Criticisms?

[Equilux]

I'd like to introduce an example that has a bit more weight to it, which will show more clearly where there is a problem in milder examples.

Imagine someone who is just rich and powerfull, a warlord, wallstreet bigshot, ceo of a multinational, or gangleader. There are plenty of people like that now, and there will be in an AnCap, or under NAP. This guy has his own arbitraging companies, his own private army/policeforce and a chain of stores and hotels to bring in the money.

Now what would possebly stop him from claiming land, kicking people out of their houses and stores? Sure people would want to "sue" him, get him into arbitraging. Mister bigshot could just insist on only using his own firms, so what if the competing arbitrage firm would suggest a common ground? Mister bigshot could just refuse till the and of time while he just enforces his own "laws" and the people would be homeless and/or dieing in the street. Justice has become a commodity for sale, and the richer of more powerfull you become you can buy more "justice".

"The idea of "free contract" between the potentate and his starving subject is a sick joke"

[1713490208]

1713490208

[1713490208]

1713490208

[1713490208]

1713490208

[1713490208]

1713490208

[1713490208]

1713490208

[FirstAscent]

I'd like to introduce an example that has a bit more weight to it, which will show more clearly where there is a problem in milder examples.

Imagine someone who is just rich and powerfull, a warlord, wallstreet bigshot, ceo of a multinational, or gangleader. There are plenty of people like that now, and there will be in an AnCap, or under NAP. This guy has his own arbitraging companies, his own private army/policeforce and a chain of stores and hotels to bring in the money.

Now what would possebly stop him from claiming land, kicking people out of their houses and stores? Sure people would want to "sue" him, get him into arbitraging. Mister bigshot could just insist on only using his own firms, so what if the competing arbitrage firm would suggest a common ground? Mister bigshot could just refuse till the and of time while he just enforces his own "laws" and the people would be homeless and/or dieing in the street. Justice has become a commodity for sale, and the richer of more powerfull you become you can buy more "justice".

"The idea of "free contract" between the potentate and his starving subject is a sick joke"

Isn't that what I said here:

If arbiters can't/don't back up their decisions with violence, then they are just a bunch of dickheads with neat opinions.

Exactly. So some arbiter says I owe someone else x. I don't agree. Ha! Better yet, I'll just hire the arbitration firm that I own - after all, they are private firms, no? Think of the benefits of doing so. The fee I pay them goes back into my pocket, and they'll render the decision I desire.

Wait though. Myrkul will say that I can't do that. Oh yeah? Just who the fuck says I can't do that? The NAP doesn't.

Firepower. It all boils down to that. Violence. Who's guns are bigger and more numerous. Who has less scruples. Who is the bigger and richer asshole.

Does that sound like the world we want to make for ourselves?

And here?

If anyone actually agrees with FirstAscent and would like his points addressed, feel free to quote him and ask. Otherwise, I'll just assume he's ranting into the aether.

You just don't get it, do you?

Let me spell it out for you. Nobody has to abide by any damn thing in your society.

Except they do. They have to unfortunately abide by the whims and fancies of whoever has the biggest guns and the most money.

[Equilux]

I'd like to introduce an example that has a bit more weight to it, which will show more clearly where there is a problem in milder examples.

Imagine someone who is just rich and powerfull, a warlord, wallstreet bigshot, ceo of a multinational, or gangleader. There are plenty of people like that now, and there will be in an AnCap, or under NAP. This guy has his own arbitraging companies, his own private army/policeforce and a chain of stores and hotels to bring in the money.

Now what would possebly stop him from claiming land, kicking people out of their houses and stores? Sure people would want to "sue" him, get him into arbitraging. Mister bigshot could just insist on only using his own firms, so what if the competing arbitrage firm would suggest a common ground? Mister bigshot could just refuse till the and of time while he just enforces his own "laws" and the people would be homeless and/or dieing in the street. Justice has become a commodity for sale, and the richer of more powerfull you become you can buy more "justice".

"The idea of "free contract" between the potentate and his starving subject is a sick joke"

Isn't that what I said here:

If arbiters can't/don't back up their decisions with violence, then they are just a bunch of dickheads with neat opinions.

Exactly. So some arbiter says I owe someone else x. I don't agree. Ha! Better yet, I'll just hire the arbitration firm that I own - after all, they are private firms, no? Think of the benefits of doing so. The fee I pay them goes back into my pocket, and they'll render the decision I desire.

