Myrkul Sells AnCap...

[myrkul]

I suppose all the rational people are either convinced by now, or have simply resolved to agree to disagree?

Well if nothing else you've convinced me that it's going to be nearly impossible to implement something like this on the sort of scale that would actually make it anything other than an obscure oddity. Given the roadblocks I'm willing to bet that it doesn't happing in my lifetime. Thus I can stop thinking about it entirely.

How so? I'll bet you BTC10 that a voluntary society happens somewhere on the globe before I die. Most likely New Hampshire.

[Rassah]

Hey, all you guys claiming that AnCap may lead to things like big powerful companies using their strengths to bully the little guy, keep two things in mind:
1) It is MUCH more expensive to bully someone and take things from him by force than it is to trade with him and have him give you money/materials by his own choice. If, say, WalMart started to use military tactics to take out the competition, not only would that cost them way more than just beating them in the market, but it would kill their profits, and almost everyone would boycott them, and hired guns , or private security firms, don't work for free. Which leads me to point...
2) In a society without government that includes corporation-written laws that protect those corporations by supplying them with essentially free military and police forces, it would be VASTLY more expensive to piss people off when those people can take up arm and just come after you. Presently, we have oil companies in various parts of middle east (not really we, per se, but global oil companies), and those oil companies are not being very good guests. The locals are letting them know that they don't want them there on their property, usually with guns and bombs, and the US military is providing those oil companies with free protection, using our own troops, because "oil is vital to national security." Same deal is happening in Africa, and other nations are using their millitaries to protect their corporate interests in other parts of the world. In an AnCap society, there is no such protection, so you either spend a ton of money on security and sleep lightly with a gun under your pillow, or you play nice with everyone.

[Rudd-O]

Hey, all you guys claiming that AnCap may lead to things like bit powerful companies using their strengths to bully the little guy

Statists resort to this belief as a form of fearmongering.  It is, of course, a lie.  They can't possibly know whether this would happen in a stateless society, and we know this is so, because whenever they want to "prove" their belief, what do they do?  They bring up examples of statist societies, where the examples of organizations who supposedly are "very dangerous" have, in fact, been empowered by (you guessed it) a state.

It's nothing but projection, see?  Statists project the fact that in their statist system, they support the accumulation of murderous power in the organized criminals doing business as "government", who, of course, trample on the little guy as much as they want.  They pretend this is a form of "protection", but, of course, it isn't protection any more than any other Mafia charging you "protection money" to "protect your business from burning down".

Their whole "argument" boils down to "I want the strangers I worship to kill / cage / rob me if I disobey them, because I am scared of strangers killing / caging / robbing me".  Anyone with two brain cells to rub together understands how pathologically lunatic this Livestockholm Syndrome is.  It is a classic example of projection of abuse to deny their own abuse.

[myrkul]

Hey, all you guys claiming that AnCap may lead to things like bit powerful companies using their strengths to bully the little guy

Statists resort to this belief as a form of fearmongering.  It is, of course, a lie.  They can't possibly know whether this would happen in a stateless society, and we know this is so, because whenever they want to "prove" their belief, what do they do?  They bring up examples of statist societies, where the examples of organizations who supposedly are "very dangerous" have, in fact, been empowered by (you guessed it) a state.

It's nothing but projection, see?

Yup... it's what they would do, so it's what they expect others would do.

[Rassah]

OK, I'll bite

No. Says who??

You are correct, there won't be anyone to declare them as doing something illegal. What will happen is they will either be breaking contracts they have signed with their customers, which would damage their credibility and make it harder to get new contracts, or they get any new customers, and thus money. Private security firms survive by receiving payments from customers, not by roaming the lands, looting and pillaging. And customers can chose not to send them money.

Re: Arbitration - same thing. The arbitrators, which are meant to somehow provide "paid justice" are another corruptible focal point of power. They could similarly join forces and form an authoritarian bureaucracy.

Want to avoid dealing with corrupt arbitrators? Then just don't deal with them. If you are setting up a contract, make sure you and the person you are dealing with pick an arbitrator or a private court you can both agree on. In our current system, a corrupt judge still gets a government paycheck. A private arbitrator, or a private law firm, will need to survive based on their reputation, and doing shady things will mean a quick death for their business.

Why is it so hard for An-Cap supporters to understand that a power vacuum will always draw power-hungry people into it? It's always better to already have a government because then at least you know what you're dealing with. Whereas these 'lack-of-government' ideologies all sound a lot like unexploded nitroglycerine -- a harmless liquid, I'm sure!

