Myrkul Sells AnCap...

[Richy_T]

All this arguing is pointless.  Aggression is a biological problem, once that problem is solved there will be no need for many services that the government claims it must exist to provide.

Aggression has very little power if a person cannot be executed, feel pain, or be imprisoned.

Just you wait for the robot rebellion.

[stochastic]

All this arguing is pointless.  Aggression is a biological problem, once that problem is solved there will be no need for many services that the government claims it must exist to provide.

Aggression has very little power if a person cannot be executed, feel pain, or be imprisoned.

Just you wait for the robot rebellion.

We will be the robots.

[Dalkore]

All this arguing is pointless.  Aggression is a biological problem, once that problem is solved there will be no need for many services that the government claims it must exist to provide.

Aggression has very little power if a person cannot be executed, feel pain, or be imprisoned.

Then with your own statement, we will never be without Aggression.


A person murders in cold blood - He will be executed

Feeling pain is part of life and a survival function

People will be imprisoned when they are a threat to society and if their crime was heinous enough, possible executed. 

[stochastic]

All this arguing is pointless.  Aggression is a biological problem, once that problem is solved there will be no need for many services that the government claims it must exist to provide.

Aggression has very little power if a person cannot be executed, feel pain, or be imprisoned.

Then with your own statement, we will never be without Aggression.


A person murders in cold blood - He will be executed

Feeling pain is part of life and a survival function

People will be imprisoned when they are a threat to society and if their crime was heinous enough, possible executed. 

Once the biological problem of dying is solved then there will be no more aggression.  As people cannot die, cannot feel pain, and cannot be imprisoned due to technological advances, then the government and other people cannot use aggression to gain a benefit for themselves.  Aggression is just a tool for the aggressor to get something that they want.  When that tool has no more power then it won't work.

I know this is hard to imagine at some time in the future (if we don't cause our own extinction) immortality is a real possibility.  We have been a species for 100,000 years yet within the last 100 years we have tremendously increased our technological advances.  Imagine a time when people can backup their own mind and have an non-aging body and you can see that the use of aggression as a tool to coerce others to do things against their will is over.

[Rassah]

Comparing today's corporations, hiding behind the regulations they paid for, to companies that would operate in an AnCap environment is like comparing a wolf to a dog. Sure, they're both canines, but one is a dangerous beast, and the other is tamed.

Oh so you say that AnCap corporations would be tamed.   Where is your proof of that?  Corporations would have the same motivations as they do now except they would have less rules and regulations because the people who would be the most capitalistic in the AnCap society would not "voluntary" agree to more rules and regulations.   I see this aspect of society regressing if we had AnCap than a Nation-State.

Step one on your trail, you have to realize that rules and regulations exit to protect corporations, not to restrict them. Many regulations are structured in such a way that only the corporations can afford to follow them, essentially keeping all smaller competitors off the market. Also, business people know business very well, while politicians who pass laws do not. So any laws and regulations that get passed are often written by the corporations themselves. The most egregious offense in regards to this abuse is corporations helping pass regulations that either make what what do actually legal, even if it is unethical, or they pass regulations with suggested fines, which when levied are actually way too small to punish. Heck, look what happened when BP spilled oil in the Gulf. All their safety regulations were followed, because they wrote them, and the regulators were too incompetent to follow up on and enforce them, and the "huge" fine they had to pay, which they got in exchange for not being allowed to be sued by anyone else, was tiny and way less than the cleanup cost.
In an AnCap state, the first thing that may go is the corporation's "limited liability" status. If the person running it fucks up, HE has to answer for that, not the shareholders out of who's stock the fines get paid out of. The second thing will be that there wont be a government with its laws making what the corporation is doing "legal." If it's not screwing people, it will do well. If it is, it wont have a  veil of "legality" to protect it. Here's another thing: what do you think will happen now if a corporation screwed people so much that the people decided to go beyond simple boycotts, and staged a violent protest, trying to kick the corporation out of their area? In AnCap nation, either the corporation will have to leave, or it will have to spend enormous amounts on private security 24 hours a day. Now, the corporation has such a security force, in the form of the police force and US military, providing that security protection for them for free, paid for by taxing those very same people who are protesting!

In short, misbehaving in an AnCap setting will likely be much more expensive than playing by the rules and staying ethical,  which is very much not the case now. What I am wondering is, I keep saying and explaining this point over and over and over.... So why doesn't it sink in, and these same stupid hypotheticals keep coming up again?

[Rassah]

All this arguing is pointless.  Aggression is a biological problem, once that problem is solved there will be no need for many services that the government claims it must exist to provide.

Aggression has very little power if a person cannot be executed, feel pain, or be imprisoned.

Just you wait for the robot rebellion.

We will be the robots.

