To all of those who would feel oppressed in a Libertarian society...

[myrkul]

In other words, a conquering thug would be seen as just that, and resisted not just by those he directly confronts, but by every person available.

I'll just leave this here for you to read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bystander_effect

This happens because as the number of bystanders increases, any given bystander is less likely to notice the incident, less likely to interpret the incident as a problem, and less likely to assume responsibility for taking action.

1, and the most glaring error here: Who is not going to notice the invasion of a conquering force, with or without a flag?

2, AnCap presupposes a higher level of personal responsibility than the current 'The Police will take care of it' mentality. When there is no official police force, and most people are armed, they tend to take care of their own problems.

So, nice try, and you do have a fine point, in today's society of sheeple, but it doesn't hold up in AnCapistan.

[em3rgentOrdr]

There will be no biggest gun. Everybody will have them.

in other words, libertarianism assumes that all wealth is equally distributed ab initio.

how do you plan on achieving this, as it is self-evidently not the case currently.

Well, Bitcoin works well as a concept on the wealth distribution end. It's not a matter of everyone having a big mansion, lots of food and happiness but being equally able to achieve such things. When the control of the wealth is the hands of the people, this is what becomes the case.

As for weapons, they are not that expensive. Everyone can have a gun even in a corporatist society such as the one we have today.

1. I fail to see how bitcoin achieves an equal distribution of wealth, given that the existing distribution of bitcoins is overwhelmingly slanted towards early adopters (mined large amounts of bitcoin early on when the difficulty was low) and those with large quantities of existing currencies. (to purchase large arrays of mining equipment).

Making a claim that bitcoin achieves an equal distribution of wealth is a little bit too extreme.  However, I would say that since bitcoin facilitates transactions in a peer-to-peer fashion and allows anonymity and no central authority getting a slice of revenue throughs fees/taxes/inflation, therefore use of bitcoin can promote more equal distributions of wealth than what we currently have with VISA, PayPal, the Federal Reserve, taxation, etc.

2. That assumes all weapons are of equal quality.  Joe's inexpensive hunting rifle is far outclassed by Tom's armoured vehicle with an M2, which he could get because he had more money.

money works with gravity the same way mass does.  it attracts.

Here's the deal. It is much more difficult to coerce an armed man.  If some criminal sends a letter each year asking for X% of your income on condition of kidnapping, then that criminal most likely won't walk out alive after attempting to break into your home.  Unfortunately, of course the current democratic government has an aura of legitimacy which enables power hungry psychopaths to use deadly force against innocent non-violent people.  But yeah, provided that every man has a gun ready at all tames and provided that it's considered legitimate to use deadly force to protect yourself from all robbers, then Joe's inexpensive hunting rifle functions effectively enough to nullify the ability of Tom's armored vehicle to make you a slave.  It is very difficult to tax dead people's income.  Cadavers aren't very productive.

[Anonymous]

Making a claim that bitcoin achieves an equal distribution of wealth is a little bit too extreme.

It's not. It potentially takes away the government's and bank's ability to monopolize and limit wealth distribution and creation. It's not about how much money is in everyone's pocket. It's about man's ability to grasp it and build it to further heights while its produced innovation benefits everyone's ability to sustain.

Wealth is potentially unlimited unless it is reduced --again-- to irrational greed, violence and bureaucracy.  

[compro01]

In other words, a conquering thug would be seen as just that, and resisted not just by those he directly confronts, but by every person available.

that situation appears unlikely given the history of societies since the neolithic era.

How well do you suppose the Mafia moving into an area would be received by the general populace? Hailed as liberators, or resisted?

depends on what exactly they do as they move in.

if they start making a problem of themselves on a wide scale, yes, they're going to be resisted, most likely by a newly formed organization of residents of the area (this is how many gangs got started, as a response to combat crime (organized or not) in an area, but once they finished that task, they didn't go away.), in a relatively fair fight (something you don't want as a general rule) which is why a smart mafia leader is not going to do that.

if they just move in and stay generally out of things initially and gradually insert themselves in things over time, you're not going to get nearly as much protest.  nevermind you've done this a hundred times before in other areas, people assume they're special and it will be different here.  then 10 years down the road they're running the whole joint and removing them would be messy and dangerous, and besides, people are now used to it, so you don't rock the boat.

boiling a frog slowly doesn't work with real frogs, but the concept works perfectly with human physiology.

this isn't "today's society".  this dates back thousands of years to the first societies, which then grew into the first empires.

