The legitimate purpose of military...

[hawkeye]

"Yes but it's not the good kind of Anarchy, it's bad Anarchy!" ??

Your claim seems illogical.
If they are criminal, then clearly there must be a system of international laws that are enforced by some global government and their 'guns'. We hear a lot of rhetoric about international 'laws' but there never seems to be any higher authority to enforce them -- it's just Anarchic equals hurling insults at each other (and sometimes making unilateral or multilateral decisions).

• What system of global government "points a gun" at the national governments and brutally coerces them into obeying? If it's not Anarchy (or An-Cap, take your pick), then please tell us what system it is.

They are criminal because they are assuming rights that they clearly don't have.  We would generally regard any person who violates another's person as criminal.  

The reason they don't have those rights is because there is no proof that any one human has more rights than any other human.  Therefore any humans claiming they have are just lying.  And it doesn't matter what label they put on themselves.

Let me ask you this:  I'm content to let you have your government if that's what you want.  Are you content to let me have nothing to do with the government on the proviso I don't violate anyone else's person or property.  ie.  can I opt out of your system?

[hawkeye]

...

• What system of global government "points a gun" at the national governments and brutally coerces them into obeying? If it's not Anarchy (or An-Cap, take your pick), then please tell us what system it is.

They are criminal because they are assuming rights that they clearly don't have.  We would generally regard any person who violates another's person as criminal.  

The reason they don't have those rights is because there is no proof that any one human has more rights than any other human.  Therefore any humans claiming they have are just lying.  And it doesn't matter what label they put on themselves.

So what you're saying is...

They are [bad] because they are... [doing bad stuff they clearly shouldn't be doing].
We would generally regard any [bad stuff] as [bad].
The reason they [shouldn't be doing bad stuff] is because there is no proof that [some philosophical argument is valid]. Therefore any humans claiming [that philosophical argument] are just [doing bad verbal stuff]. And it doesn't matter what [name they give to that argument].

Your logical fallacy is: Appeal to Emotion.


Perhaps I should rephrase my earlier question. "The World Government" is:
[please select from the following options...]

• A Democracy.
• A Dictatorship.
• A Monarchy
• There isn't any. At the top, there are only two things that can boss you around: yourself, or god. Either way no-one rules over you. Therefore it must be Anarchy.
• The US gov. (or other super-power), but they're really just "top dog" and no-one bosses them around so it's still Anarchy.
• The US gov. (or other super-power), but they're really just "controlled by their own people" in a circular fashion, and no-one bosses the whole organisation around so it's still Anarchy.
• Other:______________ [please specify the system using as few words as possible.]

Let me ask you this:  I'm content to let you have your government if that's what you want.  Are you content to let me have nothing to do with the government on the proviso I don't violate anyone else's person or property.  ie.  can I opt out of your system?

You can already move countries if you want. It's my contention that since there's no "world government holding a gun to the national governments' heads" and enforcing some system of world law, those "criminal monopolies" as Myrkul likes to call them are in fact natural regional monopolies because they are unforced.

Since they are natural, clearly they must have somehow evolved out of an earlier state where there was even less structure. Therefore, the whole "let's introduce An-Cap" thing is sounding more and more like an impossible pipe dream.

I said it is generally considered criminal to violate another person.   I can only assume you disagree with that statement, in which case, I really don't have anything else to say to you.

As for your World Government question, there clearly isn't one.   

And your final point.  Yep, that's what I thought you'd say.  I have to leave my home, my property, in order not to be forced to do things or be involved in things that I have no wish to be. 

There are words for people who force themselves upon others when the person doesn't want themself to be forced upon and there only option not to be is to leave their home.  I'll leave it to you to figure it out what they are...

[myrkul]

What's wrong with being prepared to profit from the stupidity and misfortune of others?   Isn't that what capitalism is all about?

I think you grossly misunderstand capitalism. You profit from your own abilities, not the "stupidity and misfortune of others." Incidentally, everyone else benefits, too. It's a positive sum game, not a zero- or negative sum game.

Why should Capitalists care about the 'commons' or some "overall benefit to society"? As long as they profit individually then who cares. Besides, I thought the beauty of Capitalism was that everyone could just be as greedy and selfish as they like, and it would all naturally balance out to maximally benefit everyone?

That's the beauty of it. They can. As long as force doesn't enter the equation. In voluntary trade, both people are better off as a result of the trade, or it wouldn't occur. Positive sum game.

