Freedom is ...

[CountSparkle]

There would be no "posts" in AnCap. People will be hired based on their skills, and services will be "voted" on by purchases. Don't like the person at some "post?" Pay someone else.

I bet that is "exactly" what they will be hired on.   No posts in Ancap, wow I feel safe.

Explain please.

[myrkul]

 The act of Capitalism which is part of AnCap is not economically peaceful

Ah hah! So we get to the root at last. How is mutual voluntary trade and private ownership not peaceful?

[Dalkore]

 The act of Capitalism which is part of AnCap is not economically peaceful

Ah hah! So we get to the root at last. How is mutual voluntary trade and private ownership not peaceful?

Well on face value it would not be known because we both have incomplete information in our mutually agreed upon trade.  My point is when you control resources and means to productions and likely influence on distribution, you can enact harm on people through your trading practices. 

An example is we are in a town, you were there first and claimed the only water access for the town.   I am a farmer or manufacturer and needed water for my production.  You "could" charge me a rate that would put me out of business or make me uncompetitive because you owned that resource or you had interests that would benefit from me not competing with you.    This actually happens all the time and we do have laws the counter these types of tactics.

I am just showing you that all violence does not need to be physical, thats all.

[myrkul]

An example is we are in a town, you were there first and claimed the only water access for the town.   I am a farmer or manufacturer and needed water for my production.  You "could" charge me a rate that would put me out of business or make me uncompetitive because you owned that resource or you had interests that would benefit from me not competing with you.   

I "could," but would I? If I were supplying water, and you need water, which would be more profitable for me, charge you rates so high that you cannot stay in business, or charge you a rate that will keep you coming back for more?

Do a little research into game theory, specifically the iterated prisoner's dilemma.

[Dalkore]

An example is we are in a town, you were there first and claimed the only water access for the town.   I am a farmer or manufacturer and needed water for my production.  You "could" charge me a rate that would put me out of business or make me uncompetitive because you owned that resource or you had interests that would benefit from me not competing with you.   

I "could," but would I? If I were supplying water, and you need water, which would be more profitable for me, charge you rates so high that you cannot stay in business, or charge you a rate that will keep you coming back for more?

Do a little research into game theory, specifically the iterated prisoner's dilemma.

It would depend on what your "interests" where at the time.   I just wanted to highlight there are other ways to be aggressive and cause others harm that does not require physical abuse. 

[myrkul]

An example is we are in a town, you were there first and claimed the only water access for the town.   I am a farmer or manufacturer and needed water for my production.  You "could" charge me a rate that would put me out of business or make me uncompetitive because you owned that resource or you had interests that would benefit from me not competing with you.   

I "could," but would I? If I were supplying water, and you need water, which would be more profitable for me, charge you rates so high that you cannot stay in business, or charge you a rate that will keep you coming back for more?

Do a little research into game theory, specifically the iterated prisoner's dilemma.

It would depend on what your "interests" where at the time.   I just wanted to highlight there are other ways to be aggressive and cause others harm that does not require physical abuse. 

See, that's the best thing about capitalists. You always know what their interests are: Profit, both short- and long-term. Running you out of business would not be helpful to my long-term profit potential, and the short term benefits would not be worth that loss.

[Dalkore]

An example is we are in a town, you were there first and claimed the only water access for the town.   I am a farmer or manufacturer and needed water for my production.  You "could" charge me a rate that would put me out of business or make me uncompetitive because you owned that resource or you had interests that would benefit from me not competing with you.   

I "could," but would I? If I were supplying water, and you need water, which would be more profitable for me, charge you rates so high that you cannot stay in business, or charge you a rate that will keep you coming back for more?

Do a little research into game theory, specifically the iterated prisoner's dilemma.

It would depend on what your "interests" where at the time.   I just wanted to highlight there are other ways to be aggressive and cause others harm that does not require physical abuse. 

See, that's the best thing about capitalists. You always know what their interests are: Profit, both short- and long-term. Running you out of business would not be helpful to my long-term profit potential, and the short term benefits would not be worth that loss.

You wish that is what Capitalist's only interests are.   WRONG.  There is this thing called Power & Influence which after you get a certain amount of money, becomes more important that digits in a bank account.   You need to read more history on this subject.  I personally have read histories on many industrialist and bankers whom we could consider proto-typical Capitalists and guess what I found across the board?

Once they got a large sum of money, their effort and activities became increasingly focused on power and influence.   

Do you know why this is?   IT IS BECAUSE THEY KNOW THEY WILL DIE AT SOME POINT.   This means that their legacy and influence in what they care about and that does not have a direct correlation to making profit.   They may have their own ideas on how society should be run or what culture will be taught, don't ever forget this.   It is crucial to everything around you.

[myrkul]

Once they got a large sum of money, their effort and activities became increasingly focused on power and influence.   

Elaborate. How do they wield this power and influence?

Also, how is it acquired?

[hazek]

Merely saying and acting like I own a natural well doesn't actually mean anything. Unless I produced it, mixed resources with labor I don't own it and anyone that claims otherwise is a fraud and should be fought against exactly the same as one would fight an evil sadistic bully/thug who'd want to impose his will upon you through the use of violence.

