Anarcho-capitalism, why can't it work? - Page 39

On September 03 2010 15:00 Yurebis wrote:

You can pay for social security yourself like any other private retirement fund... oh well.
I guess people just like ponzi schemes.

On September 03 2010 15:07 Badjas wrote:

That is not the same thing. What you describe is insurance.

Social security means that I can slack of completely, and still get something. There is an experiment running in a city in my country where heroine addicts get FREE heroine. Without doing a single thing. I like that. ancap wouldn't provide that. If I quit my job I can get money from the government while I'm not working. Hell I could get money without ever having worked, or ever having payed taxes. Other people can too. I like that because it prevents people in general from hitting rock bottom, which makes society as a whole, a better place to be in. If you go and claim that companies can cover this aspect of social security, then you just invented government (I want the burden of this social security to rest somewhat equally on everyone's shoulder).

Your mileage may vary, which I'm pretty sure it does.

On September 03 2010 15:45 Badjas wrote:
yeah nice pie in the sky

that is not social security, and you would have a hard time proving that that is how an ancap society would operate. A proper ancap society on a large scale, not the two active hippie camps that are running today.

It's not "for free" is my point, because if one is to steal beyond a certain point, wealth will start to be diminished in the world, and the society collapses even if people are still willing slaves. I don't question your decision of stealing for your own benefit, it was no moral judgment; I'm just pointing the usually unseen consequences that people don't think of, be them rulers, coercive monopolists, intervetionists, socialists, etc. Even politicians should think more of them. For their own good - there may not be a United States anymore within their generation if they keep screwing it up.

No it doesn't rest on moral argument alone, and if you knew anything about praxeology thus austran economics, is that it is value free, morality free. I'm talking to cooperative human beings that what increasingly greater capital accumulation and living standards for both themselves and society - and how anarcho-capitalism is a much, much better maximizer of that compared to any centrally managed plan.

Also yes, I make moral prescriptions myself but they are not core. Moral discussions are discussions of courses of action - which actions are commendable, and which are reprehensible. Which justify intervetion, and which do not. They ARE VERY relevant to those who care about them (and I very much doubt you do not, even sociopaths can at least pretend to take them into consideration just to save face), but if you don't, I couldn't care less!

How do you leech without being coercive, and how do you exploit without coercing?
Give me examples, applicable to a decent, non-contradictory private property theory.

to and will be taken care by those owners better than any central planner could take care of him. People who are abused by PDAs can go in the media, go to courts, raise a ruckus, and if they were obviously abused of their self ownership or private property, then the cops will be tried to the full extent of the law. If a guy has been shot DEAD, the PDA cop is liable by MURDER, because it doesn't have any superior authority by law to do squat.

A feudal system where some nut claims all land (including that of others) but homesteads none, will not be respected by any half-decent court. Much different from what you could do in medieval Europe.
Nor would it be enough of a justification to enslave people who are in your land. They still maintain NAP.

What are those non-market forces that can't be valued yet determine human action?
Even love is a subjective evaluation.

Fair. Is an employer of a chinese sweatshop coercing an employee to work for him if the employer accepted the measly rate of fifty cents an hour? Why?

it's very clear in the realm of private property. I own myself. I also own what I make, and the resources that I homestead.

Really, everyone benefits from living in a clean environment? Can you explain how?
And why is that enough of a justification to force people in doing what you think is proper?

I would reckon that since the government owns all land, and you advocate government to protect the environment, it is a failed experiment as is, and will fail again, as it hasn't done shit, selling the environment off like a bitch selling her ass for crack.

Not just corporations, any guy with a gun can offer protection services. People in each specific area will judge who are the best to defend themselves, and will learn to both pay the right people and for the right amounts, in the course of market adjustments. With the government confiscating both people's money and choices, of course they have a harder time today defending their property, more than it is realistically necessary.

I mean, how hard is it to patrol an area? Cops today sit their asses on the highway to get tickets and only go to town for lunch and answer to 911 calls one hour later. Not hard to beat that in efficiency LOL.

