|
On September 02 2010 21:42 MiraMax wrote:
It is loaded, because the definition of "victimless" already denies its counter argument. You rightfully say that me storing TNT can potentially cause harm and might cause "panic". However, what if nobody knows about it? Then there is no direct harm left and no "victim", only "potential harm" and "potential victims".
So if nobody knows about it anyway then how does the government come to solve it? It's no different, unless the government should have the legal right to come into people's homes against their wishes and audit their property for TNT. But I'm guessing you don't advocate that.
I have no idea what this has to do with the principle of victimless crimes, because it has nothing to do with knowledge, luck, happenstance or whatever. It's not about applying it to situations in which one merely gets lucky whilst performing irresponsible acts, and thus afterwards saying that because there was no victim the acts were never wrong in the first place. It's only applied to acts where it is recognised that nobody was ever in danger, like for instance by storing TNT in a demonstrably safe and secure facility. If TNT itself were blanket banned, then even this act would be considered a crime and would be punishable when it it is clear that nobody was ever in danger from it at all. That is when "victimless crime" is invoked. So I wouldn't call that loaded language.
It's the same as saying that driving around after having consumed 5 litres of tequila is a victimless crime too, so long as you don't cause an accident and that nobody discovers that you were even drunk in the first place. Well, it's still a hugely irresponsible act, and people would still hold you responsible for that in some way. Maybe not by throwing you in a cage, but certainly by cutting off any dealings with you, reporting you to your DRO or whatever.
It's the fact that you COULD have caused harm that truly matters. So not many people, including myself, would ever argue that this act was perfectly acceptable just because it happened out that it was victimless in the end. I think that we actually agree on this, so it's just a semantic dispute, if anything.
On September 02 2010 21:42 MiraMax wrote:
Well, drug laws proponents claim the same thing! It is a statistical fact that drug users (in general) commit significantly more crimes and these crimes are often directly motivated by the need for more drugs. They claim that cannabis acts as an entry drug and thus brings a lot of "potential harm" with lots of "potential victims". I think in the case of cannabis they are wrong, but the line of argument is not principally flawed (and that's my only point).
But, for example, I never claimed that merely owning TNT was irresponsible. Clearly it depends on all of the circumstances involved. So again, if you own a safe and secure facility with tall barbed-wire covered walls and security guards dotted all around the place, then it's obviously not going to be irresponsible of you to store TNT there. In the same way, nobody would accept that just smoking cannabis by itself is somehow a hugely irresponsible and dangerous act. And especially no more than drinking alcohol would be considered dangerous.
I mean, if we can both agree that there is no genuine problem from pot smokers, then why would people just invent a problem and pay enormous amounts for its solution? Now, maybe you argue that the harm from the statist drug ban will carry over into an anarchic society, as people will carry their ex-post facto justifications for it with them. But that's not a criticism of anarchy. It's a criticism of the lasting damage that the state can do. So because it's not examining anarchy in a vacuum, it's not exactly fair.
Now if there is a cannabis user driving or something, then they might be seen as being irresponsible for sure. But it's not merely that they happen to smoke pot. If I smoke pot in my house and I lock all the doors, who would ever argue that I pose a risk to anybody else by doing so? Now, I'm not saying that all pot users should have to do that, but my point is that blanket drug bans couldn't possibly be valid from the "potential harm" argument. It ignores circumstance entirely.
And in fact, with drug laws it's not even consuming the drug that is illegal, but merely owning it. So I can't even hold cannabis in my hands, even though I wouldn't consume it. Ridiculous. How is that possibly going to be dangerous to anybody? And as an aside, I don't actually know if driving while high from cannabis is dangerous. I only guess that it probably is, but I have no idea.
So let's get your argument straight. Your point is that because most people see drugs as being dangerous in a democracy (because the government bans it today), this is evidence that people will happily to pay for "security" forces in an anarchic society in order to effectively ban drugs there too. And people, on the whole, will not consider this a breach of the peace, but in fact as a means of keeping the peace and so will have no objections to it. Well, firstly that's assuming that voting has any real influence over the system, and that people actually voted for the drug war and aren't just coming up with ex-post facto justifications for it. I mean, just because the government banned alcohol at one point doesn't mean that private individuals would have ever dreamed of doing the same thing with their own money. But let's say that you're right about that.
Are you saying that in an ancap society, it's just obvious that there will emerge private forces that would break up peaceful hippies around camp-fires singing Kumbayah, and locking up all the pot smokers that were present? And are you saying people would actually look at that action being committed by private individuals and think that it's actually appropriately "keeping the peace". Surely it would be clear that it is actually violating the peace that was already there? But with the state, the exact same scenario goes relatively unquestioned and unchallenged.
After all, those hippies around the camp-fire were "breaking the law". And so 99% of people argue that even if they personally agree with the hippies, and think that the law itself should be changed, you still have to follow the laws while they're around. And so the police officers were "in the right" to do what they did. You see, presupposed legitimacy. It's not the same with private forces arresting pot smokers, even if you're right that they would exist. But I don't think people would ever voluntarily agree to pay their own money for "security" forces to arrest peaceful people. In-fact, I would pay money to defend people against that. Maybe we disagree on this, but even so I don't see how it justifies the state even if you're right. If anything it's just saying that evil is inevitable, not that it is somehow transforms it into being virtuous.
And that's ignoring your whole argument about the statistical fact that drug users commit more crimes. This is because they're already considered criminals and so have no protection from the monopoly law. So what difference does it make to them if they commit other crimes when they're already considered criminals? The argument was the same for alcohol prohibition, but that in fact served to create more crime as drinking alcohol became illegal, as we now know.
And finally, it's missing my whole initial point. That locking people up in cages for smoking weed on your lawn is clearly immoral. That is the case even if you've banned it from your property. We can hopefully all clearly see that it's overreacting, right? So even if I am a landlord and I have a no-weed allowed rule in the contract, and I catch one of my voluntarily agreeing rent payers smoking weed in the house, I still can't morally lock them in a cage.
