AnCap is inherently unstable, would immediately fail, and could never last....

[Dalkore]

"It is not voluntary to not murder, plunder, rape, excessive pollute and conspiracy for my demise, period. "

"It is mandatory to refrain from murdering, plundering, raping, polluting excessively, and conspiring to cause my death."

Basically, the NAP.

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

So you did understand what I said, quite playing games and state your case or go home.

[myrkul]

"It is not voluntary to not murder, plunder, rape, excessive pollute and conspiracy for my demise, period. "

"It is mandatory to refrain from murdering, plundering, raping, polluting excessively, and conspiring to cause my death."

Basically, the NAP.

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

So you did understand what I said, quite playing games and state your case or go home.

Oh, you're an idiot. My case is stated in the OP. If you didn't watch the video, watch it, or fuck off. I don't have time to debate with morons. I was responding to the helpful rewording of your gibberish.

If you have a case, feel free to state it.

[Rudd-O]

We do not live in a world of absolutes.

Is that an absolute?

(This question was designed to highlight a self-detonating statement, which proves itself false by way of self-contradiction.)

[myrkul]

But Anarchy is by definition the absence of hierarchy, not the absence of authority.

Incorrect. Anarchy is by definition no rulers, not no leaders. If you don't know the difference, I don't think I can help you.

[fergalish]

But it worked for 1000 years in Ireland.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=ZZi45Mf6jYY

And yes, England kicked their ass. Still, 1000 years of freedom beats 230 years of gradual loss of freedom, and if it were to play out today, I don't think the conquest would work out quite the same.

Medieval Ireland was not an AnCap society. It was hierarchically structured. Peasants paid obligatory tithes (taxes) but were protected by their lord or king, and other posts have already noted that slavery was present. Everybody in the society had a rank:

Early Irish society is hierarchical and inegalitarian. These characteristics are reflected clearly in the laws. So, an offence against a person of high rank entails a greater penalty than the same offence against a person of lower rank. Similarly the oath of a person of high rank automatically outweighs that of a person of lower rank. Native Irish law never subscribed to the Roman principle of all citizens being equal before the law.

Source:


The video contains some truths mixed with misleading simplifications. The English weren't the first to conquer, but they were the last. Previous conquistadors were subsumed into the existing society - the phrase "more Irish than the Irish themselves" refers to this phenomenon. This "AnCap" society was not able to defend itself.

As the video says, smaller petty kingdoms were slowly amalgamated into larger, each with an "over-king". However the entire island was ruled by a High King (who also commanded taxes) - though much of the historical record is lost to legend by now. There was a highly complex legal system to which obedience was not optional.

For example, the video suggests people could easily change from one tuath to another. Not so; members of a tuath were unquestionably subjects of their lord or king.

The law texts refer to various types of outsider, and the distinctions between them are not always clear. There are many references to the ambue, the literal meaning of which seems to be 'non-person'. Hepdat 16 states that it is not a legal offence to avoid payment of a body-fine for an ambue. This would mean that an ambue can be killed or injured with impunity, so it is clear that this type of outsider has not come from a tuath with which there is a treaty. ... [The ambue] is thus excluded from normal legal agreements and remedies.

To summarize, there are some truths in what the video states, but the real truth is much more complicated - I'm certain it wasn't the AnCap paradise you're thinking of. Though, on reflection, my own interpretation of AnCap and, to a large extent, libertarianism, is that people with more money will be able to afford better "justice" than those without. So, actually, maybe you're right. It's not what you're thinking I'm sure, but I'll bet AnCap would end up fairly similar to medieval Ireland, only with guns and telecomms instead of swords and fast horses. The video admits that there were wars between petty kingdoms, calling them "minor things". I have a problem with this as an example of how an AnCap society can go wrong - when two "defence" contractors and their respective "mediators" cannot come to a satisfactory solution, the only valid response in war (given the absence of a society-wide independent judiciary - though see below). Notably ever since Ireland became a unified independent republic there have been no more wars within or across its borders, with the sole exception of terrorism.

One thing that interests me most is that the video states the king as also subjected to an independent judiciary - this is, to my knowledge, true (with the caveat that a king's word held more weight than a peasant's). I haven't finished the book I've quoted (it's a tough read), but I'd like to learn more about the judiciary's independence. One of the big failings of AnCap/libertarianism, in my opinion, is that it cannot guarantee an independent judiciary.

[Dalkore]

We do not live in a world of absolutes.

Is that an absolute?

(This question was designed to highlight a self-detonating statement, which proves itself false by way of self-contradiction.)

Yes, when you talking about absolutes, there is a possibility of making a self-detonating statement.  Sadly I needed to write that to make the statement.   

[Dalkore]

"It is not voluntary to not murder, plunder, rape, excessive pollute and conspiracy for my demise, period. "

"It is mandatory to refrain from murdering, plundering, raping, polluting excessively, and conspiring to cause my death."

