Myrkul Sells AnCap...

[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.

Regardless, quote please, or it didn't happen.

Well, I'm not that motivated at the moment, so I'm fine with it not happening.

[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.

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

Regardless, quote please, or it didn't happen.

Well, I'm not that motivated at the moment, so I'm fine with it not happening.

But Hazek's accusation was basically a sophisticated Ad Hominem attack. He criticised the quality of the question, calling it a fallacy of the kind where it's really a criticism that draws its conclusions from earlier assumptions. So I asked where those assumptions were... And it seems I was right. Hazek was making assumptions.

Firefop never said this:

the only way anyone could get protection is by hiring a security agency.

Hazek assumed.

The fallacious assumption behind that fallacious question:

Lets start with privately funded security.

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

is that there will be a need for a private funded security. I never conceded that people would need private funded security, the OP just assumed that that is what would happen, that that is how people would provide for their security.

I don't think I can spell it out any more clearly than that.

[Rassah]

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

Apparently the same thing that is happening in states with privately run prisons - police arrest people for stupid minor infractions, just so that the prison can make extra money, and no one is willing to stop it because "crime is bad."
Or the same thing that happens in every social republic turned dictatorship.
So, in other words, AnCaps will have to figure out how to deal with that just like democratic government types have had to. It's a stupid question, because someone else can just say, "What happens when voting becomes suppressed, and a democratic government becomes tyrannical? See? Democracy is bad/doesn't work!"

BTW, nice thing about AnCap is that, unlike Zeitgeist, AnCap can be started with a small community. It's even starting to materialize online. So, the answer to what will we do with free-loaders, irresponsible people who didn't save for retirement, and the lazy who never bother to learn personal responsibility is easy: we'll deport them to your countries 

[myrkul]

BTW, nice thing about AnCap is that, unlike Zeitgeist, AnCap can be started with a small community. It's even starting to materialize online. So, the answer to what will we do with free-loaders, irresponsible people who didn't save for retirement, and the lazy who never bother to learn personal responsibility is easy: we'll deport them to your countries 

They'll be happier among their kind, anyway.

[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.

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.

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. When we're talking about defense of someone's personal property 5 or 10 guy are an army vs a single man. And I'm not saying that the security that you hired would attempt to violate your rights (I would expect they wouldn't) but I'm asking the question of what happens when a large enough security group (or mercenary group if you will) arrives to kill or steal from you because someone else hired them to?