And it doesn't matter the amount of time that I lock them in a cage for. Be it for 5 years or for 1 month. If I personally locked up a pot smoker on my property for even a week, it is clearly wrong. But it's this false meme of presupposed legitimacy that changes the perception of the exact same action when it is done by the state, and in the exact same circumstances. Assuming the state even owns the land in the first place, which it doesn't. So this "my house, my rules" argument that I've heard here many times just fails on all fronts.
On September 02 2010 21:42 MiraMax wrote:
No, things don't get MORALLY justified because the majority thinks so. But morals are not an applicable concept here. In any social system (including socio-economic ones) rules (codes of conduct) develop and the opinion of the majority (or better: the influence of minorities/individuals on the majority) is the driving factor in this development. This is intrinsic to social systems in theory and over more an empirical fact. Ancap does not and cannot change that.
I absolutely agree, but I don't understand how you get from A to B here. Why are morals inapplicable? Are you saying that once a social system develops "rules" (either implicitly, explicitly, formalised or otherwise), any act is therefore justified? Again, it's not even mutually exclusive. Surely we can examine slavery in the context of moral justification, even if the developed opinion of the majority (or better: the influence of monitories/individuals on the majority) is the driving factor in the development of owning other human beings in the codes of conduct in a social system. Do you see what I mean?
On September 02 2010 21:42 MiraMax wrote:
In all systems these rules derive their legitimacy from the excercising of power. In modern societies people tend to prefer that the legitimacy arises by consent of the many
So in other words, what you're saying here is that 'the consent of the governed' is a really just a pleasant euphemism for 'might makes right'? That people just tend to prefer to think their consent matters, even though it's really just the power to coerce that makes the coercion 'legitimate'? I'm guessing this isn't actually what you're saying, but it sure sounds like it.
I feel like you're muddying the waters. Let's just keep it really simple. If I consent to the Mafia, surely it's still applicable to say that the Mafia itself is an immoral organisation and has no legitimacy to extort others. Would you say morality is not applicable here? Regardless of consent at all, whether it be the majority who consents or whatever. It doesn't defer authority to the Mafia to extort others, because the individuals who consented had no authority to extort others either. Where exactly is this authority magically created along this process of consenting?
|
On September 02 2010 18:17 dvide wrote:Show nested quote +On September 02 2010 13:17 Incognito wrote:
When I spy on you and point a gun at you, you're going not going to worry if I have presupposed legitimacy or not, you're just going to do what I say or get shot.
Correct, but I don't call you a state. I call you a thug. But that's not exactly what the state is. If it was simply this, none of us would rationally attempt to defend the state. Nobody would rationally claim that it was necessary for peace, because it would instead be clear that it is violating peace. Does this make sense? You see, the government is not merely a bunch of thugs; they are a bunch of thugs with false presupposed legitimacy. So even if you are unfortunately correct, and it is inevitable that a bunch of thugs are going to take ultimate control, are you going defend them and claim that it's necessary? But of course, my argument is that this recognition makes up all the difference practically to whether or not those thugs can have any genuine power over the population. Their power comes not from their mere ability to coerce, but from the idea that they have the moral right to initiate force. Take that false meme away and the state vanishes by itself. They would have no power to coerce others if people didn't falsely believe that are doing it legitimately. You see, states don't need to literally wage war on their citizens to extract taxes from them. If they were required to wage war, it simply wouldn't be feasible. In fact, states can simply draft citizens into their army because PEOPLE ACTUALLY THINK IT'S THEIR PATRIOTIC AND NATIONAL DUTY TO COMPLY.
I never said that said thugs = state. But the fact that you do have thugs running around attempting to coerce people is not something I'd like to have around. I think you overestimate the power of legitimacy. And you ignore some other factors that can support the success of the state. There are probably more factors, but I'll list the two most obvious. One is terror. Suppose instead of pointing a gun at you, I mutilate your body and hang it up in front of my corporate office. Sure, some people will get enraged and will be provoked to fight me, but a lot of other people will be quiet and accept that I have the power to make their lives miserable. We call this a reign of terror. Usually a reign of terror isn't solely a reign of terror though. While it can be immensely useful, it also usually needs something else to back it up.
Which comes to the second factor: political support. Although you argue that government is coercive to everyone and that everyone should have reasons to despise the state, the simple fact is government confers a huge amount of benefit on portions of its population in order to maintain its legitimacy. Government is hugely beneficial to certain interest groups, like corporations who use the power of the state to protect their unnatural oligopolies. Or the welfare mother, who can leech off of society at large without having to contribute anything. On all sides of the argument there are people who benefit from the coercive properties of government. This principle is common in the system we like to call democracy. Is the government going to get away with some ridiculous law like "we are going to kill everyone's firstborn son"? No. That brings benefit to nobody. On the other hand, while nobody likes taxation in itself, a majority of people like the benefits it brings them that they are willing to comply. If the government says "We need taxes in order to pay for your free health care". That is something people will support, especially if that person is poor and cannot afford to pay for health care himself. Consider socialism. Of course if I will get a bunch of support if I say that I would like to destroy the top 1% on behalf of the bottom 99%. Its like the wolf and lamb analogy. Two wolves and a lamb vote on what to have for lunch. Is this morally legitimate? No. But the wolves don't care about moral legitimacy. Quite frankly lunch trumps morality. Are you going to seek to destroy the entity that protects your saftey? Or the entity that protects your business from fair competition? Or the entity that provides you with your living? No, you wouldn't. If you think that any "thug" that decides to use coercive measures to establish a state will attempt to do it alone, then you're missing something. The thug pointing his gun at you doesn't have to point it at everyone. As long as he gains the political support of key interest groups, he does have the practical power to control other aspects of society. Your whole argument rests upon assumptions of morality (wow! and people think anarchists/libertarians are immoral) while the fact is that people take practical factors under consideration in addition to morals. The whole basis of anarcho-capitalism is the assumption that everyone values freedom [as much as the anarcho-capitalist does]. And while yes, people do value freedom, they also value a lot of other things. Running around and yelling YAY FREEDOM isn't going to convince that many people who think that the benefits of government outweigh the loss of freedom it brings. The existence of government has little to do with any moral authority, but rather widespread sense of political support.
