AnCap is not the end

[TheButterZone]

Methinks the baby-tyrant doth protested too much, and was bitten in the arse for it.

[FirstAscent]

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?

So, just so we're clear then, and as a summary of my accusations here that you have extreme difficulty thinking outside the boundaries of your ideology, can we safely assume, as you have been insisting, that the above three items are the only factors which will determine the desperation of people within a society?

[FirstAscent]

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?

So, just so we're clear then, and as a summary of my accusations here that you have extreme difficulty thinking outside the boundaries of your ideology, can we safely assume, as you have been insisting, that the above three items are the only factors which will determine the desperation of people within a society?

That's not what he said at all.

Here's what he said:

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.

So, to be more precise, he's implying that there are no other factors which could influence the desperation of people unless caused by government. I contend there are, and it would take someone heavily blinded by their ideology to not be able to imagine them.

Holliday, are you also really unable to think of any factors which would influence the desperation of people not caused by government?

[FirstAscent]

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?

So, just so we're clear then, and as a summary of my accusations here that you have extreme difficulty thinking outside the boundaries of your ideology, can we safely assume, as you have been insisting, that the above three items are the only factors which will determine the desperation of people within a society?

That's not what he said at all.

Here's what he said:

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.

So, to be more precise, he's implying that there are no other factors which could influence the desperation of people unless caused by government. I contend there are, and it would take someone heavily blinded by their ideology to not be able to imagine them.

Holliday,

Are you also really unable to think of any factors which would influence the desperation of people not caused by government?

I find it hard to imagine that there is much of anything that isn't touched by government intervention. I believe the entire planet is a single, yet complex, ecosystem and if you poke or prod a single element, like throwing a pebble into a pond, you will see ripples over the entire surface.

So, while I may be able to give specific examples of desperation not directly caused by the government, I would be hard pressed to say that government intervention didn't influence it in some way.

For example, let's consider desperation from hunger due to lack of crops from a drought. Was it the weather patterns that caused the desperation, or was it government intervention in the form of corn / cotton subsidies and outlawing hemp which wreaked havoc on the world's food supply?

Most of the civilized world has grown up with some form of government. Everything we do is influenced by our environment.

This question is probably too complex and would take a life time of research to provide a factual answer.

You've completely missed the context of the discussion. Myrkul claims that in AnCap, he can predict most assuredly that people will be less desperate, because he claims he understands all the variables that go into the equation that determines how desperate people will be.

Now, let's examine some of the cases in which you describe how people could become desperate above. Can you be certain that such calamities would not happen in AnCap, or would definitely happen to a lesser degree?

Imagine all of the following:

- Famine
- Genetic engineering of crops gone awry
- Reduction in building codes
- Increased speed of biovectors due to increased population
- Reduction of ecosystem services
- Corporate warfare
- Inability to handle medical expenses
- Increased deleterious effects of synergies between artificial compounds
- Unsustainable harvesting

Are these not all things which could in theory cause desperation among people? Can we definitively say that AnCap always reduces these effects as opposed to possibly exacerbating them. Who would be so foolish as to make assumptions about AnCap when it is so untested on a large scale?

The conversation goes back to determining the value of X, where X is the number of desperate people in a society. Myrkul listed three factors which he claimed would determine the value of X. He challenged me to come up with three factors which could happen without government intervention. I laughed at him, because I couldn't believe that he was allowing his blinded way of thinking not allowing him to come up with those three factors himself.

Look at the list I made above. Is it possible that any of those could occur without government intervention in an AnCap world?

[myrkul]

The conversation goes back to determining the value of X, where X is the number of desperate people in a society. Myrkul listed three factors which he claimed would determine the value of X. He challenged me to come up with three factors which could happen without government intervention. I laughed at him, because I couldn't believe that he was allowing his blinded way of thinking not allowing him to come up with those three factors himself.

Still can't come up with them, then? Are you really so lazy as to want me to defend your position?

[Dalkore]

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.