Property taxes pay for local services AFAIK. And I don't know of anyone who's been able to dodge those. Besides maybe the amish.

There are many many many many ways to pay for a service, any service, drop the arguments from ignorance. I have had mentioned a few already and you chose to pick on the on-demand one. Insurance, monthly plans, the road owners pay for it through tolls, etc. And it doesn't have to be the business who proposes the deal. Whole residential or business neighborhoods could arrange to pay for it together. Also it could indeed be paid on-the-spot, who is to say it cannot? Cars got those ez-pass things that instantly credits your account for every toll you pass; people could have a similar device if they so desired to pay for things like that on the spot, with no hassle. On-demand also means it's as cheap as you need it to be, because you're only paying exactly what you use, so there may be an interest on that by both PDAs and citizens.

If you're implying that the education bubble is a market phenomenon, then you might be interested in this.
Believing in a bubble isn't lying, so it isn't coercion, so it isn't an issue. If you mean to sue someone because they defrauded you, then you can do so in ancap, better than monopolist courts for natural reasons. Non-issue.
And if you haven't proposed something better than the market (lol what), and you haven't advocated for government intervention, then your arguments are non-arguments, you're just crying about the world.

On September 03 2010 01:05 dvide wrote:

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 03 2010 01:05 dvide wrote:

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 03 2010 01:05 dvide wrote:

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 03 2010 01:05 dvide wrote:

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 03 2010 17:01 MiraMax wrote:
My whole point was that "the fact you COULD have caused harm" is unfortunately a blurred concept and depends on an assessment of RISK. Generally it holds true that people who are drugged are less capable of making rational decisions and more likely of taking irresponsible actions. This is a potential risk for others. It is difficult to assess how much drug use is unproblematic in exactly what situation. Can we agree on that? This is reflected by the often inconsistent drug laws in different countries and has something to do with the difficulty of assessing this risk, not with the (non-)existence of a state.

On September 03 2010 01:05 dvide wrote:
Punishing somebody for breaking a law is meaningful. You can definately agree or disagree with the extent of the punishment or the law itself, but nothing of this has to do with the existence of a state. I find it really naive to think that "states do all that bad stuff", when it is the people living in this state. You need to make a more specific argument of what it is exactly about the state that makes people commit immoral actions, that they would not commit without a state. Again, if your whole point is that law enforcement in general is more difficult in ancap, I would agree. But this is not limited to "victimless" crimes, but to all crimes where people don't have an incentive and/or the money to pay an investigator and still doesn't rule out that some individuals will pay enforcement agencies simply because they believe that an action commited by somebody else is utterly wrong. You have never talked to a zealot (and I am not talking about Starcraft), if you think that this is impossible.

I am not talking about what is "morally right" or "justified", but what is legitimate. In social systems legitimacy is an objective concept which describes how rules are upheld. To be very clear: Immoral or unjustified acts can be carried out irrespective of the social system. Rules can be legitimately derived and abided in a system, even though they include atrocities - with a state or without a state. Tribal communities (which are often cited as an example for "functioning" stateless societies) have developed various rules, which most people consider barbaric nowadays. Nonetheless these rules have been legitimately developed in the system and are therefore followed. We can of course examine anything in light of ethics, but it has nothing to do with what we are talking about. Do you really want to tell me that immoral rules/laws can only develop with a state? Or that it is more likely that they develop in a state? Well, then you need to make a more specific argument. In the western world various atrocities were abolished in spite or maybe even because there was a state. Look at the history of the USA and how slavery was abolished, for instance.

On September 02 2010 21:42 MiraMax wrote:
You strike me more and more as a romantic!? No, "might" does not make right, but so what? "Might" makes rules. "Might" gives legitimacy (in the neutral sense of the word, which is not what you or me "find" legitimate). That is a fact.

On September 02 2010 21:42 MiraMax wrote:
In democratic states "might" is supposed to arise only by consent. I find this system "just", in the sense that it does its job arguably well.