I recommend you watch this, because he goes into it in more detail than I could hope to cover here.
If you're trying to make an argument, state the key points. Don't expect people to watch 30 minute videos. Note: I watched the first two minutes, noticed it has nothing to do with the quote you are supposedly trying to respond to, and then stopped watching.
One thing I would like to congratulate you on is your ability to convince people that the issue at hand is legitimacy. You even managed to get people to post a whole page of debate arguing on your premises, which is an admirable feat.
Waiting to see how you respond, I'll go on the assumption that what you DON'T say is going to be more telling than what you do. Prove me wrong.
On September 02 2010 20:03 kidcrash wrote:Show nested quote +On September 02 2010 13:13 Incognito wrote:
If human nature exists, it is futile debating the merits of different forms of government. You'd be better off debating what rules should/should not be enforced and how they should be enforced. Excuse me if I'm misinterpreting what you are trying to say. I think this is taking the anarcho-capitalist economic theory and pointing out it's inefficiencies through utilitarian measures.
No I meant to say that if you accept the premise that human nature exits (i.e., man inherently has certain characteristics/dispositions and is not purely a product of the environment), then it is futile to be discussing which FORM of government is good. The point is that you cannot propose a form or system of government that will address the issue at hand because a form/system must be objective. Unless you have a perfect being that can transcend human error (i.e. God), then you cannot have a perfect government. If humans are to govern themselves, than any imperfections in human nature cannot be eliminated by the use of human government. Its like trying to build a perfect system with imperfect building blocks. Its not going to happen.
On a little side note:
But I don't think people would ever voluntarily agree to pay their own money for "security" forces to arrest peaceful people. In-fact, I would pay money to defend people against that.
So how exactly is it efficient if two people are paying money to support opposing goals?
So even if I am a landlord and I have a no-weed allowed rule in the contract, and I catch one of my voluntarily agreeing rent payers smoking weed in the house, I still can't morally lock them in a cage.
What if the contract said "if you smoke weed I have the right to lock you up in a cage?"
|
On September 02 2010 13:13 Incognito wrote:
The whole discussion of why can/can't anarcho-capitalism "work" revolves around the definition of work. Work for who? In relation to what? It all has to do with values. If you value meritocracy, you'd have a problem with the "capitalist" part of anarcho-capitalism. If you value equality, you might have similar objections. If you value stability, you might object to the anarchist part. Anyway...
I value stability, and would rather not have the instability of a state that can shape the life of millions at the stroke of a pen.
And you are right on the value subjectivism. People who want to coerce will probably find the state appreciable too.
On September 02 2010 13:13 Incognito wrote:
* Disclaimer * I am not supporting the legitimacy of the state.
Is it not implied that coercion is the 'only way' when you say that voluntary action can't do what you want to do? Seems to me like an implied support. "I'd love to make peace with the middle-east but it just doesn't seem possible..."
On September 02 2010 13:13 Incognito wrote:
1. Would there be a stock market in anarcho-capitalism? If so, then you do a short sale on a companies stock. Then, you hire a "defense" company and use violent means to destroy the company and make a profit.
Yes. The PDAs (private defense agencies) can do such a thing, but because you know and I know that they can do such a thing, people will have prepared something to deal with it. Their contracts will be voided, they will be considered outlaws by everyone, anyone can arrest you and/or the PDAs employers, or kill you if you are pillaging.
The PDA would have everything to lose, its own employers could turn get bounties+some amnesty if they manage to kill/arrest the management. Hitman businesses are pretty expensive if they're not legitimized, especially if it includes sustaining your own hierarchy, coercing big groups of people, and going against the whole society. The state can do it because it's a state, not because of the number of tanks or cops they have. If even 10% of the population today would see them for what they are, no amount of ammunition or fiat money would save them.
And I doubt you could trade in the stock market with an outlaw firm anyway lol.
On September 02 2010 13:13 Incognito wrote:
2. Fraud. Life grows complex. Even in the last 50 years, the volume of information that people need to process to accurately make good decisions has increased tremendously. An increase in complexity, information asymmetry, and the limited ability for humans to process information makes fraud very easy.
Uh, people individually can't know everything, yeah. But even the relations of trust and specialization is maximized in the free market. The right way to think of it is not "what wrong can happen" but how do you best prevent such wrongs. I think the most fraud that exists in the world today is by the part of a state. I don't think all private scams in history added together get to the trillions of dollars stolen and indebted by the part of governments. And that's because the bureaucrat is much more sheltered from market interaction, and the bureaucrats have to be paid by law. Hell, any scammer would love to be in the position of government - he doesn't even have to fool the people into buying, he is paid no matter what!
On September 02 2010 13:13 Incognito wrote:3. Show nested quote +Violence is naturally unpopular, therefore is hard to use massively if it's recognized as such. If the state is to ever fall and not come back for a while, people will instantly know what is up if someone tries to set up a new state. No one will pay for that failed experiment, just as much as America today won't go back to slavery. Who says violence is naturally unpopular? For most people, it is, but it violence isn't something related to popularity. All it takes is one person to fund it for it to exist. One of the reasons inequality exists today is that the government uses its monopoly on power to protect private property. People are naturally jealous when they are poor and there are super wealthy people around. In anarchy, nothing's stopping the average joe from picking up a gun and shooting Bill Gates or the like. Bill Gates is going to want to protect his private property, so he might as well pay for the establishment of some sort of state. It only takes ONE wealthy person who wants the existence of the state to make coercive states viable. I'm pretty sure Bill Gates has the means and the funds to do such.