The difference is that in government's case, power-hungry people get power through popularity, and make their money through forcibly collected revenue. They get power and get paid even if they are scummy fucks. In the market, power-hungry people get power through business competition, and make their money by giving people products and services the people want to pay for. They can only be scummy fucks as long as the good they are doing for people outweighs their scummyness. For example, who is a bigger asshole? Rick Santorum (or your flavor of idiot politician you don't like)? Or Mark Zuckenberg? Hell, even Sheldon Addelson, the scummy fuck who gave tens of millions to the Romney campaign, didn't get what he paid for, and made his money by building an absolutely BEAUTIFUL replica of Venice, complete with canals and plazas, next to his casino in Vegas.

It's sad that An-Cap (and Libertarian) supporters appear unable to feel sovereign without tying themselves down to familiar concepts such as 'property' and 'ownership'. Ordinary people apply those concepts to material things, yet it's incredibly ironic how An-Cap supporters take this to an extreme, and thus become enslaved by their own mindset. Remember: slavery is the opposite of freedom. Both concepts are two sides of the same coin, and they are rooted in the concept of ownership. If you belittle yourself by applying 'ownership' to yourself, quit acting surprised when other people try to take those ownership rights.

What in the actual hell? Slavery and freedom are two sides of the same coin? If you value property rights, you shouldn't be surprised when other people try to take away your rights? The hell are you on about?

[Jimmy Chang(y)]

I suppose all the rational people are either convinced by now, or have simply resolved to agree to disagree?

Quite frankly not everyone has as much time on their hands as you to get involved in debates on a niche forum about your cooky ideologies, some of the shit I have read on these forums these past weeks in 'politics & society' ( not just you Myrkul, though you are a busy boy, aren't you) makes me feel no hope for the human race... not that I had much in first place.

Anyway, pointless thread, on a pointless forum, with generally pointless people, so I thought I would add in my pointless opinion. Which is: FUCKING THINK ABOUT WHAT YOUR TYPING/SAYING... THINK ABOUT WHAT YOU THINK.

Idiots for the most part, the lot of ya.

[myrkul]

A master of suspense and manipulating large crowds, the arbitrator levers his audience to give his judgements more oomph. After all, what is a judgement worth if a) nobody's there to witness it, and b) nobody knows they should help enforce the findings? This way, under the threat of an angry mob, even powerful, "reputable" companies must graciously compensate the little guy who has been wronged.

This actually sounds like it might be fun to watch.

Of course, the participants would both have to agree to be on the show, just like using any arbitration service, so there's your barrier to this sort of thing getting "out of control": the participants themselves.

[Rassah]

Fair points. However, without real-world examples, simulations or such-like, we're both speculating about what it "would" be like. ;-)

I hate to bring that place up, because of the inevitable "Why don't you move there you think it's so great?" stupid comments, but we do have real world examples of private security in Somalia. Those "roving bands of warlord mercenaries" have settled down and set up territories they protect. If you live on their territory, you pay them protection money, and they keep the peace within the territory, and keep bandits and others at bay. If you want to own a weapon to protect yourself, you can do that too. And if you don't like their service, you are free to move; they won't stop you. The "war lords" have long since become professional businessmen rather that bandits and looters, who have not only realized that they can do better by providing others with a service rather than stealing from others, but now actually take pride in protecting their territory and their people.

As for the arbitration thing, that's how it works already. Especially now, with globalization creating multinational companies that don't operate under a single country. There is currently a special set of international laws being worked out, based on general consensus among large businesses rather than some country's legal precedent, which has to rely on arbitration, and businesses forming contract agreements decide which arbiter they wish to be involved with.
Also, don't confuse criminal law with contract law. If you're dealing with a business, and they screw you somehow, you deal with contract law and arbitration (or civil court). If they use their power to screw your property or steal your money, that's a crime, and you deal with that using criminal courts and force, which may include people with guns. It really is no different from how it works now.

Here's a thought experiment:

What if one such person decided that the road to riches and power is to become the greatest, most popular arbitrator in the land? S/He could set up a court that works differently from the others. They've recognised that justice behind closed doors and where money mysteriously changes hands is always going to be a bit iffy. So they've found a way to make it fairer by making it free. The contestants don't have to pay anything (outside of the actual judgement), it's the audience that has to pay to watch -- a real spectacle! Much like a talk show host, the arbitrator is "in charge" but only has his oratorical skills (and nominal security guards) to influence his voluntary audience who cheers with approval, or boos with disgust.