But if I put my sweat and blood into building a well on land I cultivated you better believe I can charge the maximum if I want. But why would I be so stupid? You can just build your own well next door and start competing with me, what a stupid thing would that be. I much rather keep the price at a reasonable level and turn my labor of building that well into a nice profit and have you be a farmer and have you turn your labor into a nice profit for you.


You see IN ALL PROBLEMS YOU THINK CAPITALISM CAUSES YOU ARE ACTUALLY DESCRIBING CORPORATISM and I'm very much opposed to that. If someone says they own a whole river just because they said so and they try to enforce that through force they should be defended against with any force necessary.



So you see, your theoretical examples do not match reality and to not match the AnCap framework.

[CountSparkle]

I think some elements of Capitalism are necessary in a country's infrastructure: the most competitive methods for transport & supply succeed while others fail. However, Capitalism is not that 'smart', and I don't see why some people worship it above and beyond what it is.

By saying "Capitalism is not that smart," you are actually saying "I am not that smart," since what capitalism does is determined by what YOU buy.

For example, Capitalism with insufficient government oversight may favour a road monopoly instead of diverse transport options. Why? Because roads create an endless market for consumable items called cars, which wear out pretty quickly. However, trains are considered part of the infrastructure, are built to last, and thus provide fewer opportunities for Capitalists to profit from. Are roads more efficient than trains? No, that's just propaganda.

If there is a monopoly, chances are it will charge more than trains, and people will pick trains, or even invest some other mode of travel. Monopolies never last, because when pushed hard enough, someone always comes up with alternatives.
Otherwise, if roads are cheaper and more efficient... what's the problem?

[Dalkore]

Once they got a large sum of money, their effort and activities became increasingly focused on power and influence.   

Elaborate. How do they wield this power and influence?

Many ways, I will give you a few examples then you will need to use your imagination.

Foundations
NGO
Lobbying
Endowments
PACs
Dedications
Scholarships
Funded Research
Advertising
Movies
Books
Screenplays
TV Shows
Radio Shows
Political Movements
Pornography
Celebrities
etc....

[myrkul]

Once they got a large sum of money, their effort and activities became increasingly focused on power and influence.   

Elaborate. How do they wield this power and influence?

Many ways, I will give you a few examples then you will need to use your imagination.

And how many of those can be done without government?
And what's so wrong about the ones that are left?

[hazek]

Once they got a large sum of money, their effort and activities became increasingly focused on power and influence.  

Elaborate. How do they wield this power and influence?

Many ways, I will give you a few examples then you will need to use your imagination.

Foundations
NGO

Nothing wrong if they don't use violence to enforce their will upon others except in self defense.

Lobbying

That's corporatism not anarcho-capitalism.

Endowments

Nothing wrong if it doesn't defraud anyone or using violence against anyone in order to provide it.

PACs

That's corporatism not anarcho-capitalism.

Dedications

Nothing wrong if it doesn't defraud anyone or using violence against anyone in order to provide it.

Scholarships

Nothing wrong if it doesn't defraud anyone or using violence against anyone in order to provide it.

Funded Research

Nothing wrong if it doesn't defraud anyone or using violence against anyone in order to provide it.

Advertising

Nothing wrong if it doesn't defraud anyone or using violence against anyone in order to provide it. If you don't like it don't watch it.

Movies

Same.

Books

Same.

Screenplays

Same.

TV Shows

Same.

Radio Shows

Same. BTW in all of these only in corporatism someone with opposing ideas is NOT allowed to freely produce and distribute their own advertising, movies, books, screenplays, tv shows, radio shows ect.

Political Movements

That's corporatism not anarcho-capitalism.

Pornography
Celebrities

Just  

etc....

ect WHAT?! You have yet to formulate a valid objection to AnCap.

[Dalkore]

Once they got a large sum of money, their effort and activities became increasingly focused on power and influence.  

Elaborate. How do they wield this power and influence?

Many ways, I will give you a few examples then you will need to use your imagination.

Foundations
NGO
Lobbying
Endowments
PACs
Dedications
Scholarships
Funded Research
Advertising
Movies
Books
Screenplays
TV Shows
Radio Shows
Political Movements
Pornography
Celebrities
etc....

Wait, you were complaining about capitalism and anarchy, right? Please omit all of the examples that require a government. And then explain why a capitalist wielding their power and influence through the remaining examples is harmful to society. I believe that was your argument, correct? Capitalists gain power and influence and then use it to harm society?

First off, I am not complaining.   I am having a discussion where I am in disagreement with some core points.  

Foundations
NGO
Endowments
Dedications
Scholarships
Funded Research
Advertising
Movies
Books
Screenplays
TV Shows
Radio Shows
Political Movements
Pornography
Celebrities
etc....

There is the list without Government.   Political Movements stays because even without Government, people will still lobby each other about the issues that affect them.