Are you saying the state has prevented the assassination of Bill Gates lol? Please, has the government made the grass grow too? When the government 1-steals from everyone 2- establishes a service like police and law enforcement and 3- prohibits anyone else from providing such a service, you can't say that if it weren't for it there would be no security nor law, because they are monopolizing it! It is the same thing as a proletariat waiting at bread lines in communism saying that there would be no one to give him bread in a free market! Ridiculous. A service is a service, and men are men. The men giving you security now (and doing the shittiest job at it shoud I add) would be no different than in anarchism, if not better. Because they'd be forced to compete for once, they'd be paid what the market is willing to pay, and they'd be as susceptible to the law as anyone else.
Bill Gates does not have either the funds nor the mental capacity to run a more successful state. Nor is it particularly efficient to invade property rights to protect property rights. Bill Gates would spend the necessary amount to protect his property and no more - that way he remains both popular and efficient.
On September 02 2010 13:13 Incognito wrote:
On Anarchy. Anarchy is a system which depends on the existence of tabula rasa. If man is purely a product of the environment, then government can move from a physical entity to an intangible idea. Yet it still is a government. i.e. governing principle. Under the tabula rasa idea, anarchy is possible under many forms. One way is to condition everyone to act like a hive drone and make them completely constrained by feelings of not wanting to be socially ostracized by the community. That results in the non-existence of government without freedom. Another way is to have a completely educated population. Law is a substitute for rational thought. It is a shortcut that allows people who can't think rationally to come to semi-rational conclusions. Of course, law is abusable because it is arbitrary, open to interpretation, and hard to adapt to the situation at hand. Therefore, a society that has collectively achieved the highest level of education can operate without laws. Of course, the whole conflict is how you define education and rational thought. Rational for who? For individual self interest? Collective interest? A mix of all of them?
Of course if tabula rasa doesn't exist, then anarchy doesn't work. The OP bypasses this by acknowledging that anarchy doesn't work in the presence of "human nature", but then neither do states. This is a cop-out. The OP should just have denied the existence of human nature and went straight for the gut with tabula rasa. Oh well.
The thing is, if "human nature" exists, then there is no possible way to create a system of government or non-government that is perfect because the word system implies that it should work regardless of who is in power (or not in power). Since you can't know who is benevolent and who is not, you cannot make a foolproof system. The idea of checks and balances tries to mitigate the damage that one person can do, but all that did was a) make it hard for good people to do good things, b) make it hard to react to a crisis, and c) remove the extreme good/bad decisions and fill government with mediocre decisions. If human nature exists, it is futile debating the merits of different forms of government. You'd be better off debating what rules should/should not be enforced and how they should be enforced. You don't need everyone to be geniuses as much as today you'd need everyone to be geniuses so they can choose competent rulers. Anarchism is not about taking all responsibilities of the current economy into each individual, it's about letting each individual transfer their own responsibilities to those he chooses, instead of taking it for some collectivist cause (which btw, doesn't exist. Collectivism has no conscience, collectivism makes no decisions. Man makes decisions, and in statism, some man will have to make decisions for people, or more precisely, steal from them the ability to make decisions themselves).
Read a bit on how can market law work in anarcho-capitalism. I'm not gonna link, and I'm not going to explain for the seventh time. There is no assumption of tabula rasa.
|
On September 02 2010 13:17 Incognito wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2010 08:42 dvide wrote:On August 29 2010 08:05 Sl4ktarN wrote:
I am an anarchist, however I dont digg anarcho capitalism ONE BIT. Reason? With money comes power, with power comes opression, with opression comes fascism. Shall everybody live in poverty, so that no-one will have "power"? Yay for communism! Just how does money bring power exactly? The power to trade? Wealth only brings the power of oppression when there is a vehicle of oppressive power to buy at a low cost, which is kind of the whole point. Would companies fund the enforcement of arbitrary, oppressive dictats out of pocket? Consider how huge the cost would be to them, and for what benefit? All this talk about private companies becoming the next state is kind of missing the point. The state has presupposed authority. States face little resistance because of the false meme that the state has legitimacy. Private companies do not have presupposed legitimacy. They could not offload the cost of oppression to the taxpayer, AND the cost would be much greater overall because people would actually defend themselves against the oppression where there is no presupposed legitimacy. How could Coca Cola possibly become the next state? Makes little sense. And where would their money come from if not from voluntary trade in the first place? When I spy on you and point a gun at you, you're going not going to worry if I have presupposed legitimacy or not, you're just going to do what I say or get shot. After you get a monopoly/start building your own private corporate military, all notions of voluntary trade go out the window. Sure, you may have originally built your commercial empire through voluntary trade, but after a point you can enforce your power.
Will you hold that gun up forever? Did desposts and monarchs hold up the gun forever? No, and they didn't have to be forced by a bigger gun either. Holding up the gun against someone diminishes both yours and the subjects utility maximization (lol neoclassic economics). In the long run, both you and the subject will be poorer than people who didn't try to kill eachother all the time. So people have been consistently letting go of coercion in the long run, even if it may have been used early in history. There are a-priori reasons for that, that I've been reciting too often.
|
On September 02 2010 13:44 Dapper_Cad wrote:
"What happens is, that for every evil, infallible plan you can think of, the free market has already thought of a counter"
This is the kind of wide eyed talk which economics students love because it sounds great when you draw it out on a while board and it has little to do with the real world. I think the key assumption is that somehow the free market is completely free of human intervention, that it operates outside of man made laws and simply allows a kind of evolution to take over. The fact is that a free market requires private property laws in order to operate, laws which are entirely man made and require man made solutions to keep them operating.