A master of suspense and manipulating large crowds, the arbitrator levers his audience to give his judgements more oomph. After all, what is a judgement worth if a) nobody's there to witness it, and b) nobody knows they should help enforce the findings? This way, under the threat of an angry mob, even powerful, "reputable" companies must graciously compensate the little guy who has been wronged.

I think you misunderstand the purpose of such legal disputes. The value of arbitration, i.e. the legal dispute, is not in how much you pay the lawyers. What businesses look for is someone who can fairly decide for, and protect, both parties. They are looking for someone who can provide a just resolution for both people involved, or at least not screw them too much if they fail somehow. So this Super Arbitrator providing his services for free won't matter, and they won't be interested in shams and showmanship. Also, the amount of witnesses doesn't matter in these. A decision will be closely watched by any other business involved with those who had the dispute, and depending on how the two parties act after the decision, they'll make their own informed opinions on whether to continue to deal with them. If a business that went through arbitration screwed someone else, or failed to compensate someone fairly, there's a good chance they will be dropped by other businesses, and the business will die. Very few businesses nowadays work all by themselves (you almost always have to buy materials and labor, and sell it to someone else).
You're also forgetting that the angry mobs already exist. They're called consumers, who avoid buying products from companies they don't like. So, again, there won't be much change compared to what we have now.

Just to give you an arbitration example: Let's say company A bought 10,000 widgets for $1 each from company B, and 5,000 of those widgets turned out not to work, possibly damaged during unloading. Company A demands 5,000 replacements or $5,000, and company B claims the widgets were damaged by company B, and thus they don't owe anything. A crappy arbitrator would listen to both sides, and decide that Company A needs to pay $5,000, or that company B is at fault. A great arbitrator would decide that company A needs to sell 5,000 more widgets to company B for $0.25 to $0.50 each, and company B MUST buy 10,000 more widgets from company B at full price their next round. Both companies come out on top in the end.

Thus, the An-Cap revolution turns full-circle. In the absence of old, organised power, newer immature kinds pop up that are more easily corruptible, dictatorial, and make use of a simple "majority rules" system.

You can't have a majority rule or dictatorial system without a government deciding on laws, and enforcing them through forcefully collected money. If no one pays for what the dictator is offering, he won't be a dictator for long.

PS: you can't say that it's unrealistic, as there are plenty of real-world talk shows, etc., that follow this basic format. The only thing stopping them from growing out of control are government laws and the competitive presence of "official channels" for justice.

That, and viewers, ratings, customers, companies wishing to associate themselves through advertising...

[Rassah]

By the way, I do enjoy the mental chess of sorts. Most of the crap I'm spewing isn't stuff I read somewhere or already know, but is just my own mental exercises of being given a "but what if...?" question, taking the few things I've learned here and there (business school, politics, other discussions), and trying to logically deduce where they would go if placed in a different situation. Yes, we may be inventing worlds that don't yet exist (and I do love writing fiction), but at least our worlds are logically consistent. Not to say the other sides' is not, theirs is just based on reality they see in front of them (which at times CAN be inconsistent).

[stochastic]

I don't think enough people can agree to a nonaggression pact

While this might be true, at least in an ancap society aggressors will get killed or ostracized, which is an improvement to what happens in a statist society, where they get to be presidents and cops and judges and soldiers, killing / ruining / caging / robbing everyone by the millions, with absolute impunity.

How about we work on the AnCap society with the bitcoin economy first then move into more mainstream economic areas next.  The Securities forum is a good place to start with enforcement of contracts.  Most scams degenerate into reporting the scam to the statists when it should be handled in another way.

This is some solid advice. Maybe Phinn can run a doxxing service to help keep scammers from just making a new ID.

Seriously though.  Getting anarcho-capitalists together and actually doing something is like herding cats.  I believe the only way to actually initiate an AnCap society is through cyrpto-anarchy.  The only way to do that is to set up online PAZ where members can stay anonymous yet set up trust ratings that are dependable and intuitively easy to use.

The fact that SR is the most successful PAZ is frustrating.

[myrkul]

The fact that SR is the most successful PAZ is frustrating.

Perhaps it should be educational, instead.

[Rudd-O]

I went to a voluntaryist meeting last weekend, and it was awesome, and it was really not difficult to organize at all.  They're happening everywhere, check out Meetup.com for more info.

[hazek]

Lets start with privately funded security.

What happens when one such security provider becomes tyrannical and starts abusing people?

Fallacy: begging the question.