Basically, the NAP.

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

So you did understand what I said, quite playing games and state your case or go home.

Oh, you're an idiot. My case is stated in the OP. If you didn't watch the video, watch it, or fuck off. I don't have time to debate with morons. I was responding to the helpful rewording of your gibberish.

If you have a case, feel free to state it.

Your "video", is just some guy talking.  He says things like "the leading authority on ancient Ireland" but gives no citation (4:40 I finally get my first citation of a Professor but it was only about the Jurists).   Also, what is funny is that the society they are talking about is a two-class gentry system.   He doesn't mentioned the "non-landed" people and where their place was.  HAHAHAHA.   I bet they had a great place and many rights and equal standing in the courts. 

I love how he emphasizes that is was a completely private and "THERE WAS NO OTHER JUDGES".   I bet is was completely fair and just and your standing in the community didn't affect the outcomes.   Also, if you thought you had a case against me, you would bring your sureties (paid thugs basically) and could "seize" me and proclaim your suit, also I am considered a debtor to you until proven credit-worthy.

I could go on.  He makes two minutes of value statements against a centralized government at the end.   Also, there was only one citation in the whole video.

[ElectricMucus]

But Anarchy is by definition the absence of hierarchy, not the absence of authority.

Incorrect. Anarchy is by definition no rulers, not no leaders. If you don't know the difference, I don't think I can help you.

Same thing, since leaders just require authority. Hierarchy for example is when there is class which grants in the case of the Irish of higher class unjustified authority.

[cunicula]

Here in Singapore, the mainland Chinese bus drivers who refused to work have been mostly been repatriated and a handful have been imprisoned, but Singaporeans remain dissatisfied. Their labor contract obliged them to work for a fixed term or face fines, imprisonment, and caning. Yet the government is not enforcing the full rigors of the contractual penalties. Most of the mainlanders have gotten off with a mere fine and deportation. Only the ringleaders have been imprisoned. Not a single errant bus driver has been caned.

Today, Singaporeans are protesting the laxity of contract enforcement outside of the Chinese Embassy. They would like to see more Mainlanders caned. No joke.

In a good AnCap society, contractual clauses would not be allowed to lapse. People who signed a voluntary contract to work or face mutilation would either work or be mutilated.

What is our society coming to The voluntary contract says X or Y, and then the State goes with option Z. How will Singaporeans hold their heads up high when meeting fellow libertarians abroad?

[FirstAscent]

"It is not voluntary to not murder, plunder, rape, excessive pollute and conspiracy for my demise, period. "

"It is mandatory to refrain from murdering, plundering, raping, polluting excessively, and conspiring to cause my death."

Basically, the NAP.

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

So you did understand what I said, quite playing games and state your case or go home.

Oh, you're an idiot. My case is stated in the OP. If you didn't watch the video, watch it, or fuck off. I don't have time to debate with morons. I was responding to the helpful rewording of your gibberish.

If you have a case, feel free to state it.

Your "video", is just some guy talking.  He says things like "the leading authority on ancient Ireland" but gives no citation (4:40 I finally get my first citation of a Professor but it was only about the Jurists).   Also, what is funny is that the society they are talking about is a two-class gentry system.   He doesn't mentioned the "non-landed" people and where their place was.  HAHAHAHA.   I bet they had a great place and many rights and equal standing in the courts.  

I love how he emphasizes that is was a completely private and "THERE WAS NO OTHER JUDGES".   I bet is was completely fair and just and your standing in the community didn't affect the outcomes.   Also, if you thought you had a case against me, you would bring your sureties (paid thugs basically) and could "seize" me and proclaim your suit, also I am considered a debtor to you until proven credit-worthy.

I could go on.  He makes two minutes of value statements against a centralized government at the end.   Also, there was only one citation in the whole video.

I haven't even watched the video, nor will I bother, and myrkul will claim that my comment thus has no value, but still, let me say this:

The video, as you describe it, as exactly the kind of junk by which the anarchists and libertarians build their case. This rubbish, and rubbish like it, is the foundation upon which their 'critical thinking' is built upon.

[finkleshnorts]

Myrkul, you know I've never had any beef with you. But I'm curious, why are you so snarky? Why do you throw unnecessary words into a discussion like "numbnuts"? What are we, 7? It seems like you enjoy the act of arguing more than having a rational discussion. I admit, I've posted an occassional troll comment on the internet, including this forum. But your presentation of this thread doesn't suggest "comment here and let me troll you," but that's what's going on here. Now I remember why I avoid this subforum.

[myrkul]

Myrkul, you know I've never had any beef with you. But I'm curious, why are you so snarky? Why do you throw unnecessary words into a discussion like "numbnuts"? What are we, 7? It seems like you enjoy the act of arguing more than having a rational discussion. I admit, I've posted an occassional troll comment on the internet, including this forum. But your presentation of this thread doesn't suggest "comment here and let me troll you," but that's what's going on here. Now I remember why I avoid this subforum.