I'm living in Anarcho-capitalist heaven and someone came to my house and took my T.V. he then sat outside my house and tried to sell it to passers by. What now? Well now we have courts and police. Perhaps we can avoid government by having them privately owned and operated. Unfortunately the guy who stole my T.V. is the son of the guy that owns and operates my local law enforcement department. What now? Now we need larger and more elaborate means of arbitrating these kind of disputes. What would that look like?
On the scenario: you could call the cops on him; go outside and take the tv back; if he aggresses you can aggress back; if you suspect he has a gun you can point a gun at him; if he has physically assaulted you you can smack him back (which arguiably you can already do since he broke into your property) etc. etc. etc. Not that much different from today.
And of course free market relies on private property. It goes with capitalism.
On September 02 2010 13:44 Dapper_Cad wrote:
“[The market] will at least make it unprofitable for you to do it”
Another important assumption made by the An-Cap crazies is that every agent in the market acts in their own interest at all times, that is, that every individual in the system attempts to maximise their own profit at all times. This is demonstrably untrue and not just when it comes to people “being nice”, that is reducing profit in order to help someone else margin, it also goes for spite, that is decreasing someone else's profit even if it decreases your own, it also assumes that there is no stupidity, that is no one does anything which they THINK will increase their own profit but actually has the reverse effect.
I've noticed that people keep making that argument, and I have to say it has to be because of neoclassical economics that only assume profit maximization in exchange prices without taking anything else into consideration. And that's a valid criticism... to mainstream microeconomics. Austrian economics takes everything into consideration, because man takes everything he knows into consideration. People are "nice" for a number of reasons, and I hardly doubt the state has any part in that. Does the state makes people be nice to their friends and spouses? Does the state forces the retailer to be nice to its customers? Please, being nice is also a function of profit. Being nice is a demanded aspect of business. Being nice is a demanded behavior in social life. Sure people can not deliver "niceness", but it comes at a cost to them, and that much you ignore as much as neoclassicists ignore the benefits.
On September 02 2010 13:44 Dapper_Cad wrote:
The whole movement is a dangerous joke, a joke because it's so obviously flawed and dangerous because there's a lot of people who use it to push the corporate agenda which has nothing to do with advancing human civilisation, which is what the best wrong headed an-caps have in mind.
I think you should get familiar with the joke before you start laughing at it. Because if people ask you if you got it, you'd have to answer what the joke is.. and then you may become the joke instead.
|
On September 02 2010 19:09 Badjas wrote:Show nested quote +On September 02 2010 18:36 dvide wrote:
I also want to touch on the concept that states are merely like landlords setting rules on their own property. Let's say I own a house. For the sake of argument, I inarguably own the house. Now let's say I come home from work one day and I see a hippie smoking weed on my lawn. I don't get to throw the hippie in a cage in my basement for 5 years right? I think we can all recognise that this would not be considered moral. I might have a rule that says nobody can have weed on my property, but that's irrelevant. I still cannot morally lock the guy in a cage for 5 years.
So what gives the state the moral right to do this, even if you argue that they legitimately own all of the land? The state doesn't own the land. It governs the land. It owns some where it is deemed more useful to be a public resource rather than a private resource. (such as roads, nature reserves, public utility..) Part of governing is the task to make sure that on the publicly available resources, individuals in a country (region of governance) don't interfere with the utility of that resource beyond the reasonable. Incarcerating someone is a tool for coercing people to follow the rules established by the governing body. How those rules are established, I guess, is your beef. Personally I think there could perhaps be improvement, but I'm not gonna argue about an anarchaic (not a word?) system being better at that. I do like to point out that the state doesn't own all the land.
How can the state even know what is reasonable to interfere with, if they are exempt of market incentives? Measuring the amount of letters they get? Measuring popularity ratings? How can that be even remotely better than price signals and profit incentives (which by the way, they still react to, but in a worse manner, through lobbyism, corruption, favoritism, etc.)?
|
On September 02 2010 19:21 MiraMax wrote:Show nested quote +On September 02 2010 18:36 dvide wrote:
I also want to touch on the concept that states are merely like landlords setting rules on their own property. Let's say I own a house. For the sake of argument, I inarguably own the house. Now let's say I come home from work one day and I see a hippie smoking weed on my lawn. I don't get to throw the hippie in a cage in my basement for 5 years right? I think we can all recognise that this would not be considered moral. I might have a rule that says nobody can have weed on my property, but that's irrelevant. I still cannot morally lock the guy in a cage for 5 years.
So what gives the state the moral right to do this, even if you argue that they legitimately own all of the land? Well, in an ancap society I could pay an armed force for locking the guy away for 5 years (or longer if I am willing to pay more). Who would stop me from doing so? What would be my moral right to do this? In the civilized world I don't know of any country who locks away a hippie for 5 years just because he smoked weed. But in those same countries there are certainly individuals and even groups of people who think that hippies should be locked away forever. Those groups might even be willing to pay a fortune or take measures in their own hand just to be sure that they will never encounter a hippie on their lawn... That is why your example fails to prove anything.
Is the army really making a profit by holding some innocent person up when they are risking so much more through lawsuits and ostracism? The retaliation that ensues is always going to be proportional to the crime, and while the aggressor may have won something in the short run, the vast majority of the market will look to punish him. The guy's family neighbors, friends, and family, would notify the media, the courts, the other PDA and military agencies of what those guys are doing. They would be demanded to release him, and appear in court. If they don't, GL HF 1v99999 BO1. And you, as the conspirator, would be as liable too, when found out.
What you also don't realize is that rich evil guys already do that kind of stuff today, using the state's privileges and secret agencies. There is a vast vast black history of government hijacking, killing, "suiciding" people around the world, and including some of it's own citizens.
|
On September 02 2010 20:03 kidcrash wrote:Show nested quote +On September 02 2010 13:13 Incognito wrote:
If human nature exists, it is futile debating the merits of different forms of government. You'd be better off debating what rules should/should not be enforced and how they should be enforced. Checks and balances can be mediocre at times. It can also be inefficient at times as well. I think we'd be better off trying to find ways to make it as efficient as possible and finding "The greatest amount of good" than relying on an economic and moral principle that stealing is always bad in any form; which along with this principle, we run the risk of jeopardizing our safety and comfort by relying on human nature and "market justice".