[myrkul]

boiling a frog slowly doesn't work with real frogs, but the concept works perfectly with human physiology.

I think you meant 'Psychology', But yes, slowly turning up the heat might work. Maybe. Of course, keep in mind that in order for it to work, you can't go in to any one place with too much of a show of force, so you'll probably end up evenly matched in any individual encounter, and the people are armed, remember. Also remember, that you can't extort dead people, so it's not in your interest to kill anyone (even as an 'example', because that's not exactly a slow boil tactic).

So, what would most likely happen is that you'll lose a few enforcers, Maybe a few shopkeepers will lose their lives or businesses, the community will notice, and, out you go.

[compro01]

boiling a frog slowly doesn't work with real frogs, but the concept works perfectly with human physiology.

I think you meant 'Psychology'

So, what would most likely happen is that you'll lose a few enforcers, Maybe a few shopkeepers will lose their lives or businesses, the community will notice, and, out you go.

yes, i did.  my spell chequer is working great.

or more realistically, the community notices and everyone individually thinks "that could be me next.  i don't want trouble" and resistance fails to happen or alternatively, a resisting organization forms, boots them out, then becomes a new mafia, and starts expansion, possibly under the premise of getting rid of the existing mafia, and the whole thing starts again from the beginning.

[Anonymous]

What would actually happen in a free society:

"Yeah, we aren't going to tolerate that. I better stock up on more ammo."

"John, how's the shipment of AK's coming along?"

[myrkul]

or more realistically, the community notices and everyone individually thinks "that could be me next.  i don't want trouble" and resistance fails to happen or alternatively, a resisting organization forms, boots them out, then becomes a new mafia, and starts expansion, possibly under the premise of getting rid of the existing mafia, and the whole thing starts again from the beginning.

As soon as the 'new mafia' started muscling businesses or people, out they would go, too. So, as long as they are peacefully protecting each other's property without resorting to coercive methods to obtain funding, Where's the harm in a 'Merchant's association'?

[compro01]

What would actually happen in a free society:

"Yeah, we aren't going to tolerate that. I better stock up on more ammo."

"John, how's the shipment of AK's coming along?"

presumably your list of free societies doesn't include european societies prior to the roman republic/empire expanding to them or eurasian societies prior to the macedonian empire moving in.

i do not see evidence of the type of general human psychology you assume.

[myrkul]

What would actually happen in a free society:

"Yeah, we aren't going to tolerate that. I better stock up on more ammo."

"John, how's the shipment of AK's coming along?"

presumably your list of free societies doesn't include european societies prior to the roman republic/empire expanding to them or eurasian societies prior to the macedonian empire moving in.

i do not see evidence of the type of general human psychology you assume.

Remind me what happened to Rome again... and who took 'em down?

[compro01]

What would actually happen in a free society:

"Yeah, we aren't going to tolerate that. I better stock up on more ammo."

"John, how's the shipment of AK's coming along?"

presumably your list of free societies doesn't include european societies prior to the roman republic/empire expanding to them or eurasian societies prior to the macedonian empire moving in.

i do not see evidence of the type of general human psychology you assume.

Remind me what happened to Rome again... and who took 'em down?

people from what is now germany captured rome, after the romans were in power for about 800 years.

and the eastern roman empire (aka the byzantine empire) kept on going for almost another 1000 years until they were taken out by the ottoman empire, which itself only stopped existing last century.

[JA37]

This happens because as the number of bystanders increases, any given bystander is less likely to notice the incident, less likely to interpret the incident as a problem, and less likely to assume responsibility for taking action.