The Mafia is an "immoral organisation" because and only because they seem to be organised for the purpose of committing immoral actions. There is nothing about the structure of the social system underlying the Mafia which makes them immoral. Rules of behaviour are legitimately developed within the Mafia as a social system. The rules themselves might be despicable and the Mafia is surely not organized in a democratic fashion. But not all social systems need to be nor should be organised democratically. Morality or immorality of the Mafia's actions does not help to evaluate the benefits of their social structure. In fact it seems to me, that you should rather endorse their social system, because it is as close as you can get to a functioning social system without a state, imo.

On September 04 2010 00:47 dvide wrote:

Blurred concept according to who? Difficult to assess according to who? You see, this is the problem I think. You keep looking at society from the eyes of a central planner; a central authority who decides all of the rules upfront. Instead of emergent order, you're looking at how to cover all of the bases for everybody in society upfront.

It only looks blurred from that central position, because unfortunately the accumulation of all risk assessments from all individuals and in all circumstances is not something that one can reduce to a single value. It depends on people to determine what risks they're willing to take and in what circumstances; it cannot be reduced to a single 'risk factor' for the entirety of society. It requires one to go 'overboard' in order to cover every possible circumstance. To 'play it safe', if you will. An example would be the idea of banning cars, because driving also incurs risk to yourself and to others. A central authority has no choice but to ignore all circumstances and personal value assessment. A central authority imposes a single blanketed "solution" on all.

The value of a widget is "blurred concept", but we don't need a central authority to set prices. It's difficult to asses the value of a widget in exactly what situation. So let individuals asses it. Markets, that is the emergent order of human behaviour, can determine prices better than any authority. The fact that different countries have different drug laws is kind of telling, because as you yourself admit it shows how difficult it is to assess that risk. I would say impossible, because it literally cannot be reduced to one single value.

Now as to the risk posed from drug users. I think there is little risk at all; not enough to do anything about it. I'm sure there is more risk to me that I will get into a car accident. But that's not the point. My personal value & risk assessment is not important enough to impose on everybody else.

On September 03 2010 01:05 dvide wrote:

I didn't say punishment wasn't meaningful. I don't know where you're getting that from. I'm asking about ONE very specific scenario in which somebody is throw in a cage with very specific set of circumstances behind it. All you keep doing is saying how punishment is meaningful. Can you not judge one specific scenario yourself without looking at the bigger picture first? You see, since you're looking at it from the eyes of a central planner, you're also ignoring circumstance and are only concerned with blanket "solutions". Is it moral for a landlord to throw a pot smoker into a cage or not? Instead of applying the same question to a far more general set of circumstances in which you apparently think it means that all crimes should go unpunished, just answer the one question that I asked.

On September 03 2010 01:05 dvide wrote:
I mean, I personally think that in a free society justice will be much more focused on getting recompense than on dispensing punishment. And social ostracism and reputation will be much more important and powerful, which could be said to be a form of punishment but it's really just the freedom to associate with whoever you choose. But the point is, it will be more economically viable for you to submit to a fair judiciary ruling than to not do so. But that's neither here nor there, because I never even brought it up in the first place.

My point was never that "law enforcement" is more difficult in an-cap. For individuals it will be much cheaper and more effective. Now, the enforcement of arbitrary nonsense rules upon others will be expensive of course. But that should be expensive, right? But for general defensive and security of persons and property, not so much. I don't see why that would be more difficult or more expensive.

How effective and accessible is the current legal system? Again, pretty expensive, corrupt and entirely inaccessible. How effective are the cops? Not very. I'm not likely to get anything back from a thief. Now I could have prevented the theft from even occurring if I had a gun, but then the cops would take ME into custody. You see? What's more, say I own a business and I contract with a defensive agency to protect the building. If the building gets broken into successfully, I may have a valid case to sue the defensive agency for failing to perform their duty. Can I sue the cops in the same situation? Of course not. That would be utterly absurd!

On September 03 2010 01:05 dvide wrote:

Ok, well then you're just ignoring my whole point for the sake of tautological definitions. I think you know exactly what I mean, so I don't know why you insist going down this complicated messy path. You're just muddying the waters, and you're doing it on purpose I think. Again, let's just keep it simple. I'm talking about the lack of barbarism in society, and you're merely saying that barbarism is legitimate because it's legitimate by definition. Who cares? Way to ignore everything.