Wait though. Myrkul will say that I can't do that. Oh yeah? Just who the fuck says I can't do that? The NAP doesn't.

Firepower. It all boils down to that. Violence. Who's guns are bigger and more numerous. Who has less scruples. Who is the bigger and richer asshole.

Does that sound like the world we want to make for ourselves?

And here?

If anyone actually agrees with FirstAscent and would like his points addressed, feel free to quote him and ask. Otherwise, I'll just assume he's ranting into the aether.

You just don't get it, do you?

Let me spell it out for you. Nobody has to abide by any damn thing in your society.

Except they do. They have to unfortunately abide by the whims and fancies of whoever has the biggest guns and the most money.

True, true, but it seemed to me that the understanding of the implications of this didn't fully carry over to the other examples that are still discussed. And I thought an example that took smaller and more detailed steps wouldn't hurt

[FirstAscent]

True, true, but it seemed to me that the understanding of the implications of this didn't fully carry over to the other examples that are still discussed. And I thought an example that took smaller and more detailed steps wouldn't hurt

I appreciate you reinforcing the concepts.

[myrkul]

Back to the topic, in the inheritance situation, primogeniture is not a social evil.  In your system, eldest son has a market incentive to take possession and refuse to arbitrate.  All the local eldest sons will agree with him and the rest of the people will just get used to him.

Leaving aside the fact that I explicitly described a market incentive not to screw over your family, if primogeniture becomes the accepted method, then that is what the market selected. If you don't like it, I suggest you draw up a will.

Now what would possebly stop him from claiming land, kicking people out of their houses and stores? Sure people would want to "sue" him, get him into arbitraging. Mister bigshot could just insist on only using his own firms, so what if the competing arbitrage firm would suggest a common ground? Mister bigshot could just refuse till the and of time while he just enforces his own "laws" and the people would be homeless and/or dieing in the street. Justice has become a commodity for sale, and the richer of more powerfull you become you can buy more "justice".

First, some definitions. Words matter, and, in fact, the Wikipedia article on arbitration mentions, "Not to be confused with arbitrage"
Arbitration: non-court dispute resolution.
Arbitrage: the practice of taking advantage of a price difference between two or more markets.

Secondly, You mentioned NAP, yes? He is actively harming people, yes? Right now? Shoot his ass.

Isn't that what I said here:

<snip>

And here?

If anyone actually agrees with FirstAscent and would like his points addressed, feel free to quote him and ask. Otherwise, I'll just assume he's ranting into the aether.

<snip>

True, true, but it seemed to me that the understanding of the implications of this didn't fully carry over to the other examples that are still discussed. And I thought an example that took smaller and more detailed steps wouldn't hurt

Ranting into the aether... Apparently FirstAscent doesn't understand the concept of "ignored"

[FirstAscent]

Ranting into the aether... Apparently FirstAscent doesn't understand the concept of "ignored"

So what if you're ignoring me. My posts are to show others how ridiculous and ill formed your ideas are.

[FirstAscent]

Secondly, You mentioned NAP, yes? He is actively harming people, yes? Right now? Shoot his ass.

Either they do, and you have an escalation of violence and retaliation. Feuds.

Or they don't, due to intimidation.

[Hawker]

Back to the topic, in the inheritance situation, primogeniture is not a social evil.  In your system, eldest son has a market incentive to take possession and refuse to arbitrate.  All the local eldest sons will agree with him and the rest of the people will just get used to him.

Leaving aside the fact that I explicitly described a market incentive not to screw over your family, if primogeniture becomes the accepted method, then that is what the market selected. If you don't like it, I suggest you draw up a will.

...snip...

No your market incentive is to take possession and refuse arbitration. 

By "accepted method" you mean the method with the most enforcement fire-power.

Siblings who have been excluded don't get to say whether or not a parent dies intestate.  But on your logic, a will won't matter as anyone can take possession and refuse arbitration.

You made the thread asking for criticisms.  My criticism is that you want a system where the person with the most fire-power wins every time.  That is not an improvement on what we have now.  In fact, its a crap system.

[myrkul]

Siblings who have been excluded don't get to say whether or not a parent dies intestate.  But on your logic, a will won't matter as anyone can take possession and refuse arbitration.

A will is a legally binding contract. If you have taken possession, in violation of the will, and are refusing arbitration, you're harming the other siblings. Now they're justified in kicking him off by force.

