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

[cunicula]

Are we at the point of name calling again ?

I may have not come up with the best analogy to state my point ok. And I am probably least of a statist.
Whats my problem is that there is a slippery slope between a "voluntary" agreement under which somebody might have a slight disadvantage and straight out coercion.

Oh, come on, at least make me work a little to get the right one...

Your logical fallacy is...

People agree to do something voluntarily because it's in their best interest, or at least, what they see as their best interest at the time.

You are kind of tossing game theory out the window in this assessment. How do you justify this? Is noncooperative game theory just a bunch of hokum in your book?
You only accept economics in so far as it supports your vision of the free market.

[myrkul]

Are we at the point of name calling again ?

I may have not come up with the best analogy to state my point ok. And I am probably least of a statist.
Whats my problem is that there is a slippery slope between a "voluntary" agreement under which somebody might have a slight disadvantage and straight out coercion.

Oh, come on, at least make me work a little to get the right one...

Your logical fallacy is...

People agree to do something voluntarily because it's in their best interest, or at least, what they see as their best interest at the time.

You are kind of tossing game theory out the window in this assessment. How do you justify this? Is noncooperative game theory just a bunch of hokum in your book?
You only accept economics in so far as it supports your vision of the free market.

Game theory supports the Non-aggression principle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace_war_game

The peace war game is a variation of the iterated prisoner's dilemma in which the decisions (Cooperate, Defect) are replaced by (Peace, War). Strategies remain the same with reciprocal altruism, "Tit for Tat", or "provokable nice guy" as the best deterministic one.

And at least Austrian economics aren't based on a fake math system from a sci-fi book.

[ElectricMucus]

If you view my point as a logical fallacy I have nothing to say to you about this subject. (I think it's not and you can't change my mind)

Have fun debating with yourself or clones of yourself  

[myrkul]

If you view my point as a logical fallacy I have nothing to say to you about this subject. (I think it's not and you can't change my mind)

Then support it with facts, instead of fallacies.

[Dalkore]

Are we at the point of name calling again ?

I may have not come up with the best analogy to state my point ok. And I am probably least of a statist.
Whats my problem is that there is a slippery slope between a "voluntary" agreement under which somebody might have a slight disadvantage and straight out coercion.

Oh, come on, at least make me work a little to get the right one...

Your logical fallacy is...

People agree to do something voluntarily because it's in their best interest, or at least, what they see as their best interest at the time.

But if they "see something as their best interest", couldn't this be a form of "soft" coercion?  Lets say I know are consequences to not play ball by implied punishment or social ostracization?  Then something is not truly voluntary because there is a false choice in a sense.  Your word voluntary feels very loaded in the manner you use it.  

In your AnCap world, if we make an agreement and you loan me money.  I renege on our agreement and you know I have the money that is owed and I ignore your peaceful non-violent attempts to retrieve it, what are your options at that point?  Also, what are my consequences overall.   I would like to understand that from your own words more.  

Enforceability is a major issue I see as a problem outside my worry that your stated policy of N.A.P. (non-violence) is just that, a policy that at anytime you could break and then we would have not unbiased 3rd party to uphold my rights if I was the weaker person in this situation.  A private [court] would have its bias because of the monetary relationship,  it corrupts them slightly if not all the way from my point of view.  Not saying corruption doesn't exist in other systems along with our current one in the U.S. (where I live).

[myrkul]

Are we at the point of name calling again ?

I may have not come up with the best analogy to state my point ok. And I am probably least of a statist.
Whats my problem is that there is a slippery slope between a "voluntary" agreement under which somebody might have a slight disadvantage and straight out coercion.

Oh, come on, at least make me work a little to get the right one...

Your logical fallacy is...

People agree to do something voluntarily because it's in their best interest, or at least, what they see as their best interest at the time.

But if they "see something as their best interest", couldn't this be a form of "soft" coercion?  Lets say I know are consequences to not play ball by implied punishment or social ostracization?  Then something is not truly voluntary because there is a false choice in a sense.  Your word voluntary feels very loaded in the manner you use it.   

Can you think of one logical hypothetical situation where this is the case? I'm having difficulty doing so. Note: it's not coercion to make you do something you already freely agreed to do, only to make you do something you would not otherwise.