Oh dear fucking god, we will have actual real trolling in actual real life 

[myrkul]

What I am wondering is, I keep saying and explaining this point over and over and over.... So why doesn't it sink in, and these same stupid hypotheticals keep coming up again?

Because logic is something the statist mind is carefully stripped of.

"Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups." - George Carlin

[stochastic]

Comparing today's corporations, hiding behind the regulations they paid for, to companies that would operate in an AnCap environment is like comparing a wolf to a dog. Sure, they're both canines, but one is a dangerous beast, and the other is tamed.

Oh so you say that AnCap corporations would be tamed.   Where is your proof of that?  Corporations would have the same motivations as they do now except they would have less rules and regulations because the people who would be the most capitalistic in the AnCap society would not "voluntary" agree to more rules and regulations.   I see this aspect of society regressing if we had AnCap than a Nation-State.

...you have to realize that rules and regulations exit to protect corporations, not to restrict them...

It is hard for some people to grasp that corporations as entities never existed before the state made the laws to create them.

It is just like patent laws and antitrust laws.  The state is the entity that grants patent and copyright monopolies, then claims it has to regulate the monopolies that it helped create.  This is a common scenario.  A organization is created to solve some problem but its own creation creates another problem.  Instead of going extinct to solve this new problem, it instead tries to find a solution to the problem of its own existence.

[Rassah]

What I am wondering is, I keep saying and explaining this point over and over and over.... So why doesn't it sink in, and these same stupid hypotheticals keep coming up again?

Because logic is something the statist mind is carefully stripped of.

I was a statist too, so that can't be it...

[myrkul]

What I am wondering is, I keep saying and explaining this point over and over and over.... So why doesn't it sink in, and these same stupid hypotheticals keep coming up again?

Because logic is something the statist mind is carefully stripped of.

I was a statist too, so that can't be it...

Sorry, starting to get burned out on all the malignancy. Maybe it's just willful ignorance.

[myrkul]

You can live in your fantasy all you want.   I live in the real world where the reality is that humans are aggressive just like all top-tier animals in nature. 

Is that so?

Who have you killed today? On your drive to work, did you just plow out into the freeway, slamming other cars aside, or did you wait for a spot to open up before you moved over? When another car tried to get on the freeway, did you ram them over the guiderail, or did you let them on?

Actually I took the ferry to work that is supported by my sales tax and rider card revenue.  It is affordable, dependable, clean and I trust in the people running it.

Ah, the ferry. Excellent opportunity to let your natural aggression out. How many people did you push into the water? How many died to ensure you were first onto the boat? You did fight it out, right? You didn't wait in line like some pussy, did you? Humans are naturally aggressive, after all.

Tell you what. Let's start fresh. Watch this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=muHg86Mys7I
and then tell me if you disagree with anything in there.

[hazek]

It isn't a fallacy (and most certainly isn't 'begging the question') -

Of course people have no better means to protect themselves from a large group (security force) than having their own large group to defend.

I never conceded that your assumption that a person would only be able to defend themselves vs a larger force by hiring a security firm. Basing a question on that being accepted as true therefor makes it a fallacy of begging the question.

The fact is we don't know how an individual would acquire enough firepower to defend themselves. Would he own missiles? How about flying robots? Maybe a sentry machine gun? Maybe DNA based chemical weapons? Would he ask his friends and family living nearby for help? Would he form a neighborhood watch of sorts with his neighbors and call them?

You assume it's a security firm, while the truth is WE DON'T KNOW how it would happen because ultimately only a market regulated strictly by consumption i.e. a free market can figure that out.



It is a fallacy because you assume you are correct that the form of defense vs a larger force will be a security firm and then you imagine a problem this creates and you ask us to solve it. Well, I don't agree this problem would exist in the first place because I don't agree a security firm would be hired in the first place.

[augustocroppo]

Now, the corporation has such a security force, in the form of the police force and US military, providing that security protection for then for free, paid for by taxing those very same people who are protesting!

Completely misleading and false. Corporations also pay taxes, therefore a corporation is also entitled to protection as is the individual.

In short, misbehaving in an AnCap setting will likely be much more expensive than playing by the rules and staying ethical,  which is very much not the case now. What I am wondering is, I keep saying and explaining this point over and over and over.... So why doesn't it sink in, and these same stupid hypotheticals keep coming up again?

All you have is assumptions without any scientific evidence to prove the hypothesis. In other words, what you have is a fantasy world which will never exist outside the delusional imagination of some users in this forum.

[Rassah]

Now, the corporation has such a security force, in the form of the police force and US military, providing that security protection for then for free, paid for by taxing those very same people who are protesting!

Completely misleading and false. Corporations also pay taxes, therefore a corporation is also entitled to protection as is the individual.