Religious persecution is therefore legitimate, because social systems used to have rules enforcing religion onto people. Some social systems still do, such as Saudi Arabia. But we now recognise that religious persecution is NOT LEGITIMATE. It has been removed from those "rules" of society, right? So in the same way, I want to change what we consider to be legitimate; to remove the initiation of force from the concept entirely. If the concept of legitimacy does not currently include morality, then I WANT TO INCLUDE IT. What is your point exactly? That everything is legitimate if at any time it was formalised into a rule by the central authority of any social system? I fail to see where you're going here? Honestly it's just frustrating.

And slavery was abolished when the state stopped catching slaves. When it became economically infeasible for individuals to catch slaves for themselves.

On September 03 2010 01:05 dvide wrote:

Oh, so you do understand the "SENSE" of the word as I am using it. Ok, well then just STFU because you show that you DO understand my whole point. You're just ignoring it. Seriously. I wish people wouldn't insist on bringing tautological semantics into every single thing just so that they can fog the path and skirt the very issue at hand. It's so damn annoying.


Who's consent are we talking about? The majority? If I consent to the Mafia, does that bring any semblance of legitimacy to the Mafia to extort others who do not consent to it?

Let me ask you something else. Am I free to disagree with you and act on my disagreement? In other words, am I free to not pay taxes? If I am not free to act on my disagreement, am I truly free to disagree or is it just a charade? Are you personally willing to use force against me, either directly or indirectly, in order to extract my taxes?

On September 03 2010 01:05 dvide wrote:

What does my question have to do with the structure of the social system, etc? The Mafia is immoral for its actions of extorting people. That is all. Extremely simple. I don't know why you're bringing all this foggy stuff into it that has little relevance to the very simple yes or no question that I asked.

Extortion should not be considered a legitimate way of acquiring funds. And in-fact, this is how the vast majority of people already understand it when applied to recognised criminal gangs, which is why I bring it up in the first place. And you've already demonstrated that you know the "sense" in which I'm using the word legitimate, so I don't want to hear about how extortion by the Mafia is actually legitimate by some definition. I don't care because it's sidestepping the moral point. And we all understand that the Mafia's extortion isn't legitimate regardless of how successful they are at doing it, or whatever. All I want you to do is use the same exact logic and apply it to the state.

On September 04 2010 04:10 MiraMax wrote:
This is plain wrong. It has nothing to do with central planning but with individual understanding. If some laws are meaningful to enforce there need to be some people who care for their enforcement. In order to do so they need somehow to realize which law has to be enforced. You simply advocate to enforce laws sometimes and sometimes not for the "same crime".

No, it is not moral for a landlord to throw a pot-smoker in jail ... unless he can somehow show that this pot-smoker constitutes a significant threat. So what? Did this answer help us? No, not at all. Hmm, maybe we need to look at the bigger picture ...

You cannot sue cops in your country? The legal system there is utterly corrupt? Then I would advise you to move to the civilized democratic state! No reason to abolish states altogether. I live in a free society and my girlfriend grew up in one too (she is from Italy). So that is clearly possible with a state (and the Mafia) for that matter ...

I am not ignoring your point, I am explaining why your point is moot. Yes, immoral acts can be commited with states. Yes, immoral acts can be committed without states. This leads nowhere. In order to make a point in favor of ancap you need to look at how THE SYSTEM works. You cannot just point at something you don't like and conclude the system is bad. What is so difficult to understand here?

Sure you are, in the same sense as you can violate any code of conduct. But your actions will have consequences. If you violate a law it might lead to you being forced to pay a punishment or even go to prison and this is right in principle. No, I am not personally willing to use force against you. But should we be living in the same country, I deem it right that you have to pay taxes or leave the country and that force be used to "extract" them. And I would further deem it morally wrong that you to wish to stay and earn money, but are not willing to contribute.