First off, I see you use the word "choose".   I don't want to hear "choose" when it comes to applying the law to a criminal.      If society doesn't "choose" to help me then I am forced to round up my friends and apply violence against him and any co-conspirators to get my stuff back.  We have then be reverted back to Right of Might.   There are piece of this AnCap that could be used in modern representative societies but overall this ideology is bankrupt for the most part because there the only enforcing body is the whole collective on a volunteer basis.   We see this types of things happen in urban ghettos where people get killed or robbed, everyone knows who did it but because they know there will be a price to pay, they say nothing to the police.  Would we really want this on a wide scale?


Dalkore

[Dalkore]

In true anarchism, where there is a lack of any states (including protection agencies), the robber would simply get away.

I disagree.

+1. Robber would be hunted down and shot, most likely.

VIOLENCE.    Your argument is really turning for the worst.   This really shows the character of what you are advocating.

[myrkul]

In true anarchism, where there is a lack of any states (including protection agencies), the robber would simply get away.

I disagree.

+1. Robber would be hunted down and shot, most likely.

VIOLENCE.    Your argument is really turning for the worst.   This really shows the character of what you are advocating.

Note that this is not the system I advocate. read the top of the quote pyramid "lack of... protection agencies". This is pure, unadulterated, everyone for themselves anarchy. Under such a "system" (lack thereof, really), yes, a robber would most likely simply be hunted down and killed by those he robbed.

[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.

First off, I see you use the word "choose".   I don't want to hear "choose" when it comes to applying the law to a criminal.      If society doesn't "choose" to help me then I am forced to round up my friends and apply violence against him and any co-conspirators to get my stuff back.  We have then be reverted back to Right of Might.   There are piece of this AnCap that could be used in modern representative societies but overall this ideology is bankrupt for the most part because there the only enforcing body is the whole collective on a volunteer basis.   We see this types of things happen in urban ghettos where people get killed or robbed, everyone knows who did it but because they know there will be a price to pay, they say nothing to the police.  Would we really want this on a wide scale?


Dalkore

They say nothing to the police because the police are just as likely to beat or murder them as are the criminals who did the deed. At least they know the criminals.

If you'd like to live in a community where criminals are required to be ostracized, select a protection agency that has that as a provision in their contract, and prefer businesses that utilize that agencies or others that do as well.

[Dalkore]

In true anarchism, where there is a lack of any states (including protection agencies), the robber would simply get away.

I disagree.

+1. Robber would be hunted down and shot, most likely.

VIOLENCE.    Your argument is really turning for the worst.   This really shows the character of what you are advocating.

Note that this is not the system I advocate. read the top of the quote pyramid "lack of... protection agencies". This is pure, unadulterated, everyone for themselves anarchy. Under such a "system" (lack thereof, really), yes, a robber would most likely simply be hunted down and killed by those he robbed.

+1 something is a form of avocation.  It shows a symbol of support.   Governments are hear to stay because the vast majority of people want some 3rd party authority to enforce rights on their behalf.  The vast majority does not want to have to use force to assert them directly through violence and hoping someone comes to arbitration.   Yes governments are sources of all kinds of bad and evil so that tells me that we need reform, enforcement of laws equally across all classes and oversight from people that do not make it their career to do so.

Bankrupt, I'll say it again.

[Dalkore]

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.

First off, I see you use the word "choose".   I don't want to hear "choose" when it comes to applying the law to a criminal.      If society doesn't "choose" to help me then I am forced to round up my friends and apply violence against him and any co-conspirators to get my stuff back.  We have then be reverted back to Right of Might.   There are piece of this AnCap that could be used in modern representative societies but overall this ideology is bankrupt for the most part because there the only enforcing body is the whole collective on a volunteer basis.   We see this types of things happen in urban ghettos where people get killed or robbed, everyone knows who did it but because they know there will be a price to pay, they say nothing to the police.  Would we really want this on a wide scale?


Dalkore

They say nothing to the police because the police are just as likely to beat or murder them as are the criminals who did the deed. At least they know the criminals.