In your AnCap world, if we make an agreement and you loan me money.  I renege on our agreement and you know I have the money that is owed and I ignore your peaceful non-violent attempts to retrieve it, what are your options at that point?  Also, what are my consequences overall.   I would like to understand that from your own words more. 

Well, there are two paths. One, the "soft" way to do it, is to inform everyone available that you have reneged on our agreement, and further, that you have refused all attempts to redress that wrong. This is the same method usually used to enforce the implied contract between you and a restauranteur. If he gives you poor service, or poor food, you tell your friends, and he loses business.

Of course, with you, this may have even greater consequences... I know I wouldn't sign a contract with someone who hasn't put in a general submission to arbitrate with one or another agency without making sure that contract has an arbitration clause. Likewise your defense agency, and any other people who contract with you. By breaching not only the contract for the loan, but the arbitration clause (I assume you've done so, since you stated you ignored my non-violent attempts for redress), you've shown yourself to be untrustworthy.

Once you've shown yourself to be untrustworthy, none of those other entities will deal with you anymore. Economists call this the discipline of constant dealings. Practically, what this means is that you will lose those contracts, and likely be unable to get new ones. For some of those contracts, you'll probably do fine without (Cable TV, Internet, etc). Others, however, are slightly more vitally necessary. Such as your defense contract. Oh, you'll still get the "free ride" of "national" defense, from the aggregate actions of all the agencies, just like everyone else does, but other than that, you're on your own. House got robbed? Tough luck. Car stolen? Boy, that sucks. I guess you'll be biking to work. Being mugged? Hope you know Tae Kwon Do. And so on.

Of course, that's the "soft" method. The other way, which probably won't be used unless it's a very large amount, in which case it would likely be specified in the original contract, since the soft way is much less expensive, is to simply extract the money by force. You're liable to resist, of course, which is where the expense comes in. Overcoming that resistance is likely to incur some losses. Death benefits to the agents of my defense company would cut large chunks out of that money. But, half of something is better than all of nothing, so I'll take what I can get.

Enforceability is a major issue I see as a problem outside my worry that your stated policy of N.A.P. (non-violence) is just that, a policy that at anytime you could break and then we would have not unbiased 3rd party to uphold my rights if I was the weaker person in this situation. 

So, let's say you attempt to bring a case against the US federal government, or much more likely, the federal, county, city or state government brings a case against you. Would you say you are the weaker party in that situation? Would you further say that the judge is an "unbiased third party?" Whose interest does he have at heart?

A private [court] would have its bias because of the monetary relationship,  it corrupts them slightly if not all the way from my point of view.

On the contrary, the monetary relationship is what keeps it unbiased. Judge.me, for instance, at the time of filing, requires half the fee from each party. During arbitration, the arbiter is then able to shift part or all of the fee as part of the judgment. Typically, this means that the loser pays the entire cost of the proceedings as part of the judgment against them. He truly is an unbiased third party, since he gets paid whichever way the case goes, and his employer doesn't get mad if he continually judges one way or another.

[augustocroppo]

AugustoCrappo, Mr. Dictionary Definition himself.

Contracts are nothing more than formalized agreements. if you think agreements are unnecessary for civilized society, you are dead wrong.

Myrkul, you should stop to subvert my name and surname to support your delusional ad hominem arguments. Please, stop to refer to my name and surname to advocate your twisted ethical values. I do not want to be associated to an user like you. You are not respecting my privacy (my name was given to me by my father and is not yours). I will not friendly tolerate this situation if you keep subverting my name and surname every time you feel frustrated with the ongoing debate.

[cunicula]

Are we at the point of name calling again ?

I may have not come up with the best analogy to state my point ok. And I am probably least of a statist.
Whats my problem is that there is a slippery slope between a "voluntary" agreement under which somebody might have a slight disadvantage and straight out coercion.

Oh, come on, at least make me work a little to get the right one...

Your logical fallacy is...

People agree to do something voluntarily because it's in their best interest, or at least, what they see as their best interest at the time.

But if they "see something as their best interest", couldn't this be a form of "soft" coercion?  Lets say I know are consequences to not play ball by implied punishment or social ostracization?  Then something is not truly voluntary because there is a false choice in a sense.  Your word voluntary feels very loaded in the manner you use it.  