Why is it harmful?   Well having everyone operate only for consumption of goods and profit makes a pretty thin culture.  So the first example would be a business person that does only want to increase his wealth, he might fund projects that sway people to follow a trend in which he produces for and makes a profit.  Maybe he has a particular view of the world and believes that is the only correct manner, then he may use his wealth and influence to get "experts" to agree with him and indoctrinate the children into this way of thinking before they have had time to mentally develop and experience the world first hand to make up their own mind.

You can already see this on a daily basis, very similar messages.   Consume this, be like this, approve this, your not complete unless you drive this, idolize this, etc....  

You can wear the blinders if you want but I am fully aware of the influencers and messages at play.  You may want to focus you energy against government but just as you have said (not you but others), government is used as a tool.  A tool by whom?

 

[Dalkore]

@ Hazek - You are entitled to narrow a value-judgement to just if you don't force someone.  But there is quite a bit of harm that happens and people don't know it happens and the people that perpetrate that harm will still exist in AnCap as they do now, just in AnCap there will be even less oversight than there is today which is virtually nothing. 

Honestly I have nothing against AnCap as a concept, but we will need to fill it with humans at some point to make it real and that is the point where these other issues I am bringing up will come into play and really make like more of a living hell than today and its getting worse. 

Don't think I am pessimistic either, I am an optimist and quite a happy fellow.   I just know how people have been conditioned and that would not lend to the types of behaviors you would need to have AnCap succeed in the manner that people in general would see their daily life improve. 

[hazek]

Dalkore, AnCap is only compatible with intelligent, modern and educated people.

So unless you have such people, no one here is arguing you can have an AnCap society. And if you do have such people no one here will believe any of your problems would actually be problems.

[hazek]

@ Hazek - You are entitled to narrow a value-judgement to just if you don't force someone.  But there is quite a bit of harm that happens and people don't know it happens and the people that perpetrate that harm will still exist in AnCap as they do now, just in AnCap there will be even less oversight than there is today which is virtually nothing. 

Honestly I have nothing against AnCap as a concept, but we will need to fill it with humans at some point to make it real and that is the point where these other issues I am bringing up will come into play and really make like more of a living hell than today and its getting worse. 

Don't think I am pessimistic either, I am an optimist and quite a happy fellow.   I just know how people have been conditioned and that would not lend to the types of behaviors you would need to have AnCap succeed in the manner that people in general would see their daily life improve. 

Well then.. you're problem is not with AnCap but with unintelligent, undeveloped and uneducated people.

[Ragnar17]

@ Hazek - You are entitled to narrow a value-judgement to just if you don't force someone.  But there is quite a bit of harm that happens and people don't know it happens and the people that perpetrate that harm will still exist in AnCap as they do now, just in AnCap there will be even less oversight than there is today which is virtually nothing. 

Honestly I have nothing against AnCap as a concept, but we will need to fill it with humans at some point to make it real and that is the point where these other issues I am bringing up will come into play and really make like more of a living hell than today and its getting worse. 

Don't think I am pessimistic either, I am an optimist and quite a happy fellow.   I just know how people have been conditioned and that would not lend to the types of behaviors you would need to have AnCap succeed in the manner that people in general would see their daily life improve. 

Well then.. you're problem is not with AnCap but with unintelligent, undeveloped and uneducated people.

If ancap is only compatible with intelligent people then we should stop talking about it because it will always be an ideal and could never really exist. But ancap is compatible with the unintelligent, they would just be worse off. Maybe that's why the unintelligent argue against ancap...

[Dalkore]

Dalkore, AnCap is only compatible with intelligent, modern and educated people.

So unless you have such people, no one here is arguing you can have an AnCap society. And if you do have such people no one here will believe any of your problems would actually be problems.

Ok, from how you informed me of the workings I agree.


So how do we get people that are not to this level, to this level?   I think about this at least once a day and have some ideas, but nothing stands out.   When you say educated, what areas do we need to improve the current education?   What subjects do they need more education of?

[hazek]

@ Hazek - You are entitled to narrow a value-judgement to just if you don't force someone.  But there is quite a bit of harm that happens and people don't know it happens and the people that perpetrate that harm will still exist in AnCap as they do now, just in AnCap there will be even less oversight than there is today which is virtually nothing. 

Honestly I have nothing against AnCap as a concept, but we will need to fill it with humans at some point to make it real and that is the point where these other issues I am bringing up will come into play and really make like more of a living hell than today and its getting worse. 

Don't think I am pessimistic either, I am an optimist and quite a happy fellow.   I just know how people have been conditioned and that would not lend to the types of behaviors you would need to have AnCap succeed in the manner that people in general would see their daily life improve. 

Well then.. you're problem is not with AnCap but with unintelligent, undeveloped and uneducated people.

If ancap is only compatible with intelligent people then we should stop talking about it because it will always be an ideal and could never really exist. But ancap is compatible with the unintelligent, they would just be worse off. Maybe that's why the unintelligent argue against ancap...

Well yes that's what I mean.. I was talking about an AnCap society not being possible with unintelligent people, the framework of course is but such a framework could never lead to an actual AnCap society because if people are unintelligent they'll resort back to violence to enforce their stupidity sooner rather than later and the society would dissolve into what we have today, tyranny of the majority.