Myrkul Sells AnCap...

[MoonShadow]

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.

Proof enough that a true Ancap society is practically impossible, simply because the bootstrapping process from where we are to get there would require something very close to a worldwide destruction event to be plausible.  And assuming that the NAP is actually in application, the ancaps who would repopulate and educate this planet would be prohibited from effecting such an outcome.  If the event is natural, it is just as likely, perhaps more likely, that ancap social theories would simply die out with those who advocate them in the near term event.

So if you wish to take over the world, you're simply going to have to out-breed the rest; and ancaps aren't known for this skill.

[firefop]

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."

Just because you don't have a good answer for a question doesn't mean it shouldn't be asked. In every case in human history a hierarchy develops which includes groups of armed men... and it keeps escalating until some group starts abusing people and then there is death, destruction and war.

So, while I happen to agree morally with the precepts ancap puts forth... it isn't remotely possible that it would work unless you can convince every human alive to follow those same principles.

[Rudd-O]

I can't really read what MoonShadow or firefop have said, because both are on my ignore list (the first one for openly admitting that he physically abuses his children, which I am firmly against, and the second one for verbal abuse against other people in this board).  If they have said anything in response to my comments, you'll forgive me for not responding -- I prefer not to interact with bad people.  I'm mentioning this because I think you all deserve to know who you're interacting with, and also because I don't want to look like I "didn't have any response" to their (usually not so clever) responses.

[firefop]

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.

Or in the case of ancap, they'll simply destroy it before it ever really gets started... which is sort of my whole point... why commit to a losing strategy?

[MoonShadow]

 I really don't have time to yell at clouds.

From my perspective, you seem to have way too much 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.

Madness is tolerated, while verbal abuse is not.  I do have a problem with your methods, Rudd-O, but you remain here because it's not my opinion that matters. 

 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.

You seem to have a distorted view as to whom is the victim and who is the bully in these events, Rudd-O.

And, you know, I will probably be banned very soon. 

Sadly, that's almost certainly not going to happen.  While I have, personally, pointed out that you are a sophisticated troll in many threads; (and others have done the same) the consensus is that you are not a consistant enough of a troll to demand action from the admins.  (Mods do not have the power to ban unilaterally, excepting newbie accounts)  So if you don't mind, feel free to step it up a notch so I can toss you out, okay?

[firefop]

I can't really read what MoonShadow or firefop have said, because both are on my ignore list (the first one for openly admitting that he physically abuses his children, which I am firmly against, and the second one for verbal abuse against other people in this board).  If they have said anything in response to my comments, you'll forgive me for not responding -- I prefer not to interact with bad people.

I think I just like replying to his posts because I know he isn't reading them.

That being said - Isn't it interesting that the people he ignores for being bad people, are actually much more respectful of others than he is? I mean the rest of us are actually having a conversation and trying to learn something here... and he's just being insulting and advocating writing off anyone who doesn't agree with him.

[MoonShadow]

I can't really read what MoonShadow or firefop have said, because both are on my ignore list (the first one for openly admitting that he physically abuses his children, which I am firmly against, and the second one for verbal abuse against other people in this board).  If they have said anything in response to my comments, you'll forgive me for not responding -- I prefer not to interact with bad people.  I'm mentioning this because I think you all deserve to know who you're interacting with, and also because I don't want to look like I "didn't have any response" to their (usually not so clever) responses.

I wish that I, as a mod, could employ that ignore button.  Unfortunately, my responsibilities require that I actually see what you post.

[Dalkore]

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.

No point in debating someone with their mind made up, so disrespectful and assuming.   

[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."

Just because you don't have a good answer for a question doesn't mean it shouldn't be asked.

I didn't say I don't have an answer, I said that the specific question you asked was a fallacy.

But I also said that even if it weren't, even if you raised a valid question I couldn't answer it because only a market regulated strictly by consumption i.e. a free market could possibly answer it. And I also said that the fact that I couldn't answer it is irrelevant to the validity of the ancap theory.

[Dalkore]

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?

Also don't assume that your system is the correct way as well.  This should be a respectful discussion where "we" challenge each others ideals.  Just as you believe I have fallacies, I believe you hold some fallacies as well based on how your perceive the world around you and your frustration with how government structure have and currently are operated.  

If we are not trying to have a discussion where both sides are intellectual at the point where you could be swayed by another's ideas, then this is really just propaganda and nothing more.  

[Dalkore]

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.

What societal abuse brought you to your conclusion of this alleged better system of government?

[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.

No point in debating someone with their mind made up, so disrespectful and assuming.  

