AnCap is not the end

[FirstAscent]

I would not purchase a contract that requires me to pay others to arbitrate against thieves.

You don't want your stuff back?

Most likely, it won't be stolen in the first place. There are few thieves compared to non-thieves.

How would you know? You could only answer that until you see how many desperate people AnCap creates combined with how effective the incentive is to not steal. Suppositions on top of theories on top of beliefs on top of suppositions...

I think we can be certain that the ratio of thieves to non-thieves in AnCap would likely not be exactly as it would be in a non AnCap, but which way that ratio goes is just a guess.

Hardly. These people would not be homeless in an Ancap society, and thus, not desperate. The son would be an honest businessman. Fewer desperate people, fewer thieves.

Why do you believe knowing one variable in a multi variable equation give you confidence to predict a total sum?

[1714045183]

1714045183

[1714045183]

1714045183

[myrkul]

I think we can be certain that the ratio of thieves to non-thieves in AnCap would likely not be exactly as it would be in a non AnCap, but which way that ratio goes is just a guess.

Hardly. These people would not be homeless in an Ancap society, and thus, not desperate. The son would be an honest businessman. Fewer desperate people, fewer thieves.

Why do you believe knowing one variable in a multi variable equation give you confidence to predict a total sum?

I can't predict a total sum, but I can sure as hell point out a trend.

Your equation, "how many desperate people AnCap creates combined with how effective the incentive is to not steal." can be expressed as "Crime = X / Y", where X is the number of desperate people, and Y is the effectiveness of the disincentive to steal.

Clearly, Y in today's society is not 100%, or there would be no robbery. Even assuming that it is similar (which I am not convinced it would be, I feel relatively confident it would be much higher than now) in an AnCap society, it's clear that reducing X would lower the crime rate. Even assuming no disincentive to steal, reducing X enough still results in a net downward trend.

[FirstAscent]

I think we can be certain that the ratio of thieves to non-thieves in AnCap would likely not be exactly as it would be in a non AnCap, but which way that ratio goes is just a guess.

Hardly. These people would not be homeless in an Ancap society, and thus, not desperate. The son would be an honest businessman. Fewer desperate people, fewer thieves.

Why do you believe knowing one variable in a multi variable equation give you confidence to predict a total sum?

I can't predict a total sum, but I can sure as hell point out a trend.

Your equation, "how many desperate people AnCap creates combined with how effective the incentive is to not steal." can be expressed as "Crime = X / Y", where X is the number of desperate people, and Y is the effectiveness of the disincentive to steal.

Clearly, Y in today's society is not 100%, or there would be no robbery. Even assuming that it is similar (which I am not convinced it would be, I feel relatively confident it would be much higher than now) in an AnCap society, it's clear that reducing X would lower the crime rate. Even assuming no disincentive to steal, reducing X enough still results in a net downward trend.

X is a sum, and you are predicting one component of that sum by referencing an article. Sure, reducing X (assuming Y is constant or higher) results in less crime, but you still have no idea what X is.

[myrkul]

I think we can be certain that the ratio of thieves to non-thieves in AnCap would likely not be exactly as it would be in a non AnCap, but which way that ratio goes is just a guess.

Hardly. These people would not be homeless in an Ancap society, and thus, not desperate. The son would be an honest businessman. Fewer desperate people, fewer thieves.

Why do you believe knowing one variable in a multi variable equation give you confidence to predict a total sum?

I can't predict a total sum, but I can sure as hell point out a trend.

Your equation, "how many desperate people AnCap creates combined with how effective the incentive is to not steal." can be expressed as "Crime = X / Y", where X is the number of desperate people, and Y is the effectiveness of the disincentive to steal.

Clearly, Y in today's society is not 100%, or there would be no robbery. Even assuming that it is similar (which I am not convinced it would be, I feel relatively confident it would be much higher than now) in an AnCap society, it's clear that reducing X would lower the crime rate. Even assuming no disincentive to steal, reducing X enough still results in a net downward trend.