I don't think you have read anything about market justice. Because if you did, you'd notice that it would be just as efficient, if not more, than this pitiful monopolized system. Postal-office-level of efficiency.
edit:now with 20% less patronization.
|
Here is a parable:
You take a Sunday hike in the forest.
A robber approaches you, put a knife at you back and shouts "give me all your money".
Is this stealing? Definitely yes.
Do you know he has done something wrong? Yes.
Do you have the right to defended yourself? Yes.
But what if the robber takes his arm over your shoulders and says "let go for a walk”.
He explains that you have no right to defend yourself; that you are obligated to give him your money and that you have to love him no matter what. That he is a hell of a guy.
Of cause the robber is a parable of the state. I have to pay taxes; I have no right to defend myself against this thievery, and the state still thinks I have to love him.
The state is in my opinion just Satan or Statan.
|
On September 02 2010 20:05 MiraMax wrote:Show nested quote +On September 02 2010 19:32 dvide wrote:On September 02 2010 19:09 Badjas wrote:
Incarcerating someone is a tool for coercing people to follow the rules established by the governing body. How those rules are established, I guess, is your beef. Personally I think there could perhaps be improvement, but I'm not gonna argue about an anarchaic (not a word?) system being better at that. I do like to point out that the state doesn't own all the land. I agree that they don't actually own all the land. I was addressing those who have argued this. But ok, we agree that the government has no legitimate claim to the land. But let me ask you the same question again. If not from land ownership, where does the government get the right to lock somebody up for 5 years for smoking weed? Are you arguing that democracy gives the state the moral right to do this, so long there is a majority consensus? Remember that it is a victimless "crime". Again, how does the act of voting magically defer authority to the state that I don't even have myself? Please explain this to me, because I always end up asking this in ancap debates and yet I've literally never had anybody even address it. If you think it's a loaded question, which might be the case, then say so. But please address it. Because clearly I don't have the right to throw people into cages for smoking weed, right? I think we can agree on this. So my 'consent' (even if I give it) is ultimately meaningless. The whole concept of "victimless crimes" is loaded, has no meaning in law and is therefore irrelevant. Storing tons of TNT in my cellar does no harm to anybody, but we might agree that it is a bad idea and that imposing rules on people to not do it, could be a good idea, as long as the dangers associated with it, greatly outweigh the benefits.
And guess what the difference is, you can prove that a lot of damage to other people's private property can ensue from storing that huge amount of chemical power. But you can't prove the same for some guy getting stonned and passing out in his living room.
Market law would NOT sue or hold you or a PDA liable from invading people's property that you can prove in court to be dangerous to yourself or the neighbors. No actions would be taken period, judges would just read the news "oh some retard just asked to be raided, thats cool".
Anyone can sue for anything of course but cases like these are too obvious to see what the verdict would be.
On September 02 2010 20:05 MiraMax wrote:
Now who should impose this rule or any rule for that manner? In most modern states it is the legislative who decides on which rule should be passed, the executive who controls that rules are abided and the judiciary to punish non-compliance and to resolve conflicts. This is known as seperation of powers and probably you've heard of it.
I've heard of how it fails once the thugs in office are able to get around it.
On September 02 2010 20:05 MiraMax wrote:
Morality is not an applicable concept in all of the rules/laws that are passed, some are simply pragmatic and the same applies to an ancap society (or any society for that matter). Legitimacy, however, directly follows from the construction of the state, which is primarily based on consent, our only guidance for deciding what should be considered harmful and what not.
Morality is an applicable concept in dispute resolution. Law is a collection of pragmatic concepts that have worked consistently in multiple disputes to the best of all parties satisfaction.
The state doesn't make itself legitimate, the people recognize it as legitimate, and aggregately, it can be said the state is legitimate. The state can't legitimize itself anymore than a referee in a game legitimizes itself. If the referee were to make blatant mistakes in favor of some team, and everyone knew about it, people that watched games would instantly know whatever match there's that referee in it, is going to be a bullshit match with an irrelevant score. The referee would either have to be dismissed, or he would drive all the fans away.
|
On September 02 2010 20:13 MiraMax wrote:Show nested quote +On September 02 2010 19:40 dvide wrote:On September 02 2010 19:21 MiraMax wrote:
Well, in an ancap society I could pay an armed force for locking the guy away for 5 years (or longer if I am willing to pay more). Who would stop me from doing so? What would be my moral right to do this?
You ask what would be your moral right to do this? NOTHING. And that's the point! Unlike with the state, I implore you to find even ONE person who would recognise YOUR moral right (not the state's moral right, BUT YOURS ALONE) to throw a pot smoker on your lawn into a cage in your basement for 5 years. That's true even if he is trespassing and even if you have a rule on your property that weed is banned. I think we can all understand how immoral it would be, which is the very POINT.
Those groups might even be willing to pay a fortune or take measures in their own hand just to be sure that they will never encounter a hippie on their lawn...
Oh come on. Utterly preposterous notion. What an utter waste of a "fortune". Do you think rich people are so stupid with their money? Oh, and even if they did pay a "fortune", would they merely kick them off their lawn or would THEY LOCK THEM IN A CAGE!? I don't know what your hang up about weed is, but my whole point is that the same immorality could happen in an ancap society and certainly would happen as long as there are enough people who would consider it sinful, harmful or detrimental to their well-being. I personally think that weed should be legalized and am also sure that it will with the time. Nonetheless, in principal it is meaningful that some substances are classified as "dangerous", the question is only which ones and what should be done about it. Ancap does nothing to solve this issue.
