responsibility from the discoverer and transferring it to the public as a whole.

[myrkul]

Maybe I'm unclear on who 'He' is, with regard to the one who intervenes. If 'He' is the guy who discovers the parent doing the child abuse, then my question is how that results in saving the child. We must assume that 'He' could intervene, or not intervene. We would like both choices (intervening, and not intervening) to result in saving the child. In a society with laws and child services, 'He' merely needs to report the event, without burdening him with hiring a defense agency, which costs money, and can be a deterrent to getting the child to safety.

Ahh. So you would like for both "taking responsibility" and "not taking responsibility" to result in favorable outcomes. Sorry, the world doesn't work that way.

Actually, the world currently does work that way. You're the one who wants to put the cost of saving the child onto the person who discovers the abuse, rather than removing the responsibility from the discoverer and transferring it to the public as a whole.

I'd hardly call the current state to be resulting in favorable outcomes. Abuse happens with stunning regularity, and goes unreported. False reports break up families, or minimally, clog an already overburdened monopoly system. The reason for this? People don't take responsibility.

[FirstAscent]

Maybe I'm unclear on who 'He' is, with regard to the one who intervenes. If 'He' is the guy who discovers the parent doing the child abuse, then my question is how that results in saving the child. We must assume that 'He' could intervene, or not intervene. We would like both choices (intervening, and not intervening) to result in saving the child. In a society with laws and child services, 'He' merely needs to report the event, without burdening him with hiring a defense agency, which costs money, and can be a deterrent to getting the child to safety.

Ahh. So you would like for both "taking responsibility" and "not taking responsibility" to result in favorable outcomes. Sorry, the world doesn't work that way.

Actually, the world currently does work that way. You're the one who wants to put the cost of saving the child onto the person who discovers the abuse, rather than removing the responsibility from the discoverer and transferring it to the public as a whole.

I'd hardly call the current state to be resulting in favorable outcomes. Abuse happens with stunning regularity, and goes unreported. False reports break up families, or minimally, clog an already overburdened monopoly system. The reason for this? People don't take responsibility.

Ah, so you're bringing the argument around full circle (as is your trademark). I already provided that response. It's here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=107177.msg1179821#msg1179821

Instead of going in a circle, try to move forward. Please demonstrate a solution that is more, not less.

[JoelKatz]

Fetuses violate the NAP as trespass on the woman's body. It's ethical to remove them.

Well, that's an interesting interpretation.

It's correct. Most people recognize the concepts here, but they have a blind spot when it comes to abortion for some reason. (Religious or cultural, I suspect.)

For example, we don't compel parents to donate a kidney even if it is needed to save their child's life. We allow parents to choose to value their bodily integrity higher than their children's lives if that is their wish. We recognize that no living thing has any "right" to violate the bodily integrity of another living thing against its wishes. It doesn't matter what rights the fetus has to life or to be left alone -- no such right takes priority over another's right to physical, bodily integrity.

[grondilu]

[myrkul]

Maybe I'm unclear on who 'He' is, with regard to the one who intervenes. If 'He' is the guy who discovers the parent doing the child abuse, then my question is how that results in saving the child. We must assume that 'He' could intervene, or not intervene. We would like both choices (intervening, and not intervening) to result in saving the child. In a society with laws and child services, 'He' merely needs to report the event, without burdening him with hiring a defense agency, which costs money, and can be a deterrent to getting the child to safety.

Ahh. So you would like for both "taking responsibility" and "not taking responsibility" to result in favorable outcomes. Sorry, the world doesn't work that way.

Actually, the world currently does work that way. You're the one who wants to put the cost of saving the child onto the person who discovers the abuse, rather than removing the responsibility from the discoverer and transferring it to the public as a whole.

I'd hardly call the current state to be resulting in favorable outcomes. Abuse happens with stunning regularity, and goes unreported. False reports break up families, or minimally, clog an already overburdened monopoly system. The reason for this? People don't take responsibility.

Ah, so you're bringing the article around full circle (as is your trademark). I already provided that response. It's here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=107177.msg1179821#msg1179821

Instead of going in a circle, try to move forward. Please demonstrate a solution that is more, not less.

Really? Let's bring that quote in, shall we?

So nothing should be done? No laws? Nothing? Just let parents chain their kids to the bed?

Yeah, that's not what I said. I said people can, and should, defend third parties, including children.