X is a sum, and you are predicting one component of that sum by referencing an article. Sure, reducing X (assuming Y is constant or higher) results in less crime, but you still have no idea what X is.

How hard is it to predict that allowing people to start their own businesses would reduce the level of desperate people in the world? How hard is it to predict that allowing people to choose their own wages would reduce the level of desperate people in the world? How hard is it to predict that allowing people to freely contract for whatever services or goods they choose to provide or purchase would reduce the level of desperate people in the world?

[FirstAscent]

I think we can be certain that the ratio of thieves to non-thieves in AnCap would likely not be exactly as it would be in a non AnCap, but which way that ratio goes is just a guess.

Hardly. These people would not be homeless in an Ancap society, and thus, not desperate. The son would be an honest businessman. Fewer desperate people, fewer thieves.

Why do you believe knowing one variable in a multi variable equation give you confidence to predict a total sum?

I can't predict a total sum, but I can sure as hell point out a trend.

Your equation, "how many desperate people AnCap creates combined with how effective the incentive is to not steal." can be expressed as "Crime = X / Y", where X is the number of desperate people, and Y is the effectiveness of the disincentive to steal.

Clearly, Y in today's society is not 100%, or there would be no robbery. Even assuming that it is similar (which I am not convinced it would be, I feel relatively confident it would be much higher than now) in an AnCap society, it's clear that reducing X would lower the crime rate. Even assuming no disincentive to steal, reducing X enough still results in a net downward trend.

X is a sum, and you are predicting one component of that sum by referencing an article. Sure, reducing X (assuming Y is constant or higher) results in less crime, but you still have no idea what X is.

How hard is it to predict that allowing people to start their own businesses would reduce the level of desperate people in the world? How hard is it to predict that allowing people to choose their own wages would reduce the level of desperate people in the world? How hard is it to predict that allowing people to freely contract for whatever services or goods they choose to provide or purchase would reduce the level of desperate people in the world?

How hard is to imagine that those three imaginings only imagine a subset of the variables that influence the total number of desperate people in a society? Once again, I think it's incumbent upon you to be more objective and think (without being influenced by your ideology) about a lot of other factors that go into creating desperate situations for people.

[myrkul]

How hard is to imagine that those three imaginings only imagine a subset of the variables that influence the total number of desperate people in a society? Once again, I think it's incumbent upon you to be more objective and think (without being influenced by your ideology) about a lot of other factors that go into creating desperate situations for people.

Name three not directly related to government intervention.

[FirstAscent]

How hard is to imagine that those three imaginings only imagine a subset of the variables that influence the total number of desperate people in a society? Once again, I think it's incumbent upon you to be more objective and think (without being influenced by your ideology) about a lot of other factors that go into creating desperate situations for people.

Name three not directly related to government intervention.

Are you not able to yourself?

[myrkul]

How hard is to imagine that those three imaginings only imagine a subset of the variables that influence the total number of desperate people in a society? Once again, I think it's incumbent upon you to be more objective and think (without being influenced by your ideology) about a lot of other factors that go into creating desperate situations for people.

Name three not directly related to government intervention.

Are you not able to yourself?

What, are you 12? Are you really going to try and devolve this into an "I asked you first" argument? If you do not provide those three examples, I will assume you cannot, and therefore, concede the point that removal of the State will better society by reducing, vastly, the number of desperate people therein.

[FirstAscent]

How hard is to imagine that those three imaginings only imagine a subset of the variables that influence the total number of desperate people in a society? Once again, I think it's incumbent upon you to be more objective and think (without being influenced by your ideology) about a lot of other factors that go into creating desperate situations for people.

Name three not directly related to government intervention.

Are you not able to yourself?

What, are you 12? Are you really going to try and devolve this into an "I asked you first" argument? If you do not provide those three examples, I will assume you cannot, and therefore, concede the point that removal of the State will better society by reducing, vastly, the number of desperate people therein.