This is how reputation-based contracts worked among Jewish (Maghrebi) traders. A trades with B, C, ... ,Z. Via letters A, B, C, ..., Z keep a public record of their transactions and whether they went well. If Z cheats A, then A reports this to everyone. A, B, C, ..., Y now refuse to do business with Z. If Y does business with Z, then A, B, C, ..., X refuse to do business with both Y and Z. Thus the penalty for violating the group's ostracism order is getting ostracized yourself.

This is the most efficient way of organizing reputation-based contracting. (you get much more leverage if you enforce ostracism, then if you just refuse to do business with them individually)

I don't know state-based legal systems sound much less oppressive to me.

[Anon136]

Do you think slavery is ethical ?

...No. If the pre-conquest Irish practiced slavery, that's irrelevant to the discussion at hand. They had private law, privately enforced, and voluntarily selected their military leadership (and could switch at any time - effectively de Molinari's competing governments), which did not have territorial monopoly. That's AnCap.

Slavery was practiced in post-revolution America, after all, and that doesn't stop people like MoonShadow from holding it up as the ideal of liberty. (It was pretty damn good, despite slavery and mysogynistic practices. Nobody's perfect.)

It's totally relevant to the discussion at hand. You keep trying to promote your crazy AnCap ideas, but then you selectively ignore the bits you don't like. You must acknowledge the whole package, or be called out on your dishonesty.

It was the same with "Singapore Inc." in another thread -- denial all the way.

I dont think the op was claiming that this was an example of an ideal an-cap society. I believe he was trying to point out that there have been fairly successful anarchic societies in history and this lends some legitimacy to the claim that anarchy can be *relatively* orderly and peaceful (a requirement for any anarchic society, an-cap included).

[Dalkore]

Do you think slavery is ethical ?

...No. If the pre-conquest Irish practiced slavery, that's irrelevant to the discussion at hand. They had private law, privately enforced, and voluntarily selected their military leadership (and could switch at any time - effectively de Molinari's competing governments), which did not have territorial monopoly. That's AnCap.

Slavery was practiced in post-revolution America, after all, and that doesn't stop people like MoonShadow from holding it up as the ideal of liberty. (It was pretty damn good, despite slavery and mysogynistic practices. Nobody's perfect.)

It's totally relevant to the discussion at hand. You keep trying to promote your crazy AnCap ideas, but then you selectively ignore the bits you don't like. You must acknowledge the whole package, or be called out on your dishonesty.

It was the same with "Singapore Inc." in another thread -- denial all the way.

I dont think the op was claiming that this was an example of an ideal an-cap society. I believe he was trying to point out that there have been fairly successful anarchic societies in history and this lends some legitimacy to the claim that anarchy can be *relatively* orderly and peaceful (a requirement for any anarchic society, an-cap included).

Problem is the example he gives it more like many small feudal lords that we independent.   They had tribal governments that did communicate with their neighboring tribes.  When you get more that a few dozen people together in the same area, you stat to see foundations of a hierarchy form and as they grow or expand, a form of government follows to keep the peace.  It is a very simplistic concept that on paper looks like it should work but fail to calculate the most important factor, human nature.

Because we are all created unequally, some will tend to dominate by right or force and a combination of both.  Maybe this old tribe found balance so that is didn't consolidate but that bridge has been crossed for now and it will take much more dialogue and compromise before we revisit it, if ever. 

[Anon136]

Do you think slavery is ethical ?

...No. If the pre-conquest Irish practiced slavery, that's irrelevant to the discussion at hand. They had private law, privately enforced, and voluntarily selected their military leadership (and could switch at any time - effectively de Molinari's competing governments), which did not have territorial monopoly. That's AnCap.

Slavery was practiced in post-revolution America, after all, and that doesn't stop people like MoonShadow from holding it up as the ideal of liberty. (It was pretty damn good, despite slavery and mysogynistic practices. Nobody's perfect.)

It's totally relevant to the discussion at hand. You keep trying to promote your crazy AnCap ideas, but then you selectively ignore the bits you don't like. You must acknowledge the whole package, or be called out on your dishonesty.

It was the same with "Singapore Inc." in another thread -- denial all the way.