Not with a solid understanding of private rights, and without them paying fully for the raiding of drug users, dealers, and makers. It is a huge expense for something that is no threat to them, and in a private property law code, they would have to pay even more to defend against all lawsuits, while saving face.
Would be much harder than to have the state simply say "it's illegal, and now we'll use the money we steal from you to pay for the arbitrary, highly debated, and not that much demanded, enforcement of this law." Doesn't look market-viable to me.
|
Yurebis, it's worth pointing out that you have singularly accused the state of "lobbyism, corruption, favoritism, etc."
But, in the real world, it is the capitalist who is lobbying the state, both capitalists and members of government are quite capable of being corrupt, and both play at favorites. Those of us who are concerned with the real world know well that it is the capitalist who needs government the most to shield him from risk while making profits, while everyone else must learn market discipline and be austere.
|
On September 02 2010 20:21 kidcrash wrote:Show nested quote +On September 02 2010 20:05 MiraMax wrote:On September 02 2010 19:32 dvide wrote:On September 02 2010 19:09 Badjas wrote:
Incarcerating someone is a tool for coercing people to follow the rules established by the governing body. How those rules are established, I guess, is your beef. Personally I think there could perhaps be improvement, but I'm not gonna argue about an anarchaic (not a word?) system being better at that. I do like to point out that the state doesn't own all the land. I agree that they don't actually own all the land. I was addressing those who have argued this. But ok, we agree that the government has no legitimate claim to the land. But let me ask you the same question again. If not from land ownership, where does the government get the right to lock somebody up for 5 years for smoking weed? Are you arguing that democracy gives the state the moral right to do this, so long there is a majority consensus? Remember that it is a victimless "crime". Again, how does the act of voting magically defer authority to the state that I don't even have myself? Please explain this to me, because I always end up asking this in ancap debates and yet I've literally never had anybody even address it. If you think it's a loaded question, which might be the case, then say so. But please address it. Because clearly I don't have the right to throw people into cages for smoking weed, right? I think we can agree on this. So my 'consent' (even if I give it) is ultimately meaningless. The whole concept of "victimless crimes" is loaded, has no meaning in law and is therefore irrelevant. Storing tons of TNT in my cellar does no harm to anybody, but we might agree that it is a bad idea and that imposing rules on people to not do it, could be a good idea, as long as the dangers associated with it, greatly outweigh the benefits. Now who should impose this rule or any rule for that manner? In most modern states it is the legislative who decides on which rule should be passed, the executive who controls that rules are abided and the judiciary to punish non-compliance and to resolve conflicts. This is known as seperation of powers and probably you've heard of it. Morality is not an applicable concept in all of the rules/laws that are passed, some are simply pragmatic and the same applies to an ancap society (or any society for that matter). Legitimacy, however, directly follows from the construction of the state, which is primarily based on consent, our only guidance for deciding what should be considered harmful and what not. You are correct, a crime being victimless does not automatically make an action morally and ethically right or wrong. It is a portion of what we look at, however, in determining whether an action is ethically bad. Does smoking weed harm others? If not, than does it have the potential to harm others? I would argue no to both cases. Pragmatism, although more than likely just a common denominator between laws and not usually a prerequisite, does come into play from time to time. Gambling laws are one example which comes to mind.
The problem with victimless crimes is that there's no plaintiff to sue. So, there is no issue in court. Unless the neighbors want to make an issue out of it. In the case that they feel the smell, and see passed out people in the frontyard next door every day, there in fact MAY be such a case to be made. But NOT if the drug user is keeping to himself and not perturbing anyone with it.
|
On September 02 2010 20:34 MiraMax wrote:Show nested quote +On September 02 2010 20:21 kidcrash wrote:
Does smoking weed harm others? If not, than does it have the potential to harm others? I would argue no to both cases.
I would argue the same, but that is not the point. It is an obvious fallacy to point at any law which doesn't "float your boat" and blame "the state". Especially the drug laws are enacted because there are sufficient people who consider drugs dangerous - in actuality for the drug user and in potential for those around him. Whether I agree or not it is a fact about the people around me and if it were different drug laws would be abolished.
That's BS. If there were a drug that made people go out on the streets and shoot or beat up random passersby, then MAYBE you'd have a case. But no drug that I know of does that. Most drugs make the user too passed out or too hyped up to consistently both make them want to do stupid shit and retain nervous control to consistently do stupid shit.
If you wonder about drunk or drugged driving, the streets are privately owned so their owners can still retain the privilege of not allowing people to drunk drive, and enforce it in the best way he finds efficient. But it probably wouldn't even be prohibited in most places TBH.
On September 02 2010 20:34 MiraMax wrote:Show nested quote +On September 02 2010 20:18 dvide wrote:
Who would voluntarily pay to enforce action against masturbators and lock them up in cages? That is, without having the machinery of the state to offload the cost to everybody, of course. And who would claim to have the moral right to do it, other than the state? Again, I just think you're bringing up far off, out there hypothetical scare scenarios that have no genuine basis in reality, and which aren't even solved by having a state as you yourself freely seem to admit. EDIT: I didn't read properly, so the following is obsolete. Sorry! <s>(You get more and more absurd!? Which civilized country "locks masturbators up in cages" and do you really think it is, because there is a "state" and not because of the people living in it. Would those people magically change their views in an ancap society? Or is your whole point that it might be more difficult to reasonably enforce any law in an ancap society (including those which you don't like)?)</s>
It will be more difficult both to pay for such enforcement and to coerce others into helping you enforce such stupid laws. I sure wouldn't pay a dime to it, and help the drug users myself even though I'm somewhat of a straight-edger.
|
On September 02 2010 21:42 MiraMax wrote:
No, things don't get MORALLY justified because the majority thinks so. But morals are not an applicable concept here. In any social system (including socio-economic ones) rules (codes of conduct) develop and the opinion of the majority (or better: the influence of minorities/individuals on the majority) is the driving factor in this development. This is intrinsic to social systems in theory and over more an empirical fact. Ancap does not and cannot change that. In all systems these rules derive their legitimacy from the excercising of power. In modern societies people tend to prefer that the legitimacy arises by consent of the many and that the rules are formalized, so that they can be applied to each and everybody equally. This consent needs to be organised. The organisation of consent is the task of the political system (also a subsystem of society).