You make an assumption that security is only provided by privately funded security businesses and then you make a conclusion that we ancaps should now argue against. Well many ancaps may fall into this trap, but I wont. I never conceded to your assumption that private security firms would be the only way security would be provided in an ancap society. Quite the opposite, I strongly think that in an ancap society people would generally realize that ultimately they themselves bare the responsibility for their security and that means they themselves would need to find ways of providing it.

How does this change your argument? Well it changes it a lot. Originally your assumption (which I did not concede to) assumes that people have no choice, or better said no other means to protect themselves from a rouge agency that they hired to provide for their security. The truth however is much more likely that people would be highly capable of quickly dealing with such an agency and that even the threat of such a swift defense would be enough of a deterrent for such an agency to never even attempting it.


And here's a broader point you have to understand about ancap theory. We ancaps usually, if we are honest, do NOT have almost any answers as to how certain problems in such a society would get solved. Why? Because the solutions could only ever come from a market regulated strictly by consumption i.e. a free market and not any single person. Just like no person 200 years ago could have given a correct or even an answer in the right neighborhood when asked how the fields would be worked on and food produced if slavery was abolished.

But not having any answers is irrelevant. What are relevant are the foundational principles upon which a society is structured. It didn't matter that no one could have given the answer that "big metal machines with many consecutive tiny explosions of petroleum inside of them" would work the fields because all that was important was that if you want to live in a society that will offer you a good life, slavery couldn't be a principle upon which it was built.

And this will be pretty much the same answer of an honest ancap to any of your "issues" you might raise of how an ancap society might solve certain problems: "We don't know, but it's also irrelevant that we don't. Our theory is valid because of the principles not because of the solutions any one of us might be able to imagine."

[myrkul]

Lets start with privately funded security.

What happens when one such security provider becomes tyrannical and starts abusing people?

Fallacy: begging the question.

You make an assumption that security is only provided by privately funded security businesses and then you make a conclusion that we ancaps should now argue against. Well many ancaps may fall into this trap, but I wont. I never conceded to your assumption that private security firms would be the only way security would be provided in an ancap society. Quite the opposite, I strongly think that in an ancap society people would generally realize that ultimately they themselves bare the responsibility for their security and that means they themselves would need to find ways of providing it.

This.

Sad to say I fell into that one myself. I'll have to watch for that in the future.

[Rudd-O]

Lets start with privately funded security.

What happens when one such security provider becomes tyrannical and starts abusing people?

Fallacy: begging the question.

You make an assumption that security is only provided by privately funded security businesses and then you make a conclusion that we ancaps should now argue against. Well many ancaps may fall into this trap, but I wont. I never conceded to your assumption that private security firms would be the only way security would be provided in an ancap society.

[...]

Great job.

To be fair, I no longer answer questions like the one you're answering, where the hypothesis is privileged by constructing a crazy fictional scenario of Mad Max statelessness.

Why?  Simply because (a) said questions are not really genuine questions, (b) because when I flip the question their "solution" is worse than AIDS + cancer, (c) because people asking the question are simply mad.

--------------------------------------

(a) To understand the folly of this question, I offer a simplified version:

If I complain that there is a bully who steals half of what everyone makes, and as a response my interlocutor asks "What?  You wanna do away with the bully?  Then how are you going to solve the problem of random people becoming strong and bullying others?", it's obvious that the question is not really a question -- it's merely an attempt to evade a painful reality.  It's nothing but a stupid complaint in the form of a question, that erroneously complains about the very situation they're already in, as if they weren't in that situation.

Why do they dare demand you give them a solution for fictional bullies, when they are already living under the thumb of a very real bully?  Hint: it's not because they care about the truth -- it's because they hate it.

--------------------------------------

(b) Now, let's flip the original question around and ask:

What do statists do when their "security" provider becomes tyrannical?  Vote?  Hah, no they don't.  Look at history.  They all quietly and impotently are murdered by the millions.  Even in "non-tyrannical" societies, many millions are in cages for "legal" decisions that could only be described as malevolent and clearly unjust.  In these societies, their "security" provider will murder them, if they resist the orders and demands of their "security" provider using any effective means.

If their theory of "society" can't stand the scrutiny of their own question, I hardly feel obligated to answer it.

--------------------------------------

(c) Not to mention that, to portray as a "security" provider any group of people that can make demands of you, and can kill / cage / brutalize you with impunity if you disobey, is rampant madness.

That is why I use scare quotes around the word "security".

---------------------------

In sum:

(a) Their solution to an imaginary problem is a real nightmare.
(b) They do not ask the question because they want to know the answer.
(c) They are mad.