I dont think the op was claiming that this was an example of an ideal an-cap society. I believe he was trying to point out that there have been fairly successful anarchic societies in history and this lends some legitimacy to the claim that anarchy can be *relatively* orderly and peaceful (a requirement for any anarchic society, an-cap included).

Problem is the example he gives it more like many small feudal lords that we independent.   They had tribal governments that did communicate with their neighboring tribes.  When you get more that a few dozen people together in the same area, you stat to see foundations of a hierarchy form and as they grow or expand, a form of government follows to keep the peace.  It is a very simplistic concept that on paper looks like it should work but fail to calculate the most important factor, human nature.

Because we are all created unequally, some will tend to dominate by right or force and a combination of both.  Maybe this old tribe found balance so that is didn't consolidate but that bridge has been crossed for now and it will take much more dialogue and compromise before we revisit it, if ever. 

ah well im not that familiar with the irish anarchy, i do know a little bit about saga period iceland though. That was a true anarchy and it lasted for quite a bit longer than it appears the united states is going to last.

[myrkul]

Problem is the example he gives it more like many small feudal lords that we independent.   They had tribal governments that did communicate with their neighboring tribes.  When you get more that a few dozen people together in the same area, you stat to see foundations of a hierarchy form and as they grow or expand, a form of government follows to keep the peace. 

Competing (not necessarily, and in an NAP-respecting society, not, violently) governments (security providers) without regional monopoly and freely joined and left, law-givers/judges separated from those governments and selected based on reputation... Yeah, that's AnCap. AnCap is simply Law, Justice, and Security provided by market competition, rather than a monopoly. Nothing says it must be non-hierarchical, only that the hierarchy be voluntary.

ah well im not that familiar with the irish anarchy, i do know a little bit about saga period iceland though. That was a true anarchy and it lasted for quite a bit longer than it appears the united states is going to last.

Yeah, medieval Iceland is another fine example of voluntary hierarchy and market law. Like in Ireland, the goðar did not have territorial monopolies.

[firefop]

Problem is the example he gives it more like many small feudal lords that we independent.   They had tribal governments that did communicate with their neighboring tribes.  When you get more that a few dozen people together in the same area, you stat to see foundations of a hierarchy form and as they grow or expand, a form of government follows to keep the peace. 

Competing (not necessarily, and in an NAP-respecting society, not, violently) governments (security providers) without regional monopoly and freely joined and left, law-givers/judges separated from those governments and selected based on reputation... Yeah, that's AnCap. AnCap is simply Law, Justice, and Security provided by market competition, rather than a monopoly. Nothing says it must be non-hierarchical, only that the hierarchy be voluntary.

ah well im not that familiar with the irish anarchy, i do know a little bit about saga period iceland though. That was a true anarchy and it lasted for quite a bit longer than it appears the united states is going to last.

Yeah, medieval Iceland is another fine example of voluntary hierarchy and market law. Like in Ireland, the goðar did not have territorial monopolies.

I feel the entire idea is inherently flawed. It amounts to saying "if nobody had guns there wouldn't be any gun violence" ... if people were non-violent it would work. The problem is defending it from anyone who's willing to shed a little blood.

I imagine that if such a society existed, it would be over-run by mafia-esq companies, security providers or whatever you want to call them.

[myrkul]

I imagine that if such a society existed, it would be over-run by mafia-esq companies, security providers or whatever you want to call them.

That's kinda the point. Hasn't been a crusade since Martin Luther nailed his demands to the door, and since the two groups have splintered even more, they hardly even fight amongst themselves anymore.

[Rudd-O]

People often listen to ancap ideas and then reply with the standard condescending "Yeah it's all good brah but what you fail to take into account is human nature".  Usually, the point of the person blabbing about "human nature" is that "human nature" somehow always conspires to sabotage all peaceful cooperation (the ancap ideal).

I'd like to address that nonsense, thanks.  Here we go.

You'll note how people use the term "human nature" as a conversation stopper.  Rarely if ever does the person condescending others with "human nature arguments" actually bother explaining exactly how "human nature" (whatever that is) actually means that ancap ideas are possible.  He just says "human nature" and shuts up, as if the words "human nature" were some sort of magical incantation that stops all possible thought.