When the response to "Could you restate that so it makes sense" is "Read it out loud" it's clear the respondent is not being intellectually honest. They get exactly the respect they deserve, ie being called numbnuts.

But Anarchy is by definition the absence of hierarchy, not the absence of authority.

Incorrect. Anarchy is by definition no rulers, not no leaders. If you don't know the difference, I don't think I can help you.

Same thing, since leaders just require authority. Hierarchy for example is when there is class which grants in the case of the Irish of higher class unjustified authority.

They are not the same thing. Leaders are followed voluntarily, Rulers are followed or else. Anarchy means only voluntary hierarchy, not no hierarchy.

[CoinDiver]

People who signed a voluntary contract to work or face mutilation would either work or be mutilated.

Vs. people who signed no contract, pay mandatory taxes or face death for resisting. Seems legit.

[cunicula]

People who signed a voluntary contract to work or face mutilation would either work or be mutilated.

Vs. people who signed no contract, pay mandatory taxes or face death for resisting. Seems legit.

That's the spirit! We have some of the lowest taxes in the world. You should come visit. Who knows maybe you can go to one of the contract enforcement rallies?

[finkleshnorts]

Myrkul, you know I've never had any beef with you. But I'm curious, why are you so snarky? Why do you throw unnecessary words into a discussion like "numbnuts"? What are we, 7? It seems like you enjoy the act of arguing more than having a rational discussion. I admit, I've posted an occassional troll comment on the internet, including this forum. But your presentation of this thread doesn't suggest "comment here and let me troll you," but that's what's going on here. Now I remember why I avoid this subforum.

When the response to "Could you restate that so it makes sense" is "Read it out loud" it's clear the respondent is not being intellectually honest. They get exactly the respect they deserve, ie being called numbnuts.

The meaning of his sentence was clear, despite the mistakes.

Your reply also seemed dishonest to me. We both know how to read from context.

Again, this is childish:

"They get exactly the respect they deserve, ie being called numbnuts."

This is exactly what bratty children say. Are you aware of that?

[ElectricMucus]

They are not the same thing. Leaders are followed voluntarily, Rulers are followed or else. Anarchy means only voluntary hierarchy, not no hierarchy.

There is no voluntary hierarchy. In anarchy authority is subjected to voluntary.
Leaders do not get their authority from hierarchy while rulers do. In the case of class the higher rules over the lower and there is no justification for it.
If the only way to gain authority were justified means that would mean anarchy and the Irish society was probably pretty close. Still if there were any other ways (like birthright or wealth) of obtaining membership to a certain class except for justified means it wasn't anarchistic.

[FirstAscent]

People who signed a voluntary contract to work or face mutilation would either work or be mutilated.

Vs. people who signed no contract, pay mandatory taxes or face death for resisting. Seems legit.

Incorrect. Do not use the infrastructure in the country demanding taxes and you don't need to pay taxes. Of course it's impossible to not use the infrastructure if you are actually in the country. So simply go somewhere else. Your argument does not have the teeth you think it does.

[myrkul]

Myrkul, you know I've never had any beef with you. But I'm curious, why are you so snarky? Why do you throw unnecessary words into a discussion like "numbnuts"? What are we, 7? It seems like you enjoy the act of arguing more than having a rational discussion. I admit, I've posted an occassional troll comment on the internet, including this forum. But your presentation of this thread doesn't suggest "comment here and let me troll you," but that's what's going on here. Now I remember why I avoid this subforum.

When the response to "Could you restate that so it makes sense" is "Read it out loud" it's clear the respondent is not being intellectually honest. They get exactly the respect they deserve, ie being called numbnuts.

The meaning of his sentence was clear, despite the mistakes.

It was not. The rewording made more sense, and removed ambiguities. It also revealed that the argument was useless, since it agreed with the AnCap position, ie the NAP. Since I never suggested throwing the NAP out the window, Mr "read it out loud a few times" was merely blowing hot smoke, and I suspect he knew it. He still hasnt made an argument not full of conjecture and other BS. He's one asshole comment from being ignored.

They are not the same thing. Leaders are followed voluntarily, Rulers are followed or else. Anarchy means only voluntary hierarchy, not no hierarchy.

There is no voluntary hierarchy.

Bullshit. Have you never signed an employment contract? That's voluntary hierarchy. Perhaps you need to talk to Augusto, I'm sure he will be able to give you the definitions of the words you're misusing.

[FirstAscent]

AnCap is inherently unstable, would immediately fail, and could never last....

Agreed.

[myrkul]

AnCap is inherently unstable, would immediately fail, and could never last....

Agreed.

Then why come it lasted 1000 years in Ireland?