It's a legitimate question. Power corrupts and armies (historically) do enjoy pillaging. You simply can't rule out the chance that at some point in the whole thing some security providers would become predatory and/or immoral. Look at what some corporations already do to people.

~~~

I should also point out that Myrkul already answered this question in a way that satisfied me. You can review the thread if you're curious as to what his answers were and what conclusions I drew based on them.

[Rassah]

but I'm asking the question of what happens when a large enough security group (or mercenary group if you will) arrives to kill or steal from you because someone else hired them to?

I don't know... what do people do about it when it's happening now?

Look at what some corporations already do to people.

I guess what we have now isn't any better then?

[firefop]

but I'm asking the question of what happens when a large enough security group (or mercenary group if you will) arrives to kill or steal from you because someone else hired them to?

I don't know... what do people do about it when it's happening now?

Look at what some corporations already do to people.

I guess what we have now isn't any better then?

Very true, what we have now is far from ideal. But the primary issue I have with the possibility of ancap this: you'd have to have nearly universal adherence to the NAP in order for it to work on any scale. Otherwise, you'd have all the problems we have now - except they wouldn't from a central source (the government) they'd be from multiple groups all at once affecting a much smaller area, with the likely hood of many of them overlapping in a way as to compound many of these issues.

[stochastic]

Once we figure out how to end the benefits of being aggressive then aggressive actions will end.  Once aggression has no positive benefit for the aggressor then there won't be any aggressive actions that a person would do toward others.  Once there are no more aggressive people then there won't be any need for a state.  This is because of two things.  (1) the state will lose its ability to use aggression to coerce other people, and (2) it would lose its legitimacy because it cannot say it is needed to subdue 'criminals' or other nations.

[myrkul]

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.

Fallacy or not, that's just plain false, right there. A professional fighting force is certainly one way to do it, and it would certainly require fewer pros to defend a given area than it would militiamen or the like but "no better means" is pushing it a little bit. Remember "defense in depth"? He didn't say it, but the quote attributed to Adm. Yamamoto holds true: "We can't invade America. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass." Invading a country with armed citizenry is dangerous. Invading one where the average citizen might have any weapon you do is suicidal.

And yes, there are people who whether because of religious or philosophical belief, or some other reason will desire someone else to do their defending for them. That's fine. They will be provided for. But even then, it need not be a large group that does it. Perhaps the community bands together, and the pacifist does the bandaging, in times of need.

When we're talking about defense of someone's personal property 5 or 10 guy are an army vs a single man. And I'm not saying that the security that you hired would attempt to violate your rights (I would expect they wouldn't) but I'm asking the question of what happens when a large enough security group (or mercenary group if you will) arrives to kill or steal from you because someone else hired them to?  

What do you think we do? We shoot the fuckers. It's not rocket science. Smart security/merc companies know this, and would charge exorbitant prices. The really smart ones would refuse.

It's a legitimate question. Power corrupts and armies (historically) do enjoy pillaging. You simply can't rule out the chance that at some point in the whole thing some security providers would become predatory and/or immoral. Look at what some corporations already do to people.

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.

[firefop]

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.

Fallacy or not, that's just plain false, right there. A professional fighting force is certainly one way to do it, and it would certainly require fewer pros to defend a given area than it would militiamen or the like but "no better means" is pushing it a little bit. Remember "defense in depth"? He didn't say it, but the quote attributed to Adm. Yamamoto holds true: "We can't invade America. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass." Invading a country with armed citizenry is dangerous. Invading one where the average citizen might have any weapon you do is suicidal.

And yes, there are people who whether because of religious or philosophical belief, or some other reason will desire someone else to do their defending for them. That's fine. They will be provided for. But even then, it need not be a large group that does it. Perhaps the community bands together, and the pacifist does the bandaging, in times of need.

When we're talking about defense of someone's personal property 5 or 10 guy are an army vs a single man. And I'm not saying that the security that you hired would attempt to violate your rights (I would expect they wouldn't) but I'm asking the question of what happens when a large enough security group (or mercenary group if you will) arrives to kill or steal from you because someone else hired them to?  

What do you think we do? We shoot the fuckers. It's not rocket science. Smart security/merc companies know this, and would charge exorbitant prices. The really smart ones would refuse.

It's a legitimate question. Power corrupts and armies (historically) do enjoy pillaging. You simply can't rule out the chance that at some point in the whole thing some security providers would become predatory and/or immoral. Look at what some corporations already do to people.

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.

No better means. I wouldn't call one guy attempting to take out a group of attackers 'best' in the sense that he's unlikely to survive. 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?

Wolf vs Dog - which is which?

[myrkul]

No better means. I wouldn't call one guy attempting to take out a group of attackers 'best' in the sense that he's unlikely to survive.

Did I say "one guy" anywhere in that? No, no I did not.

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.)

Wolf vs Dog - which is which?

Can't you guess?
I think you already know:

Look at what some corporations already do to people.

[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.

[Dalkore]

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.)

Sounds like something I wouldn't want to leave to chance or market gyrations. 

[myrkul]

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.

Well, first off, they wouldn't be corporations. Not in the sense we use the word. They might still be Joint Stock Companies, but they would not have the legal and liability protections granted them by the government. Nor would they have their artificially high barriers to entry, provided by the regulations they paid for. Competition for their market share would be fierce. And how do they keep that market share? By serving the customers. Because we have the money they want, and without the guns of government to make us give it up, the only way to get it is to give us what we want.

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.)

Sounds like something I wouldn't want to leave to chance or market gyrations.  

So instead you give it to a monopoly, and let them use their guns to make you pay for it?

[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.

Well, first off, they wouldn't be corporations. Not in the sense we use the word. They might still be Joint Stock Companies, but they would not have the legal and liability protections granted them by the government. Nor would they have their artificially high barriers to entry, provided by the regulations they paid for. Competition for their market share would be fierce. And how do they keep that market share? By serving the customers. Because we have the money they want, and without the guns of government to make us give it up, the only way to get it is to give us what we want.

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.)

Sounds like something I wouldn't want to leave to chance or market gyrations.  

So instead you give it to a monopoly, and let them use their guns to make you pay for it?

Thank you for clarification on them being Joint-stock companies and how they would operate, sounds promising and I would like to see that in-place in our current system.

I am sorry you can't handle a mandatory tax for basic services.  I am also not going to continually defend it or apologize for it.  You obviously have a lower bar for what I believe is needed for the general welfare and well being of a functional society. 

[myrkul]

Thank you for clarification on them being Joint-stock companies and how they would operate, sounds promising and I would like to see that in-place in our current system.

Not gonna happen. Lobbying is cheaper than competing.

I am sorry you can't handle a mandatory tax for basic services.  I am also not going to continually defend it or apologize for it.  You obviously have a lower bar for what I believe is needed for the general welfare and well being of a functional society. 

On the contrary, I have a much higher bar. You accept aggression as a matter of course, I do not.

[Dalkore]

Thank you for clarification on them being Joint-stock companies and how they would operate, sounds promising and I would like to see that in-place in our current system.

Not gonna happen. Lobbying is cheaper than competing.

I am sorry you can't handle a mandatory tax for basic services.  I am also not going to continually defend it or apologize for it.  You obviously have a lower bar for what I believe is needed for the general welfare and well being of a functional society. 

On the contrary, I have a much higher bar. You accept aggression as a matter of course, I do not.

I would would heavily restrict lobbying if it was on my watch and I am not sure if I would even let companies participate.  Public official need to focus on domestic non-business issues almost exclusively.


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. 

[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?

[Dalkore]

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.

[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.