If the market accepts the fact that he is claiming primogeniture after his father died intestate, and continues to provide him services, then that is the market choice for dealing with a parent who dies intestate: primogeniture. If you do not like that, make sure you don't die intestate.

Critics love making edge cases, and saying "see, your system is based on who has the most guns", while ignoring the fact that even at the best of times, government is based on who has the most guns. I don't pretend it would be perfect, but the majority of cases will be settled peaceably, between the two parties involved. In a government system, the majority forces the minority in every decision.

[FirstAscent]

Critics love making edge cases, and saying "see, your system is based on who has the most guns", while ignoring the fact that even at the best of times, government is based on who has the most guns. I don't pretend it would be perfect, but the majority of cases will be settled peaceably, between the two parties involved. In a government system, the majority forces the minority in every decision.

We're not making edge cases. We're describing to you human nature in the absense of any respectable and consistent enforcement of a common unified set of laws.

What you advocate is no consistent set of laws (NAP is irrelevant because it is not adhered to nor enforced) and no consistent enforcement of laws (multiple enforcement firms). But it's doubly irrelevant regarding the enforcement of laws, because there is no consistent set of laws anyway.

The reality of your joke of a system is this:

1. Everyone follows their own made up rules.
2. Those who can afford it, arbitrarily, and at their own whims, enforce their own made up rules with money and guns.

Let me repeat that for you (in bold faced type):

1. Everyone follows their own made up rules.
2. Those who can afford it, arbitrarily, and at their own whims, enforce their own made up rules with money and guns.

[Explodicle]

The reality of your joke of a system is this:

1. Everyone follows their own made up rules.
2. Those who can afford it, arbitrarily, and at their own whims, enforce their own made up rules with money and guns.

That sounds exactly like a republic, except item #1 would be "someone else's made up rules". The Ancaps seem to be proposing we lower that arbitrary barrier in #2 to include all people, and assuming that people who waste their money on irrational rules will become poorer and lose influence. Correct?

[Hawker]

Siblings who have been excluded don't get to say whether or not a parent dies intestate.  But on your logic, a will won't matter as anyone can take possession and refuse arbitration.

A will is a legally binding contract. If you have taken possession, in violation of the will, and are refusing arbitration, you're harming the other siblings. Now they're justified in kicking him off by force.

If the market accepts the fact that he is claiming primogeniture after his father died intestate, and continues to provide him services, then that is the market choice for dealing with a parent who dies intestate: primogeniture. If you do not like that, make sure you don't die intestate.

Critics love making edge cases, and saying "see, your system is based on who has the most guns", while ignoring the fact that even at the best of times, government is based on who has the most guns. I don't pretend it would be perfect, but the majority of cases will be settled peaceably, between the two parties involved. In a government system, the majority forces the minority in every decision.

Democratic government is most certainly not based on who has most guns.

Inheritance is not an edge case and your approach that people who are refused arbitration have no recourse is shocking.  How can you even begin to advocate such an unjust system?  I'd be ashamed.

[myrkul]

Democratic government is most certainly not based on who has most guns.

Bullshit. 50%, plus one, of the people tell me it's illegal to drink caffeine, and suddenly I can't drink caffeine. If I try to do so anyway, they arrest me, and if I resist hard enough, they shoot me. How is that not about who has the most guns?

Inheritance is not an edge case and your approach that people who are refused arbitration have no recourse is shocking.  How can you even begin to advocate such an unjust system?  I'd be ashamed.

I never said they had no recourse, that you don't like their recourse is your problem.

[FirstAscent]

The reality of your joke of a system is this:

1. Everyone follows their own made up rules.
2. Those who can afford it, arbitrarily, and at their own whims, enforce their own made up rules with money and guns.

That sounds exactly like a republic, except item #1 would be "someone else's made up rules". The Ancaps seem to be proposing we lower that arbitrary barrier in #2 to include all people, and assuming that people who waste their money on irrational rules will become poorer and lose influence. Correct?

Incorrect.

If you change #1, then we're no longer discussing what I said, are we?

As for #2, your sentence regarding it is manipulative and presumptuous.

[FirstAscent]

Democratic government is most certainly not based on who has most guns.

Bullshit. 50%, plus one, of the people tell me it's illegal to drink caffeine, and suddenly I can't drink caffeine. If I try to do so anyway, they arrest me, and if I resist hard enough, they shoot me. How is that not about who has the most guns?