Do I really need to say anything except quote your flimsy claim?   Yes there are cases of abuse but you will find that in any place where power concentrates.  With less structured and mandatory oversight, you are just inviting more abuse.

[myrkul]

In true anarchism, where there is a lack of any states (including protection agencies), the robber would simply get away.

I disagree.

+1. Robber would be hunted down and shot, most likely.

VIOLENCE.    Your argument is really turning for the worst.   This really shows the character of what you are advocating.

Note that this is not the system I advocate. read the top of the quote pyramid "lack of... protection agencies". This is pure, unadulterated, everyone for themselves anarchy. Under such a "system" (lack thereof, really), yes, a robber would most likely simply be hunted down and killed by those he robbed.

+1 something is a form of avocation.  It shows a symbol of support.   Governments are hear to stay because the vast majority of people want some 3rd party authority to enforce rights on their behalf.  The vast majority does not want to have to use force to assert them directly through violence and hoping someone comes to arbitration.   Yes governments are sources of all kinds of bad and evil so that tells me that we need reform, enforcement of laws equally across all classes and oversight from people that do not make it their career to do so.

Bankrupt, I'll say it again.

You're new here, aren't you? +1 is agreeing with the previous post. Please read the article I have linked twice now, and will now link a 3rd time: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism#Law_and_order_and_the_use_of_violence

There are 3rd party authorities to enforce rights, they are known as Protection Agencies or Rights Enforcement Agencies.

Do I really need to say anything except quote your flimsy claim?   Yes there are cases of abuse but you will find that in any place where power concentrates.  With less structured and mandatory oversight, you are just inviting more abuse.

You keep knocking down strawmen. I'm very close to calling troll here, unless you start addressing my actual arguments.

[420]

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.

but in a libertarian society, how do we keep track of people's names?

best case scenario we have an established ID system that 99% of people trust and he can't counterfeit an ID and he doesnt' have id, people will see him as a suspicious person because he doesn't have that ID

[myrkul]

best case scenario we have an established ID system that 99% of people trust and he can't counterfeit an ID and he doesnt' have id, people will see him as a suspicious person because he doesn't have that ID

Yeah, something like that. If there is a market need for non-forgable ID cards, then they'll be provided. Probably by a federated group of agencies.

[FirstAscent]

The conversation goes back to determining the value of X, where X is the number of desperate people in a society. Myrkul listed three factors which he claimed would determine the value of X. He challenged me to come up with three factors which could happen without government intervention. I laughed at him, because I couldn't believe that he was allowing his blinded way of thinking not allowing him to come up with those three factors himself.

Still can't come up with them, then? Are you really so lazy as to want me to defend your position?

How convenient for you to selectively quote me. I guess if you can't win the argument, then just selectively leave out the part I wrote that counters your position.

[myrkul]

The conversation goes back to determining the value of X, where X is the number of desperate people in a society. Myrkul listed three factors which he claimed would determine the value of X. He challenged me to come up with three factors which could happen without government intervention. I laughed at him, because I couldn't believe that he was allowing his blinded way of thinking not allowing him to come up with those three factors himself.

Still can't come up with them, then? Are you really so lazy as to want me to defend your position?

How convenient for you to selectively quote me. I guess if you can't win the argument, then just selectively leave out the part I wrote that counters your position.

Oh, that list of things were supposed to create desperation in people? I just thought it was your usual random list of unrelated concepts.

Looking over them, I suppose some of them could, indeed. Of course, government makes most of them worse, and indeed causes a good many. Still, you did manage, I think, to put out a list of three possible causes of desperation not directly caused by government intervention. Of course, does that prove your point? No, it does not. I contend that removal of the State will reduce desperation. I don't claim to know by exactly how much. You are saying "You can't know by how much!", and then claiming that that refutes my claim.