Thus, I know that the ten minutes I waste answering their bullshit "question" will surely be met with a change of subject, an insult, or denial.

Now you know why I don't waste my time explaining the basics of reality to such people anymore.

[Rassah]

Awww, but it's fun to answer hypotheticals with hypotheticals. For instance, iRobot makes Roomba robot vacuum cleaners and Scooba robot floor washers. They also make robots for the military that are used to defuse bombs, and can carry weapons to go in, investigate, and clear out buildings. So, an iKillbot to provide the security, and a Roomba and Scooba to clean up the mess and blood. Security problem solved!

[hazek]

Rudd-O, while you are quite likely absolutely correct in your analysis of their question I do not agree with your approach for a response or lack thereof.

If we are ever going to get to an ancap society it will require a lot more people adhering to the same principles as we ancaps already do. Since people do, what they were taught by their parents, friends, teachers, priests and other gurus it's really pointless to blame them for their beliefs or worldview because it's not their fault they got taught bullshit. It's likewise pointless to point out to them their coping mechanism because it does not teach them anything of value but instead likely turns them even further away from listening to you and your ideas, not to mention some may consider your approach borderline trolling.

Why not instead recognize that what they know and how they live their life is not their fault, recognize the likely coping mechanisms they deploy to deal with the fallacies they base their principles on and find a way around all of that to help them realize where they are wrong on their own? In other words why not do your best to teach those willing to listen instead of going on rants?

Of course this has reasonable limits but don't you think you at least have to give them a chance if we are ever going to get enough people reasoning correctly?

[Rudd-O]

Rudd-O, while you are quite likely absolutely correct in your analysis of their question I do not agree with your approach for a response or lack thereof.

If we are ever going to get to an ancap society it will require a lot more people adhering to the same principles as we ancaps already do. Since people do, what they were taught by their parents, friends, teachers, priests and other gurus it's really pointless to blame them for their beliefs or worldview because it's not their fault they got taught bullshit. It's likewise pointless to point out to them their coping mechanism because it does not teach them anything of value but instead likely turns them even further away from listening to you and your ideas, not to mention some may consider your approach borderline trolling.

Why not instead recognize that what they know and how they live their life is not their fault, recognize the likely coping mechanisms they deploy to deal with the fallacies they base their principles on and find a way around all of that to help them realize where they are wrong on their own? In other words why not do your best to teach those willing to listen instead of going on rants?

Of course this has reasonable limits but don't you think you at least have to give them a chance if we are ever going to get enough people reasoning correctly?

I disagree.

People with minds broken beyond repair won't change their minds.  Either the world will change without them and they will not matter, or they will die off and be replaced with people who do have healthy minds and will change the world.

In any of those cases, trying to reason with a person who has been made mentally ill by societal abuse, is not going to work.

I give people a chance when they behave in a way that leads me to believe they will take the chance.

[hazek]

That of course is up to you, but be advised that many may not afford you the privilege to conduct yourself in this manner in their communities. Specifically this forum.

Take this as a friendly advice, as I once had to myself, if you can't think of a constructive way to contribute, don't contribute at all.

[Rudd-O]

Look, I appreciate the advice.  I mean that.  But I will not take it.  While I do contribute constructively -- many forum members have bit-tipped me already -- I also have no problem calling out mad people for what they are, and giving up on them.  I really don't have time to yell at clouds.

To share with you what I've seen in the past week: I've already had two forum mods remove posts where I point out "So-and-so is on my ignore list for <X negative or dysfunctional behavior>".  It would appear, from my perspective, that madness and verbal abuse is openly tolerated here, but pointing out those behaviors in people is not.  That is already a sign of a dysfunctional community, where the bullies run amok, and the people who are affected by the bullies are not permitted to weigh in on that.

And, you know, I will probably be banned very soon.  I am okay with that.  If me pointing out the sociopathy and other assorted dysfunctional behaviors of certain people here, is going to get me banned, then that would mean the forum owners inexplicably *want* these dysfunctions here.  I would rather not participate in a community of that character, so getting banned for that reason would be good for me.  I already have plenty good people in my life -- I have a real-world community of real-world voluntaryists in my area, a radio show, a Facebook page with quite a few followers, hundreds of followers on Twitter, thousands of RSS subcribers to my blog, lots of people who follow my Reddit feed, and my own Reddit communities.  If I really need to talk to sensible people, there's plenty willing to listen to and support me, as surely as I am willing to listen to and support them.