[Jobe7]

There will always be people preaching that THEIR violence is OK 

How THEIR violence is perfectly 'legit', until the moment the violence is turned on them. Then 'suddenly' they're like, "omgosh, I don't want this violence!"

Typical greedy violent people behaviour, I've met plenty of those, and plenty of those are locked up, for good reason.

[myrkul]

In voluntary trade, both people are better off as a result of the trade, or it wouldn't occur. Positive sum game.

But sometimes bad people are more better off being coercive. Otherwise that wouldn't occur either. Failing to take into account bad people or the consequences makes your ideas flawed.

And that's where the providers of security come in. Because they have +1/+1 arrangements with a lot of people, even Alice's +5 is puny in comparison. Bob asks them to come fix the situation, and they take that +5, and give it back to Bob, so that the use of force does not benefit Alice.

That instead of holding governments more accountable, we should give up and dream of a world without them?

What better means is there to hold an agency accountable than through market competition?

[myrkul]

In voluntary trade, both people are better off as a result of the trade, or it wouldn't occur. Positive sum game.

But sometimes bad people are more better off being coercive. Otherwise that wouldn't occur either. Failing to take into account bad people or the consequences makes your ideas flawed.

And that's where the providers of security come in. Because they have +1/+1 arrangements with a lot of people, even Alice's +5 is puny in comparison. Bob asks them to come fix the situation, and they take that +5, and give it back to Bob, so that the use of force does not benefit Alice.

Oops, I forgot to mention that Alice is the security provider. Too bad, so sad.

Well, in that case, all those other +1/+1 relationships dry up, as they wisely decide that Bob may not be the only one Alice tries this on, and another security provider is chosen (by Bob, of course) to extract the restitution from Alice.

As I said, market competition is the best way to hold governments accountable to the people.

[myrkul]

In voluntary trade, both people are better off as a result of the trade, or it wouldn't occur. Positive sum game.

But sometimes bad people are more better off being coercive. Otherwise that wouldn't occur either. Failing to take into account bad people or the consequences makes your ideas flawed.

And that's where the providers of security come in. Because they have +1/+1 arrangements with a lot of people, even Alice's +5 is puny in comparison. Bob asks them to come fix the situation, and they take that +5, and give it back to Bob, so that the use of force does not benefit Alice.

Oops, I forgot to mention that Alice is the security provider. Too bad, so sad.

Well, in that case, all those other +1/+1 relationships dry up, as they wisely decide that Bob may not be the only one Alice tries this on, and another security provider is chosen (by Bob, of course) to extract the restitution from Alice.

As I said, market competition is the best way to hold governments accountable to the people.

You're still not thinking it through to the end.
Let's do another step: This new security provider (let's call her 'Alicia') obviously takes a cut from the restitution for herself. She's pretty smart and realises that if it weren't for Alice, she'd be out of a job. Alice is pretty bad-ass so she doesn't take much convincing to do more coercion.
Alicia gets +1 for each bit of restitution.
Alice gets +0.5 for each successful crime.
(And since it's just security, why point fingers?)
They trade voluntarily.... Everyone wins...

Tsk... And you're forgetting that Alice and Alicia are not alone in the marketplace. There's also Alfred, Allen, Amanda, and Anna. If Alice only preys upon Alicia's customers, then it soon becomes clear that she is only preying upon Alicia's customers and everyone switches to one of the others to avoid Alice's predation. If she is not so discerning, then the other four have no agreement with her, and hunt her down. Probably revealing her arrangement with Alicia in the process. So now we have two criminals, and the guy who really rakes it in is Gary, the investigative reporter, who made it onto national TV with the news of this story.

[TomUnderSea]

Until Gary's printing press mysteriously catches fire.  Then Greg, who is happy to print the press releases from Alice,  makes a killing.

Force always wins.  If you depend on the good will of all actors for a successful outcome, you will fail.

Btw,  recent spelling errors are due to typing on my phone.  I don't always have the convenience of a laptop,  landline or even land.

[myrkul]

Force always wins.  If you depend on the good will of all actors for a successful outcome, you will fail.

Exactly what I expect a violent sociopath to say.

I depend on self-interest, not good will.

And it is not in the best interest of anyone to employ a violent criminal to protect your life and property.

[myrkul]

Hunt her down... and hire her?

Now, ask yourself.... Which would be more profitable, getting a small cut of the restitution and providing an incentive for competition to arise and take their business away, or "defect," in the terminology of the prisoner's dilemma, and expose her and Alicia, thereby gaining Alicia's customers?