See, you call me names (not the first time, by the way), but you never actually bother responding to arguments (mine or others') with valid rebuttals.  Yes, I've seen your posts.  You pretend to have a debate, but then you respond to arguments by calling them names all the time, and if that doesn't shut your interlocutor up, you call them names directly.  You try to pretend that your interlocutor "is not listening" or "does not want to have a debate", when those empty complaints of yours describe your very behavior.  I have yet to see a valid rebuttal coming from you... and I'm kind of tired of waiting for that, and seeing cheap stalling tactics instead.

You're going straight to my ignore list.  This is not a punishment -- I simply do not need to read your anti-contributions to the boards.

[hazek]

That being said - Isn't it interesting that the people he ignores for being bad people, are actually much more respectful of others than he is? I mean the rest of us are actually having a conversation and trying to learn something here... and he's just being insulting and advocating writing off anyone who doesn't agree with him.

In my opinion he is not wrong, but he is not being productive either. I will also strongly condemn anyone who uses the initiation of violence against other people in order to get them to obey their arbitrary rules but I might try and persuade them with an argument first. Perhaps he feels he exhausted that option..

[Rudd-O]

That being said - Isn't it interesting that the people he ignores for being bad people, are actually much more respectful of others than he is? I mean the rest of us are actually having a conversation and trying to learn something here... and he's just being insulting and advocating writing off anyone who doesn't agree with him.

In my opinion he is not wrong, but he is not being productive either. I will also strongly condemn anyone who uses the initiation of violence against other people in order to get them to obey their arbitrary rules but I might try and persuade them with an argument first. Perhaps he feels he exhausted that option..

I did exhaust that option.  Every single person on my ignore list, I either added because (a) they openly abused people who were making serious and sensible arguments, or (b) I tried to persuade them peacefully and calmly, and they bit back like virulent angry dogs.  I want to stress that has been the case for every single member of my ignore list.  I don't just gratuitously add people who disagree with me.

Anyway, I am not the topic of discussion here.  The fact that we're discussing me, and that I was brought up as a topic by these people, is proof enough that these people have managed to derail the conversation and make it about me, to stall and avoid actually thinking about the ideas we were discussing.

[Dalkore]

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.

No point in debating someone with their mind made up, so disrespectful and assuming.  

See, you call me names (not the first time, by the way), but you never actually bother responding to arguments (mine or others') with valid rebuttals.  Yes, I've seen your posts.  You pretend to have a debate, but then you respond to arguments by calling them names all the time, and if that doesn't shut your interlocutor up, you call them names directly.  You try to pretend that your interlocutor "is not listening" or "does not want to have a debate", when those empty complaints of yours describe your very behavior.  I have yet to see a valid rebuttal coming from you... and I'm kind of tired of waiting for that, and seeing cheap stalling tactics instead.

You're going straight to my ignore list.  This is not a punishment -- I simply do not need to read your anti-contributions to the boards.

I will post this so other can read this:

1.  No point in debating someone with their mind made up, so disrespectful and assuming - This is a fact is not calling you a name?  If so, what name?

2.  If anyone cares, read the 2 posts I didn't respond two and tell me I should allow myself respond to such a disrespectful tone?

In closing, I am actually glad Rudd-O ignored me so I don't need to respond to valid questions from people with a lack of patience, tact and general manners in a debate/discussion.

[Dalkore]

Anyway, I am not the topic of discussion here.  The fact that we're discussing me, and that I was brought up as a topic by these people, is proof enough that these people have managed to derail the conversation and make it about me, to stall and avoid actually thinking about the ideas we were discussing.

Actually you are the topic of discussion and you methods are exactly what derails these discussions.  Just start from the beginning before you posted a single reply and see what direction and how the tone changed in this thread.   I find it quite obvious.  Me and Myrkul don't see eye to eye, but we can communicate with one another directly but not crossing the line into something else.

[myrkul]

Anyway, I am not the topic of discussion here.  The fact that we're discussing me, and that I was brought up as a topic by these people, is proof enough that these people have managed to derail the conversation and make it about me, to stall and avoid actually thinking about the ideas we were discussing.

Actually you are the topic of discussion

No, no he is not. To remind you all, the topic is:

"Myrkul Sells AnCap..."
Does anyone have a contribution along those lines? (ie actually debating the merits and flaws of AnCap)

[hazek]

Aren't you being presumptuous with a vision of every individual in society being a "one man army" who can deal with everything?

I'm not because I never said that.

[hazek]

Aren't you being presumptuous with a vision of every individual in society being a "one man army" who can deal with everything?

I'm not because I never said that.

But you called it a fallacy. Why?

Because I never conceded that the assumption that the only way anyone could get protection is by hiring a security agency.

[MoonShadow]

Aren't you being presumptuous with a vision of every individual in society being a "one man army" who can deal with everything?

I'm not because I never said that.

But you called it a fallacy. Why?

Because I never conceded that the assumption that the only way anyone could get protection is by hiring a security agency.

That would be a black & white fallacy, whether or not it's a vaild question or not.