OK, a little misleading. Yes, they pay taxes, though not a lot, and the people it is abusing do still pay (in part) of the security force that is keeping them down. And if it's a government entity that is being abusive, then it's directly people paying to keep themselves at bay. At least with AnCap you could hope that those people would stop buying/paying for services provided by that security firm.

In short, misbehaving in an AnCap setting will likely be much more expensive than playing by the rules and staying ethical,  which is very much not the case now. What I am wondering is, I keep saying and explaining this point over and over and over.... So why doesn't it sink in, and these same stupid hypotheticals keep coming up again?

All you have is assumptions without any scientific evidence to prove the hypothesis. In other words, what you have is a fantasy world which will never exist outside the delusional imagination of some users in this forum.

Actually, no. This wasn't somethingI just pulled out of my ass. I'll admit, "trading peacefully is way more profitable than using force" isn't even my original idea. It's supported by most of last century's history. See Japan, and more recently China, and America's relationship with both as a blatant example, and there are many more out there.

[Rassah]

Yes, of course. Your behaviour is never aggressive because you cherry-pick definitions of aggression that paint you in an angelic light.

My definition of aggression also includes things like "continuation of violence". This appears to be at odds with your definition where only the beginning counts as aggressive. Similarly, greed and narcissism can be aggressive when combined. If one makes a Utilitarian calculation, an activity spurred by greed and narcissism could easily cause nett harm to society. That could be aggressive. However, in your book greed is always a virtue, and I'm not sure if you know what narcissism is.

No aggression is very simply "don't hurt me, or take my stuff without permission." Nothing more. There's no "cherry-picking."
What do you mean by "continuation of violence?" Are you saying that if someone violently robbed you, you should just let them go and let them keep the stuff they took, because doing otherwise would be a "continuation of violence?"
Can you give an example of your activity based on greed and narcissism that causes harm to society? There are two ways someone who is greedy can satisfy their greed: take what they want by force, or exchange their wealth and labour for it. Our premise is that the former is aggression, and will be checked by aggression in kind, and the later only works if the greedy person has something of value to exchange and contribute to society. So I want to know how else might a greedy person be greedy and cause harm?

[Dalkore]

Comparing today's corporations, hiding behind the regulations they paid for, to companies that would operate in an AnCap environment is like comparing a wolf to a dog. Sure, they're both canines, but one is a dangerous beast, and the other is tamed.

Oh so you say that AnCap corporations would be tamed.   Where is your proof of that?  Corporations would have the same motivations as they do now except they would have less rules and regulations because the people who would be the most capitalistic in the AnCap society would not "voluntary" agree to more rules and regulations.   I see this aspect of society regressing if we had AnCap than a Nation-State.

Step one on your trail, you have to realize that rules and regulations exit to protect corporations, not to restrict them. Many regulations are structured in such a way that only the corporations can afford to follow them, essentially keeping all smaller competitors off the market. Also, business people know business very well, while politicians who pass laws do not. So any laws and regulations that get passed are often written by the corporations themselves. The most egregious offense in regards to this abuse is corporations helping pass regulations that either make what what do actually legal, even if it is unethical, or they pass regulations with suggested fines, which when levied are actually way too small to punish. Heck, look what happened when BP spilled oil in the Gulf. All their safety regulations were followed, because they wrote them, and the regulators were too incompetent to follow up on and enforce them, and the "huge" fine they had to pay, which they got in exchange for not being allowed to be sued by anyone else, was tiny and way less than the cleanup cost.
In an AnCap state, the first thing that may go is the corporation's "limited liability" status. If the person running it fucks up, HE has to answer for that, not the shareholders out of who's stock the fines get paid out of. The second thing will be that there wont be a government with its laws making what the corporation is doing "legal." If it's not screwing people, it will do well. If it is, it wont have a  veil of "legality" to protect it. Here's another thing: what do you think will happen now if a corporation screwed people so much that the people decided to go beyond simple boycotts, and staged a violent protest, trying to kick the corporation out of their area? In AnCap nation, either the corporation will have to leave, or it will have to spend enormous amounts on private security 24 hours a day. Now, the corporation has such a security force, in the form of the police force and US military, providing that security protection for them for free, paid for by taxing those very same people who are protesting!

In short, misbehaving in an AnCap setting will likely be much more expensive than playing by the rules and staying ethical,  which is very much not the case now. What I am wondering is, I keep saying and explaining this point over and over and over.... So why doesn't it sink in, and these same stupid hypotheticals keep coming up again?

I do not believe corporations will change their modus operandi.  People still run these organization with their own greed and status.  More likely they will get more covert in their actions.  You can setup this alternative method of state but in the end, how to we change human nature to this point?  How do we get people to genuinely care about about other people, the environment, future generations.  AnCap does answer any of these and the only promise is less force and less government.   I only see even more abuse of a larger portion of the Strong vs. Weak.