[wdmw]

Until Gary's printing press mysteriously catches fire.  Then Greg, who is happy to print the press releases from Alice,  makes a killing.

Force always wins.  If you depend on the good will of all actors for a successful outcome, you will fail.

Is this why, when I go to Burger King, one attendant clubs me over the head, another reaches into my pocket and pulls out an extra dollar, and I get a large fry I didn't ask for?

[myrkul]

Hunt her down... and hire her?

Now, ask yourself.... Which would be more profitable, getting a small cut of the restitution and providing an incentive for competition to arise and take their business away, or "defect," in the terminology of the prisoner's dilemma, and expose her and Alicia, thereby gaining Alicia's customers?

The high complexity of real-world structures makes it difficult and risky for people to defect. That is why most people work for someone as part of a team of some kind. The possibility of defecting and becoming new competition is an ever-present issue for employers, yet they somehow manage. The reward for being someone's employee may be lower than the potential gains of working independently, but it's also easier and certain risks are lower. If the "prisoner's dilemma" thought experiment was an accurate model, structured workplaces (and collusion) wouldn't exist.

So you're saying that entrepreneurs in the security business would not seek a greater profit by exposing Alicia, instead going for the higher risk, lower pay option of colluding with her, and then, once all the security companies had made that decision, none - and no new competitors - would expose the others so as to gain all their customers?

Now who's depending on good will, rather than greed?

[myrkul]

Hunt her down... and hire her?

Now, ask yourself.... Which would be more profitable, getting a small cut of the restitution and providing an incentive for competition to arise and take their business away, or "defect," in the terminology of the prisoner's dilemma, and expose her and Alicia, thereby gaining Alicia's customers?

The high complexity of real-world structures makes it difficult and risky for people to defect. That is why most people work for someone as part of a team of some kind. The possibility of defecting and becoming new competition is an ever-present issue for employers, yet they somehow manage. The reward for being someone's employee may be lower than the potential gains of working independently, but it's also easier and certain risks are lower. If the "prisoner's dilemma" thought experiment was an accurate model, structured workplaces (and collusion) wouldn't exist.

So you're saying that entrepreneurs in the security business would not seek a greater profit by exposing Alicia, instead going for the higher risk, lower pay option of colluding with her, and then, once all the security companies had made that decision, none - and no new competitors - would expose the others so as to gain all their customers?

Now who's depending on good will, rather than greed?

Alicia's the entrepreneur and she started the whole mobster business using Alice. What makes you think going against her would be a lower risk? And that's assuming they've figured out who the "kingpin" among them is.

You forgot fear.

Alfred, Allen, Amanda, and Anna are also entrepreneurs. They run security firms, remember?

Going against her would be lower risk because it a) is performing the job their customers are paying them to do, and b) does not involve the risk of another agency exposing them, and thereby gaining their customers. And considering that finding out who is employing Alice to commit crimes is part of their job description, I'd say Alice's discovery is a fair assumption.

Fear of what?

[myrkul]

Until Gary's printing press mysteriously catches fire.  Then Greg, who is happy to print the press releases from Alice,  makes a killing.

Force always wins.  If you depend on the good will of all actors for a successful outcome, you will fail.

Is this why, when I go to Burger King, one attendant clubs me over the head, another reaches into my pocket and pulls out an extra dollar, and I get a large fry I didn't ask for?

It's also why the McDonald's across the street keeps having mysterious fires and break-ins.

[myrkul]

Yet you still can't explain the existence of government.

Oh, I did that a while back.

Imagine you're a neolithic tribesman, and just a few centuries ago - maybe even more recently, you figured out that if you took care of the scattered seeds from last year's harvest, the next year's would be more bountiful. Maybe you've even figured out that putting the seeds in little holes in the dirt makes them grow even better. You might also have figured out that keeping baby aurochs means that when they grow up, you don't have to chase them down to eat them. The catch is, others have figured out that you've figured something out. They see your tribe living fat and happy, in one place, while they scrounge over a large area, trying to scrape together enough food. Rather than trying to learn what you've figured out and do it themselves, which might be hard, they'll just take it from you. So now, you have to spend some of your time defending the fields, rather than tending them, and perhaps your crops suffer for it.