[FirstAscent]

Maybe I'm unclear on who 'He' is, with regard to the one who intervenes. If 'He' is the guy who discovers the parent doing the child abuse, then my question is how that results in saving the child. We must assume that 'He' could intervene, or not intervene. We would like both choices (intervening, and not intervening) to result in saving the child. In a society with laws and child services, 'He' merely needs to report the event, without burdening him with hiring a defense agency, which costs money, and can be a deterrent to getting the child to safety.

Ahh. So you would like for both "taking responsibility" and "not taking responsibility" to result in favorable outcomes. Sorry, the world doesn't work that way.

Actually, the world currently does work that way. You're the one who wants to put the cost of saving the child onto the person who discovers the abuse, rather than removing the responsibility from the discoverer and transferring it to the public as a whole.

I'd hardly call the current state to be resulting in favorable outcomes. Abuse happens with stunning regularity, and goes unreported. False reports break up families, or minimally, clog an already overburdened monopoly system. The reason for this? People don't take responsibility.

Ah, so you're bringing the article around full circle (as is your trademark). I already provided that response. It's here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=107177.msg1179821#msg1179821

Instead of going in a circle, try to move forward. Please demonstrate a solution that is more, not less.

Really? Let's bring that quote in, shall we?

So nothing should be done? No laws? Nothing? Just let parents chain their kids to the bed?

Yeah, that's not what I said. I said people can, and should, defend third parties, including children.

Of course they can, and should. But can doesn't necessarily mean 'does'. We've been through all this. I think you're tired and can't think effectively. I suggest you take a break.

[myrkul]

Of course they can, and should.

Thank you. But in today's society, they don't have to. That's the problem. That's the cause of abuse going unreported "someone else will do it," and the false reports.

[alexanderanon]

Myrkul I think you are subscribed to a pseudo-form of anarchocapitalism that is causing much of the confusion in this thread. There is no such thing as private defense agencies in proper anarchocapitalism (or at least none of the ones I've heard articulated consistently) which equate, essentially, to mercenary justice. This system still involves force, and is thus just as bad as the state.

Reputation economics and justice visa vi "social" insurance is the only kind of free market anarchism that does away with force altogether, and with systems like otc ratings, we see it emerging in the bitcoin community already. Stefan Molyneax (who I disavow any further association with) terms these "social" insurance agencies, "DRO's", or Dispute Resolution Organization. Disputes are resolved by widespread reputation systems that subject financial penalties on any and all contracts of those who initiate force, up until outright exile, for the most heinous crimes. Of course, even exile is a choice: criminals can choose to engage in voluntary hard labor or some other form of voluntary punishment in place of the exile, to regain the society's trust and be allowed to contract with others. Society is a choice and a privilege. Revocation of "society' is the only humane kind of punishment.

For more reading: http://lewrockwell.com/orig6/molyneux1.html

[myrkul]

Myrkul I think you are subscribed to a pseudo-form of anarchocapitalism that is causing much of the confusion in this thread. There is no such thing as private defense agencies in proper anarchocapitalism (or at least none of the ones I've heard articulated consistently) which equate, essentially, to mercenary justice. This system still involves force, and is thus just as bad as the state.

Reputation economics and justice visa vi "social" insurance is the only kind of free market anarchism that does away with force altogether, and with systems like otc ratings, we see it emerging in the bitcoin community already. Stefan Molyneax (who I disavow any further association with) terms these "social" insurance agencies, "DRO's", or Dispute Resolution Organization. Disputes are resolved by widespread reputation systems that subject financial penalties on any and all contracts of those who initiate force, up until outright exile, for the most heinous crimes. Of course, even exile is a choice: criminals can choose to engage in voluntary hard labor or some other form of voluntary punishment in place of the exile, to regain the society's trust and be allowed to contract with others. Society is a choice and a privilege. Revocation of "society' is the only humane kind of punishment.

For more reading: http://lewrockwell.com/orig6/molyneux1.html

Ideally, yes, disputes are resolved peacefully. It's not a utopia, though, So there are going to be violent assholes. You going to stop a mugging by yelling at them that they'll lose reputation? Are you going to exile the invading army? Security will still be a required service. A service provided on the market.

[Fjordbit]

I never could understand the religious argument. If God wanted it so that fetuses could live without their host, He would have designed the human reproduction cycle differently. For example, birds have fully contained eggs that do not require a specific host. Fish don't even have to attend to their eggs. But since God designed fetuses so they they could not live outside their host, He is obviously indifferent to their fate once evicted.