Yes, extorsion is not moral. No, the "state" doesn't use extortion just because you say so. A "state" per se cannot be morally good or bad, just like a "company" per se cannot be morally good or bad. They are both social systems. In order to assess their advantages and disadvantages you need to look at their structure, not at actions which are commited by one or many implementations, unless you can somehow show that their structure leads to this behaviour!

On September 03 2010 16:57 Incognito wrote:
Oh well, I guess I'll reply anyway.



The collapse of wealth isn't as fast as you claim it to be. It would disappear way after you return to the dust. Thus you have no interest in really protecting the accumulation of wealth.

On September 03 2010 16:57 Incognito wrote:


Completely misses the point. Maybe I should specify the moral basis is supporting your interests, which is again a moral judgment. You obviously value wealth accumulation. Good, bad, who cares. Its a value.

On September 03 2010 16:57 Incognito wrote:


Maybe you should have read what I was commenting on before commenting. The whole point is that it IS coercive, not cooperative What if I don't accept your private-property theory. Oh look! Something you mysteriously managed to omit from your responses. Well I guess any response to it wouldn't have really added to the library of anarchist arguments, so whatever.

On September 03 2010 11:48 Incognito wrote:
this doesn't take into account leechers, who are neither cooperative nor coercive.

On September 03 2010 16:57 Incognito wrote:


Hard to get the PDA guy arrested/ostracized when you don't know who he is.

On September 03 2010 16:57 Incognito wrote:


Not much different than feudal Europe. Feudal lords didn't homestead the land, or if they did, they took more than the could actually control themselves. Thats why there were serfs.

On September 03 2010 16:57 Incognito wrote:


Friendship. You could measure it quantitatively but most people won't. Even if they don't, friendly favors are cheaper than paying people to do things.

On September 03 2010 16:57 Incognito wrote:
On a side note, people say that "Africa is poor! People live on only a dollar a day!" The thing is, people do a lot more familial/friendly favors and people work more as a community. They only make $1 a day because their system isn't monetarized like ours is.

On September 03 2010 16:57 Incognito wrote:
The next comment ignores the point.





You own what you make? Sounds fairly Marxist, not anarchist, but I think you mean to say you are entitled to the fair value of the product you make (minus the fair value of the capital provided by the employer)? (Or not, since fair value would be subjective...but wouldn't the ratio of the value imparted by the employee and the capital imparted by the employer be quantifiable?) Your "I own what I make" statement sure makes things confusing !

On September 03 2010 16:57 Incognito wrote:


People benefit from a cleaner environment by living longer healthier lives. You have no right to trash the environment because you don't own the environment. The government doesn't even "own" the environment. Nobody owns the environment. Or maybe, the environment owns itself. I am not justifying the use of force any more than you are justifying the sanctity of private property. The environment owns itself, and polluting it is the same as doing graffiti over someone's house that they built. Regardless, why is there enough justification for you to use force to protect your private property (value judgment, you didn't create iron out of thin air, you refined it and thus ADDED value to it. Or else I could nail on a gutter to your house and claim your house). Second paragraph is just a statement that says nothing useful.

Same thing for the next statement.

On September 03 2010 16:57 Incognito wrote:


Not everyone can afford protection services,

On September 03 2010 16:57 Incognito wrote: you also can't differentiate who did/did not pay for such service, especially if multiple services overlap a particular geographical area.

On September 03 2010 16:57 Incognito wrote:
How hard is it to patrol an area is irrelevant. How hard is it to protect people from assault is more meaningful. The cop sitting on his ass on the highway isn't protecting anyone. The person calling 911 to get help from someone who is trying to rob them (absurd I know!) has to wait for the police to come to his aid. By the time the police get there, who knows what could have gone wrong. I don't think a private police agency will get there quicker to a significant degree.

On September 03 2010 16:57 Incognito wrote:


You don't pay property taxes unless you own the land. So renters don't pay property tax (not really true, you could say that the landlord passes on the tax to the renter)

On September 03 2010 16:57 Incognito wrote: unless the government subsidizes their housing. Yay. Oh ez pass thing makes more sense now. For monthly/through the community, you still haven't said how it works if 8 ppl pay for service A, 1 person for service B, and 1 person who doesn't pay for the service at all. Then a thug comes along to the neighborhood. What now?