I provided about eight or ten, and then went to post in the other thread, then returned here to finish my post, hit the "post" button, and the forum software said I needed to wait more than 20 seconds before making another post, and my post was lost.

But again, I'm surprised you can't think of any yourself. They're glaringly obvious. I wouldn't want to look so mind bogglingly stupid if I were you and engaged in this debate and be thinking that the three examples provided covers it all. Are you really unable to come up with more examples?

Let me ask that again: are you really not able to come with more ways someone might become desperate? Really? Just answer yes or no. Yes means you can't think of anymore (not something to be proud of). No means you're selectively not saying things in hopes nobody will notice (not something to be proud of).

[finkleshnorts]

Don't forget the possibility of the use of economic incentives to get the robber to return the stolen goods. If the thief has been positively identified, then you can identify him to the rest of society, and inform them of the crime that was committed, and that he has not made restitution (given the stuff back). The rest of the society, then, could choose whether or not to deal with this person. I predict he would find many doors closed to him. If the choice is between starve or give back your stolen goods, then I know I would choose to return the goods, or their monetary equivalent, if I had sold them.

Consider the hatred here towards "tainted" coins. Not one major theft had the coins returned. Mt. Gox is the only large company that freezes tainted coins. Why would an AnCap society be different?

I would sell food to a known thief. I'm not going to let someone starve for stealing, personally. I would sell a car, or most anything else for that matter, to a known thief. If I don't, someone else will.

[myrkul]

How hard is to imagine that those three imaginings only imagine a subset of the variables that influence the total number of desperate people in a society? Once again, I think it's incumbent upon you to be more objective and think (without being influenced by your ideology) about a lot of other factors that go into creating desperate situations for people.

Name three not directly related to government intervention.

Are you not able to yourself?

What, are you 12? Are you really going to try and devolve this into an "I asked you first" argument? If you do not provide those three examples, I will assume you cannot, and therefore, concede the point that removal of the State will better society by reducing, vastly, the number of desperate people therein.

I provided about eight or ten, and then went to post in the other thread, then returned here to finish my post, hit the "post" button, and the forum software said I needed to wait more than 20 seconds before making another post, and my post was lost.

But again, I'm surprised you can't think of any yourself. They're glaringly obvious. I wouldn't want to look so mind bogglingly stupid if I were you and engaged in this debate and be thinking that the three examples provided covers it all. Are you really unable to come up with more examples?

Let me ask that again: are you really not able to come with more ways someone might become desperate? Really? Just answer yes or no. Yes means you can't think of anymore (not something to be proud of). No means you're selectively not saying things in hopes nobody will notice (not something to be proud of).

So, you concede, then. Thanks.

[FirstAscent]

How hard is to imagine that those three imaginings only imagine a subset of the variables that influence the total number of desperate people in a society? Once again, I think it's incumbent upon you to be more objective and think (without being influenced by your ideology) about a lot of other factors that go into creating desperate situations for people.

Name three not directly related to government intervention.

Are you not able to yourself?

What, are you 12? Are you really going to try and devolve this into an "I asked you first" argument? If you do not provide those three examples, I will assume you cannot, and therefore, concede the point that removal of the State will better society by reducing, vastly, the number of desperate people therein.

I provided about eight or ten, and then went to post in the other thread, then returned here to finish my post, hit the "post" button, and the forum software said I needed to wait more than 20 seconds before making another post, and my post was lost.

But again, I'm surprised you can't think of any yourself. They're glaringly obvious. I wouldn't want to look so mind bogglingly stupid if I were you and engaged in this debate and be thinking that the three examples provided covers it all. Are you really unable to come up with more examples?

Let me ask that again: are you really not able to come with more ways someone might become desperate? Really? Just answer yes or no. Yes means you can't think of anymore (not something to be proud of). No means you're selectively not saying things in hopes nobody will notice (not something to be proud of).

So, you concede, then. Thanks.

Answer my yes or no question.