Now, imagine you're one of those other tribesmen, and you just watched your cousin bleed out because some fucking farmer jabbed him with a spear. There's got to be an easier way, you think. Then you hit upon an ingenious design: If they can domesticate cows, why don't we domesticate them? So next year, instead of swarming in with torches and spears waving, you go in calmly, and announce that you are going to protect them from the other raiders...for a fee. Now, of course, you don't really give them a choice in the matter. Perhaps you have to stab a few who resist. But it goes over a lot smoother than just trying to take all of their stuff. So now they have their herd of cattle, and you have yours.

Fast forward a few generations, and you've managed to parley that protection racket into a kingdom. Perhaps you even have the people believing you were set upon the throne by god (or, at least, a god). Maybe you even have them believing you are a god. At any rate, they've completely forgotten that you were just the biggest, baddest barbarian. As the centuries pass, you layer more pomp, more mysticism, more fancy clothes onto that biggest, baddest barbarian, until he almost starts to look civilized.

And you call it the State.

If you can't model people's behaviour with reasonable accuracy, then why do you keep trying to promote changes when your assumptions are flawed? You need to fix your theory first. Then you'd be able to say: "look, my model is consistent with reality, but I found that if we change X, all these cool improvements occur."

Interestingly enough, that's exactly what I'm saying.

[TomUnderSea]

Until Gary's printing press mysteriously catches fire.  Then Greg, who is happy to print the press releases from Alice,  makes a killing.

Force always wins.  If you depend on the good will of all actors for a successful outcome, you will fail.

Is this why, when I go to Burger King, one attendant clubs me over the head, another reaches into my pocket and pulls out an extra dollar, and I get a large fry I didn't ask for?

You don't do this because if you rob the king, he sends his police force after you.

Now if the police force is fragmented and the fragments are available to the highest bidder, robbery becomes more viable as a way of life.  For a real world example look at Somalia.

[TomUnderSea]

...

If you can't model people's behaviour with reasonable accuracy, then why do you keep trying to promote changes when your assumptions are flawed? You need to fix your theory first. Then you'd be able to say: "look, my model is consistent with reality, but I found that if we change X, all these cool improvements occur."

Interestingly enough, that's exactly what I'm saying.

The problem is,  your model is not consistent with reality.

AnCap has not been shown to be a "steady state" society.  Whether you look at the Balkans post Soviet Russia or the beginnings of the Roman Republic, each opportunity to reach a AnCap steady state has instead become an opportunity for statesmen/psychopaths/emperors to establish a government.

The only "x" that you can reasonably claim to change and get a different result is human nature.  Further more you must change all human nature, the same way, at the same time.  I would love to see this happen.

Perhaps that is what the "hands of blue" were trying to do on Miranda.

[myrkul]

Yet you still can't explain the existence of government.

Oh, I did that a while back.

Imagine you're a neolithic tribesman...
...
And you call it the State.

That doesn't sound very realistic, especially not if it was Baldrick's cunning plan to offer protection services despite not being very big and strong, or smart. And besides, you were unable to envision Alice and Alicia and Co. colluding to form an empire. Why not?

Oh, I wouldn't say that. They certainly could collude to form an empire. But it would be unstable for all sorts of game theory reasons.

Has something fundamentally changed about human nature since ancient times when, e.g.: the Balkans were rebuilding in the post-Yugoslavia era?

Nope. But nothing changed about the laws of physics when the internal combustion engine was invented. We just came up with a better way of using them.

[myrkul]

The problem is,  your model is not consistent with reality.

Oh? Free trade has not improved service and product in every industry to which it has been applied?

The only "x" that you can reasonably claim to change and get a different result is human nature.  Further more you must change all human nature, the same way, at the same time.

Nope, the only X I need to change is the acceptability of monopoly in the provision of security. That's a simple education issue.

  I would love to see this happen.

Really pouring on the sociopath today, aren't we?

[TomUnderSea]

Yet you still can't explain the existence of government.

Oh, I did that a while back.

Imagine you're a neolithic tribesman...
...
And you call it the State.

That doesn't sound very realistic, especially not if it was Baldrick's cunning plan to offer protection services despite not being very big and strong, or smart. And besides, you were unable to envision Alice and Alicia and Co. colluding to form an empire. Why not?

Oh, I wouldn't say that. They certainly could collude to form an empire. But it would be unstable for all sorts of game theory reasons.

Has something fundamentally changed about human nature since ancient times when, e.g.: the Balkans were rebuilding in the post-Yugoslavia era?

Nope. But nothing changed about the laws of physics when the internal combustion was invented. We just came up with a better way of using them.

Are you claiming that the understanding of human nature has reached (or surpassed!) the level of understanding of physics represented by the IC engine?