You have to measure the value of your society from the base, not the apex.  I don't see AnCap doing that.

[firefop]

So, we agree that a larger group could potentially provide more efficient security? Being that it would be a free market, wouldn't the efficient organization become prevalent?

Because the efficient way is also more expensive. I can hardly predict the entirety of all market interactions, so I can't predict whether there would be more people who just sign up for security contracts, or more who train a few hours every week at home, or more who do both. (If I were running a security company, I would offer discounts for agreeing to - and training to - help out in the event of an invasion - allows me to keep my staff small, and my profits high.)

Incorrect. efficiency implies lower costs per it's definition -

dictionary.com
ef·fi·cient  [ih-fish-uh nt]  Show IPA
adjective
1.
performing or functioning in the best possible manner with the least waste of time and effort; having and using requisite knowledge, skill, and industry; competent; capable: a reliable, efficient secretary.
2.
satisfactory and economical to use: Our new air conditioner is more efficient than our old one.
3.
producing an effect, as a cause; causative.
4.
utilizing a particular commodity or product with maximum efficiency (usually used in combination): a fuel-efficient engine.


Gain efficiency by reducing waste, but also by centralizing processes, training etc. So when we're talking about armed (and potentially violent) interactions - it's always going to be more efficient to have a group of highly trained tactical troops with the best (and probably most expensive) equipment, who do nothing but 'soldier'... instead an unorganized group of people who won't be as effective simply because it isn't their source of income, and they can't devote nearly the amount of time to training compared to that other group.





 

[Dalkore]

What I am wondering is, I keep saying and explaining this point over and over and over.... So why doesn't it sink in, and these same stupid hypotheticals keep coming up again?

Because logic is something the statist mind is carefully stripped of.

I was a statist too, so that can't be it...

Sorry, starting to get burned out on all the malignancy. Maybe it's just willful ignorance.

I love the air of arrogance in your statements like this.  "The Statist Mind".  If you want to use Logic and Reasoning then lets just take it back that Humans are highly evolved animals and we still have maintained basic animal instincts and they is exactly why you need a government of force to keep the people from turning this place in utter chaos.   I will admit when we had much fewer people and more land to spread out, we didn't need to be as competitive but now, that is not the case.  

[myrkul]

What I am wondering is, I keep saying and explaining this point over and over and over.... So why doesn't it sink in, and these same stupid hypotheticals keep coming up again?

Because logic is something the statist mind is carefully stripped of.

I was a statist too, so that can't be it...

Sorry, starting to get burned out on all the malignancy. Maybe it's just willful ignorance.

I love the air of arrogance in your statements like this.  "The Statist Mind".  If you want to use Logic and Reasoning then lets just take it back that Humans are highly evolved animals and we still have maintained basic animal instincts and they is exactly why you need a government of force to keep the people from turning this place in utter chaos.   I will admit when we had much fewer people and more land to spread out, we didn't need to be as competitive but now, that is not the case. 

Have you watched the video yet? It's only 8 minutes.

[myrkul]

So, we agree that a larger group could potentially provide more efficient security? Being that it would be a free market, wouldn't the efficient organization become prevalent?

Because the efficient way is also more expensive. I can hardly predict the entirety of all market interactions, so I can't predict whether there would be more people who just sign up for security contracts, or more who train a few hours every week at home, or more who do both. (If I were running a security company, I would offer discounts for agreeing to - and training to - help out in the event of an invasion - allows me to keep my staff small, and my profits high.)

Incorrect. efficiency implies lower costs per it's definition -

dictionary.com
ef·fi·cient  [ih-fish-uh nt]  Show IPA
adjective
1.
performing or functioning in the best possible manner with the least waste of time and effort; having and using requisite knowledge, skill, and industry; competent; capable: a reliable, efficient secretary.
2.
satisfactory and economical to use: Our new air conditioner is more efficient than our old one.
3.
producing an effect, as a cause; causative.
4.
utilizing a particular commodity or product with maximum efficiency (usually used in combination): a fuel-efficient engine.


Gain efficiency by reducing waste, but also by centralizing processes, training etc. So when we're talking about armed (and potentially violent) interactions - it's always going to be more efficient to have a group of highly trained tactical troops with the best (and probably most expensive) equipment, who do nothing but 'soldier'... instead an unorganized group of people who won't be as effective simply because it isn't their source of income, and they can't devote nearly the amount of time to training compared to that other group.

And? Still more expensive than a mutual aid and training group, neighborhood watch style, or simply buying a rifle and training with it. Both are viable options, if not as efficient when it comes time to actually fight as having a professional soldiery. I can't predict how many people would choose which option, and neither can you.