[myrkul]

Don't forget the possibility of the use of economic incentives to get the robber to return the stolen goods. If the thief has been positively identified, then you can identify him to the rest of society, and inform them of the crime that was committed, and that he has not made restitution (given the stuff back). The rest of the society, then, could choose whether or not to deal with this person. I predict he would find many doors closed to him. If the choice is between starve or give back your stolen goods, then I know I would choose to return the goods, or their monetary equivalent, if I had sold them.

Consider the hatred here towards "tainted" coins. Not one major theft had the coins returned. Mt. Gox is the only large company that freezes tainted coins. Why would an AnCap society be different?

I would sell food to a known thief. I'm not going to let someone starve for stealing, personally. I would sell a car, or most anything else for that matter, to a known thief. If I don't, someone else will.

Would you enter into a contract with him, knowing that if he breaks the contract, you'll have no peaceful recourse against him? (he's already refused arbitration once, there's no reason why he wouldn't again)

[myrkul]

So, you concede, then. Thanks.

Answer my yes or no question.

Why should I? You conceded my point.

[FirstAscent]

So, you concede, then. Thanks.

Answer my yes or no question.

Why should I? You conceded my point.

No. I will tell you if I concede your point or provide the list I made earlier if you answer that yes or no question.

[myrkul]

If you do not provide those three examples, I will assume you cannot, and therefore, concede the point that removal of the State will better society by reducing, vastly, the number of desperate people therein.

I provided about eight or ten, and then went to post in the other thread, then returned here to finish my post, hit the "post" button, and the forum software said I needed to wait more than 20 seconds before making another post, and my post was lost.

^^^That's you conceding, right there.^^^

[FirstAscent]

If you do not provide those three examples, I will assume you cannot, and therefore, concede the point that removal of the State will better society by reducing, vastly, the number of desperate people therein.

I provided about eight or ten, and then went to post in the other thread, then returned here to finish my post, hit the "post" button, and the forum software said I needed to wait more than 20 seconds before making another post, and my post was lost.

^^^That's you conceding, right there.^^^

Answer the yes or no question and then I'll provide that list. If I don't provide that list, you can toot your horn to all your lib buddies. Otherwise, stop looking so impotent.

[myrkul]

If you do not provide those three examples, I will assume you cannot, and therefore, concede the point that removal of the State will better society by reducing, vastly, the number of desperate people therein.

I provided about eight or ten, and then went to post in the other thread, then returned here to finish my post, hit the "post" button, and the forum software said I needed to wait more than 20 seconds before making another post, and my post was lost.

^^^That's you conceding, right there.^^^

Answer the yes or no question and then I'll provide that list. If I don't provide that list, you can toot your horn to all your lib buddies. Otherwise, stop looking so impotent.

You are trying to devolve this into an "I asked you first" argument. You're so cute.

[FirstAscent]

If you do not provide those three examples, I will assume you cannot, and therefore, concede the point that removal of the State will better society by reducing, vastly, the number of desperate people therein.

I provided about eight or ten, and then went to post in the other thread, then returned here to finish my post, hit the "post" button, and the forum software said I needed to wait more than 20 seconds before making another post, and my post was lost.

^^^That's you conceding, right there.^^^

Answer the yes or no question and then I'll provide that list. If I don't provide that list, you can toot your horn to all your lib buddies. Otherwise, stop looking so impotent.

You are trying to devolve this into an "I asked you first" argument. You're so cute.

Some other time. You're boring.

[myrkul]

If you do not provide those three examples, I will assume you cannot, and therefore, concede the point that removal of the State will better society by reducing, vastly, the number of desperate people therein.

I provided about eight or ten, and then went to post in the other thread, then returned here to finish my post, hit the "post" button, and the forum software said I needed to wait more than 20 seconds before making another post, and my post was lost.

^^^That's you conceding, right there.^^^

Answer the yes or no question and then I'll provide that list. If I don't provide that list, you can toot your horn to all your lib buddies. Otherwise, stop looking so impotent.

You are trying to devolve this into an "I asked you first" argument. You're so cute.

Some other time. You're boring.

Absolutely adorable.