Ancap can't change that if people deem it proper not to go to court and instead kill themselves, then they'll be killing themselves. But the difference with statism is, that instead of
people -> social contract -> government guessing what people want -> monopolized law -> monopolized enforcement
it is simply
people -> courts -> law -> enforcement
Such a more direct approach to law better supplies the demand for it, more accurately to the locality's culture, and more accurately to people's moral sentiment.
|
Well it is annoying to come back after several days and having to read all those pages but as far as I see this is the last relevant post concerning my argumentation.
On August 31 2010 08:37 Yurebis wrote:
By the same argument, the thug on the backalley is always a normal company as well.
Please test your arguments instead of having me point obvious flaws. The thug isn't a normal company, and by normal I hope you mean voluntary, because it does not act under the NAP (non aggression principle). So a company that is not voluntary cannot be said to be voluntary.
Sorry no obvious flaw there to me. Ok so you define every entity that does not act under the NAP as "not normal company" that's fine by me, let's just call them companies altogether (normal+not-normal). Because obviously the thug is in a sense a company, this is exactly what you are arguing:
Even the thug will work in the framework of risk and benefit and he has a business model.
But a company that intimidates and coerces remains a company. The reason why we don't call the mafia a company is only because in the framework of a state it is none, if you take away the state or take away it's legitimacy the mafia automatically becomes as legitimate as everything else.
Or if you like you can define away it's legitimacy through your own moral code but until these morals are universally accepted this remains hollow semantics.
It is of concern of the company, because non-aggression is popular, and all the courts would support retaliation against an initiator of violence. If a PDA (protection agency) or not even a defense agency at all, fucks somebody up, does not appear in court when called, it is automatically deemed a violent company, and won't be protected by reputable courts nor any PDA. The employees all lose their insurance, are required restitution for any breach of contracts, and can be aggressed against easily by any lawful organization or person, because he would have the backing of no one. The employee would rather steal capital from it's own aggressing company and leave, before his reputation goes down with, so the profit motive can even destroy the company from within.
The only way that an aggressing company could kill and steal, and get away with it without going to reputable courts, that I can imagine, would be for being the largest of all, and becoming a state indeed. But I doubt that would happen for several reasons that I won't elaborate until we're even past lowly criminals and 6-pool builds. Which is a shame, that after 20 pages I still haven't got past that point. Though I have only myself to blame, I guess.
This is not about theorycrafting what will most likely happen according to your view of human nature. I don't care about that, all that matters is that the state can be validly seen as company or entity acting in an AnCap world if you don't want to use this particular word.
Of course it's fraudulent, by any theory of private property. There is absolutely no justification for the state to be a-priori entitled to a fraction of you labor; your house; any capital that itself has not contributed anything into producing. Absolutely no private property theory, even those that claim everyone has an equal share to every resource in the world; the government goes way beyond that and the taxation schemes are plain exploitation.
Same point as above.
|
Hats off to you Yurebis, i've accepted ancap for quite a while now but i've never had the patience to argue with people online about my position for longer than a page or two. After i've made a few points I usually stop posting. Huge kudos to the work you do here, the patience, the step by step logic, the civil manner. 36 Pages and still going strong. Thanks for broadcasting the message, I dont think there is any other way to right social injustices.
|
On September 03 2010 03:07 Incognito wrote:
[averagely sized wall of text]
Which is why I don't usually make moral arguments unless it's in response to a moral argument.
It is true that for as long as people think it is better for them to keep stealing, moral considerations INCLUDED (not excluded, you can't disregard your own morality, and disregarding other people's moralities would be as dumb for a thief than disregarding the build order of a terran), they will keep stealing.
Austrian economics shows that it is not always the case, and in fact, the majority of times any non-sociopathic individual in history in any situation would be more inclined and better rewarded for cooperation. Okay I lie that austrian economics claims that, I'm the one claiming that based on catallactics, a few other basic concepts, and my scarce empirical experience. Even in war, a soldier relies on its comrades and superiors, a thief relies on the market to buy from him his stolen products, and sell him what he wants. a violent drug warlord relies on its dealers and on the demand of users. Even on the most violent and thieving aspects of society, perhaps even some mass-murderers included, man has been marginally more cooperative than coercive.
If the people who support socialistic intervention are taught of the benefits of free market cooperation, and the externalities of extortion and distribution, I have no doubt they'd stop supporting the madness. When, how, and ifs, are secondary to me.
|
On September 03 2010 03:52 Laforge wrote:
Here is a parable:
You take a Sunday hike in the forest.
A robber approaches you, put a knife at you back and shouts "give me all your money".
[snip]
This reminds me of this comic.
![[image loading]](http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e228/Takunsan/1255742848249.png)
|
On September 03 2010 03:57 Tuneful wrote:
Yurebis, it's worth pointing out that you have singularly accused the state of "lobbyism, corruption, favoritism, etc."
But, in the real world, it is the capitalist who is lobbying the state, both capitalists and members of government are quite capable of being corrupt, and both play at favorites. Those of us who are concerned with the real world know well that it is the capitalist who needs government the most to shield him from risk while making profits, while everyone else must learn market discipline and be austere.
Yes, they are both capable. But the state does coercion at 1 dime for the dollar. That is why it's the best enabler of violence, because it makes the oppressed pay for it's own oppression, most efficiently at that, since the citizen doesn't even realize he's being robbed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