Then I suggest your time would be better spent discussing an ideology which favors leniency with regard to substance intake, instead of the silliness you do spend your time advocating.

[Explodicle]

The reality of your joke of a system is this:

1. Everyone follows their own made up rules.
2. Those who can afford it, arbitrarily, and at their own whims, enforce their own made up rules with money and guns.

That sounds exactly like a republic, except item #1 would be "someone else's made up rules". The Ancaps seem to be proposing we lower that arbitrary barrier in #2 to include all people, and assuming that people who waste their money on irrational rules will become poorer and lose influence. Correct?

Incorrect.

If you change #1, then we're no longer discussing what I said, are we?

As for #2, your sentence regarding it is manipulative and presumptuous.

I guess not? It is no longer discussing Ancap, it is discussing the republic. I'm applying the same simplistic description to both systems, since analyzing them any way other than by comparison is pointless.

Indeed it is presumptive, that's why I asked for an Ancap to confirm that presumption. I'm sorry if that came across as a question directed at you, as I am very familiar with your thoughts on the topic.

I feel like I just walked into a room where people are fighting and got a chair broken over my head.

[myrkul]

I feel like I just walked into a room where people are fighting and got a chair broken over my head.

Heh... Which is why I waited.

"The Ancaps seem to be proposing we lower that arbitrary barrier in #2 to include all people, and assuming that people who waste their money on irrational rules will become poorer and lose influence."

This isn't 100%. Understand that the underlying principle of AnCap is the Non-Aggression Principle: No person has the right to initiate force or fraud on another person. Outside of that, anything goes. You can make your own rules, but if you try to force other people to follow them, that will be interpreted as an attack on the society, and an attempt to create a new government. It will not end well for you.

[Explodicle]

I feel like I just walked into a room where people are fighting and got a chair broken over my head.

Heh... Which is why I waited.

"The Ancaps seem to be proposing we lower that arbitrary barrier in #2 to include all people, and assuming that people who waste their money on irrational rules will become poorer and lose influence."

This isn't 100%. Understand that the underlying principle of AnCap is the Non-Aggression Principle: No person has the right to initiate force or fraud on another person. Outside of that, anything goes. You can make your own rules, but if you try to force other people to follow them, that will be interpreted as an attack on the society, and an attempt to create a new government. It will not end well for you.

True, but even the NAP can be interpreted differently between libertarians, and I would assume Ancaps too. Apologies if this sparks a huge tangent, but carbon pollution might be a good example - depending on your scientific ability, carbon emissions are anywhere between unimportant and an existential risk. Assuming the Ancap society is just as divided as this forum is, how would/should interpretation conflicts be resolved?

I guess what I'm trying to say is I somewhat agree with FirstAscent in that the rules enforced seem subjective, even if it's all NAP. I've always just considered it a guideline.

[finkleshnorts]

Siblings who have been excluded don't get to say whether or not a parent dies intestate.  But on your logic, a will won't matter as anyone can take possession and refuse arbitration.

A will is a legally binding contract. If you have taken possession, in violation of the will, and are refusing arbitration, you're harming the other siblings. Now they're justified in kicking him off by force.

If the market accepts the fact that he is claiming primogeniture after his father died intestate, and continues to provide him services, then that is the market choice for dealing with a parent who dies intestate: primogeniture. If you do not like that, make sure you don't die intestate.

Critics love making edge cases, and saying "see, your system is based on who has the most guns", while ignoring the fact that even at the best of times, government is based on who has the most guns. I don't pretend it would be perfect, but the majority of cases will be settled peaceably, between the two parties involved. In a government system, the majority forces the minority in every decision.

Again, says who? How is anything legally binding in a world with no laws or rulers?

[myrkul]

Again, says who? How is anything legally binding in a world with no laws or rulers?

Please read the rest of the thread, where I explain how law is developed and enforced without government.

True, but even the NAP can be interpreted differently between libertarians, and I would assume Ancaps too. Apologies if this sparks a huge tangent, but carbon pollution might be a good example - depending on your scientific ability, carbon emissions are anywhere between unimportant and an existential risk. Assuming the Ancap society is just as divided as this forum is, how would/should interpretation conflicts be resolved?

Arbitration. Interpretation conflicts, damages, anything except an active assault can be resolved in Arbitration or mediation.