1, and the most glaring error here: Who is not going to notice the invasion of a conquering force, with or without a flag?

2, AnCap presupposes a higher level of personal responsibility than the current 'The Police will take care of it' mentality. When there is no official police force, and most people are armed, they tend to take care of their own problems.

So, nice try, and you do have a fine point, in today's society of sheeple, but it doesn't hold up in AnCapistan.

1) Maybe they notice it, but don't see it as their problem.

2) So the fact that there is a police today makes people sheep, but the fact that there will be a rent-a-cop force in AnCapistan is going to make people into Mr Badass McKickass.  Makes sense. Perhaps people just act this way, regardless, armed or not? You are aware that in an armed society, your opponents tend to be armed as well. I don't know about you, but my rational self interest tells me that getting into firefights isn't in my immediate self interest. I'd rather have the police deal with it. Armed or not.
In an unarmed society where I can be reasonably certain that someone isn't armed, I can gather a few friends and overpower an assailant.

[myrkul]

In an unarmed society where I can be reasonably certain that someone isn't armed, I can gather a few friends and overpower an assailant.

Which society is this, that the criminals follow the laws?

As far as getting into a firefight not being in my immediate self-interest, some people can look a little bit ahead, and think, "I could be next" (Or maybe a little bit back, and remember "They came for the Catholics...")

[JA37]

Which society is this, that the criminals follow the laws?

As far as getting into a firefight not being in my immediate self-interest, some people can look a little bit ahead, and think, "I could be next" (Or maybe a little bit back, and remember "They came for the Catholics...")

I'd say that in most of Europe your risk of being shot for stopping a criminal is rather small. Stabbed yes, but not shot.

Or they'll just think that they'd rather be home with their kids than engage in a firefight over a hypothetical situation.

[myrkul]

Or they'll just think that they'd rather be home with their kids than engage in a firefight over a hypothetical situation.

Hypothetical? Let's assume a smart invader that takes down one place at a time, and doesn't drive a damn tank down the middle of the road. At what time does the situation switch from hypothetical to real? When the store next door gets taken out? Five doors up? When they kick your door in?

They came for the Catholics, indeed....

[JA37]

Hypothetical? Let's assume a smart invader that takes down one place at a time, and doesn't drive a damn tank down the middle of the road. At what time does the situation switch from hypothetical to real? When the store next door gets taken out? Five doors up? When they kick your door in?

They came for the Catholics, indeed....

It becomes real when there's an IMMEDIATE threat. That's how most humans work. So most people are probably going to sit still until someone knocks on their door, or maybe at their neighbours. You can wish that away all you want, but that doesn't change much.

[myrkul]

It becomes real when there's an IMMEDIATE threat. That's how most humans work. So most people are probably going to sit still until someone knocks on their door, or maybe at their neighbours. You can wish that away all you want, but that doesn't change much.

OK, let's assume that the shopkeepers are complete ostriches.

What about their defense agencies? You know, the people they pay to protect them from this? They'll probably want to take action to keep from losing any more clients.

[Hawker]

It becomes real when there's an IMMEDIATE threat. That's how most humans work. So most people are probably going to sit still until someone knocks on their door, or maybe at their neighbours. You can wish that away all you want, but that doesn't change much.

OK, let's assume that the shopkeepers are complete ostriches.

What about their defense agencies? You know, the people they pay to protect them from this? They'll probably want to take action to keep from losing any more clients.

You mean the Police and the Army?  Doesn't that defeat the whole object of a libertarian society?

[myrkul]

Not a monopoly agency, a market agency that has competitors.

So, not THE army, a bunch of little armies, each competing for customers.

[Hawker]

Not a monopoly agency, a market agency that has competitors.

So, not THE army, a bunch of little armies, each competing for customers.

By competing you mean they kill anyone who enters their territory?  By customers you mean the people they tax in order to pay for their gear?  Or had you imagined a world where Bob's little army sets up shop next door to Bubba's little army and they compete on price and on nice uniforms?