Also note how, rarely, does this person contemplate that he himself, somehow, and magically, does not conform to this alleged "human nature" of alleged nefariousness.  After all, he himself doesn't go around raping, robbing and defrauding people.  And, excuse my healthy skepticism -- I find it hard to believe that he doesn't behave in evil ways just because there's a government wth an outstanding threat of punishment against him.  Refraining from doing evil solely because of fear of punishment is sociopathy defined; I'm not particularly inclined to believe anything a sociopath says about "human nature", because what the fuck could he possibly know about that?

So, to the people who claim that they have "disproven ancap because human nature": what do you know about "human nature" that entitles you to dismiss ideas condescendingly?  What's this "human nature" you speak of?  That humans are extremely adaptable?  That on most circumstances humans seek to cooperate with each other?  That under a certain set of circumstances -- when humans posing as "state" control and order humans around -- humans kill each other?  Yeah, so what?

If your point is that "human nature" is "evil" -- which by the way is the sack of Christian bullshit theory of "original sin", repackaged to sound politically correct -- then you are evil (or you're not a human), so why should anyone listen to you giving advice about evil?  Not to mention that proposing to centralize the power to murder, kidnap and ruin human beings into a few hands is the absolute worst idea, because it will obviously empower evil people, according to your own beliefs about human nature.

You wanna see human nature?  With your own eyes?  Here you go:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z-eU5xZW7cU

That is how human nature looks like, on healthy individuals who haven't had a chance to be victims of abuse or brainwashing.  Yet.

I'm sure those of you who are evil and sociopathic will find ways to defame and discredit this hopeful reality; you can't bear the thought that other people are actually better at humanity than you are.  But it's not you that I'm addressing -- after all, you're warped to the point of being incorrigible -- it's your lies. Your lies perish here.  Too bad.

[firefop]

I'm sure those of you who are evil and sociopathic will find ways to defame and discredit this hopeful reality; you can't bear the thought that other people are actually better at humanity than you are.  But it's not you that I'm addressing -- after all, you're warped to the point of being incorrigible -- it's your lies. Your lies perish here.  Too bad.

I'm saying, you're welcome to try it, it might even work for a generation. But I promise you, once you've socialized violence out of generation two --- it will promptly go down in flames.

All animals practice selective breeding. Being physically able to dominate your environment is a survival trait. You won't be able to socialize it out of every person on the planet. Politically you don't have any way to even attempt that under the tenants of what you're proposing. It would require coercion, but if you don't, someone somewhere is going to come destroy your ancap society... just as soon as your general population is docile enough and rich enough.

[TheButterZone]

The point is to socialize violence out of the unlimited authority class (government, which uses various types of "immunity" to do absolutely ANYTHING evil and never suffer immediate or even lasting punishment). Once everyone has the ability to defend themselves equally without infringement, the self-preservation instinct kicks in all around, and you have true peace instead of a half-assed police state where tyrants and criminals are the ones committing all the aggression with every weapon known to man, and the innocents are left with just hands and feet.

[myrkul]

I'm sure those of you who are evil and sociopathic will find ways to defame and discredit this hopeful reality; you can't bear the thought that other people are actually better at humanity than you are.  But it's not you that I'm addressing -- after all, you're warped to the point of being incorrigible -- it's your lies. Your lies perish here.  Too bad.

I'm saying, you're welcome to try it, it might even work for a generation. But I promise you, once you've socialized violence out of generation two --- it will promptly go down in flames.

All animals practice selective breeding. Being physically able to dominate your environment is a survival trait. You won't be able to socialize it out of every person on the planet. Politically you don't have any way to even attempt that under the tenants of what you're proposing. It would require coercion, but if you don't, someone somewhere is going to come destroy your ancap society... just as soon as your general population is docile enough and rich enough.

Once again, I need to remind someone that non-aggression is not non-violence. There will always be that segment (recent numbers that I've seen indicate that it's probably 1 in 25) that want to enforce their will on others, keeping the rest of us on our toes.

[Rudd-O]

For the record, I can't see what firefop says because he's on my ignore list due to his antisocial and irrational behavior on the boards.

[Anon136]

For the record, I can't see what firefop says because he's on my ignore list due to his antisocial and irrational behavior on the boards.

a waste of good fodder i says