[FirstAscent]

The conversation goes back to determining the value of X, where X is the number of desperate people in a society. Myrkul listed three factors which he claimed would determine the value of X. He challenged me to come up with three factors which could happen without government intervention. I laughed at him, because I couldn't believe that he was allowing his blinded way of thinking not allowing him to come up with those three factors himself.

Still can't come up with them, then? Are you really so lazy as to want me to defend your position?

How convenient for you to selectively quote me. I guess if you can't win the argument, then just selectively leave out the part I wrote that counters your position.

Oh, that list of things were supposed to create desperation in people? I just thought it was your usual random list of unrelated concepts.

Looking over them, I suppose some of them could, indeed. Of course, government makes most of them worse, and indeed causes a good many. Still, you did manage, I think, to put out a list of three possible causes of desperation not directly caused by government intervention. Of course, does that prove your point? No, it does not. I contend that removal of the State will reduce desperation. I don't claim to know by exactly how much. You are saying "You can't know by how much!", and then claiming that that refutes my claim.

Your claim was that you knew all the variables which determine what causes desperation in people. Now, in your above post, it appears that you concede that maybe that isn't the case, even while trying to insist otherwise.

Pathetic and contradictory all at the same time.

[Dalkore]

best case scenario we have an established ID system that 99% of people trust and he can't counterfeit an ID and he doesnt' have id, people will see him as a suspicious person because he doesn't have that ID

Yeah, something like that. If there is a market need for non-forgable ID cards, then they'll be provided. Probably by a federated group of agencies.

It sure starting to sound like a central government with all kinds of enumerated powers.   Federated groups, Rights enforcers, etc...   You wish I would troll you, I am just waiting for some real debate food.   Why should I take time actually flexing intellectual muscle if your responses are weak with lots of solutions that really sound like what I believe is necessary no matter how it operates or what we decide to call it?    You may even call me an anti-disestablishmentarianist.  

[myrkul]

best case scenario we have an established ID system that 99% of people trust and he can't counterfeit an ID and he doesnt' have id, people will see him as a suspicious person because he doesn't have that ID

Yeah, something like that. If there is a market need for non-forgable ID cards, then they'll be provided. Probably by a federated group of agencies.

It sure starting to sound like a central government with all kinds of enumerated powers.   Federated groups, Rights enforcers, etc...   You wish I would troll you, I am just waiting for some real debate food.   Why should I take time actually flexing intellectual muscle if your responses are weak with lots of solutions that really sound like what I believe is necessary no matter how it operates or what we decide to call it?    You may even call me an anti-disestablishmentarianist.  

Have you read that article I linked yet?

[Dalkore]

The conversation goes back to determining the value of X, where X is the number of desperate people in a society. Myrkul listed three factors which he claimed would determine the value of X. He challenged me to come up with three factors which could happen without government intervention. I laughed at him, because I couldn't believe that he was allowing his blinded way of thinking not allowing him to come up with those three factors himself.

Still can't come up with them, then? Are you really so lazy as to want me to defend your position?

How convenient for you to selectively quote me. I guess if you can't win the argument, then just selectively leave out the part I wrote that counters your position.

Oh, that list of things were supposed to create desperation in people? I just thought it was your usual random list of unrelated concepts.

Looking over them, I suppose some of them could, indeed. Of course, government makes most of them worse, and indeed causes a good many. Still, you did manage, I think, to put out a list of three possible causes of desperation not directly caused by government intervention. Of course, does that prove your point? No, it does not. I contend that removal of the State will reduce desperation. I don't claim to know by exactly how much. You are saying "You can't know by how much!", and then claiming that that refutes my claim.

Your claim was that you knew all the variables which determine what causes desperation in people. Now, in your above post, it appears that you concede that maybe that isn't the case, even while trying to insist otherwise.

Pathetic and contradictory all at the same time.

I will answer this:   Its a lack of opportunity and a sense of fairness in the legal system is what creates desperation.   People need hope and to know the rules are applied equally and fair.  When that does not exist people lose faith in the system and then they are capable of many acts that you work to avoid in society.