On September 03 2010 16:57 Incognito wrote:


Increase in the price of education could do with increased demand, but a lot of it also has to do with inflation. Government has ignored overleverage as a source of inflation yada yada so that it says inflation is lower than it really is. The CPI doesn't account for technological advancement leading to the decrease in prices of certain goods (like TVs), or imported/outsourced items, which depress the price if it can be manufactured at a lower cost. Stuff like education can't be imported/outsourced, and there are a finite number of Harvards, Yales, Stanfords, etc, the price increases.

On September 03 2010 16:57 Incognito wrote:
What I'm interested in though is not the price increase. Its the professors selling the myth that its such a great idea to get a law education or whatever. Sure you can say that this isn't coercion, so its a non-issue, but the fact is that convincing people to act against their self interest to get a degree that will get them nowhere just to support the lifestyle of the professors is not a good thing. Its even bad for the economy because instead of working, the student is pursuing meaningless studies, thus depriving society of years of labor. Because this isn't coercion and because it still imposes a negative effect on society, this phenomenon that isn't solved by anarcho-capitalism. Hey! That was my original point. There are still inefficiencies that aren't solved by anarcho-capitalism. Such as this one.

On September 03 2010 16:57 Incognito wrote:
Yes I can propose something that is better than the market. Current (primary) education is basically memorize and plug into a formula. You also pay someone to give you this "knowledge". Not very enlightening education if you ask me. And this doesn't really build up useful skill sets either. Testing children on memory and their ability to spit out facts isn't what I would call education. I'd call it more like indoctrination. What would help more is if children would do projects that would enable them to think critically, work with others, and explore ideas on how to create things. For example, learning to build a website, a video game, a film, a business, etc. The error with the private education system's "market solution" is that it markets a service. Education is not a service (or it shouldn't be). Education is a process. You don't need a curriculum. You also don't necessarily need teachers. Education can be a process where students learn from each other (and maybe also from some older people. Social and community forces should also ensure that students can have access to more experienced people's knowledge database (Parents/family care about their kids' education, right?)). There is a lot of information to be learned without the use of teachers. What education needs is a social network, a forum where students can communicate, pool resources, learn from each other, and bounce ideas . You are not paying for someone to lecture at you, you are learning from each other on how to live, work, and interact in the world you are entering. The great myth of the current education system is that we need teachers to teach students. The current teacher is someone who is deemed an "expert" who is paid to "bestow the gift of knowledge" on the students. It can be done more efficiently than this. You'd also get a better education. (Btw I'd much rather discuss things like this -- practical bottum up ways to improve society: rather than theoretical/moralistic top down ways we can impose a system of governance on society. This paragraph is the reason why I decided to respond to you (again).)

On September 04 2010 02:41 Zzoram wrote:
Weak 3rd world countries essentially have this. Their governments are too weak to do anything. Multinational corporations have all the power in those countries, they come in, buy resources and security, and do whatever they want.

If you don't accept private property, and steal my good X, I will steal the good X back. We will keep stealing from one another, and you can't argue against it unless you use some property theory, at which point I would summon you in court. But you probably wouldn't go to court, so most likely you would be seen as an outlaw aaand, I don't know what may or may not happen to you past that point (eviction cough cough jail cough cough), but you're not going to get much help from anyone who understands the most trivial concepts of private property.

PDA A and PDA B would have already known and contracted on what to do in such situations. To say that they wouldn't, is to say that they'd be so retarded not to think of such a situation happening when even YOU could think of it before they even existed. Don't underestimate businesses please.
PDA A would probably be the one responsible to defend the area were most of it's members are located, PDA A would collect some money from PDA B at terms specified before either one was created, and both PDA A and B should know what to do with free riders: talk to them put them aside and let them be robbed, charge them, sue them, or just serve them for free. Yes, serve them for free. It raises the PDA's reputation, so it's not necessarily a loss. The PDAs would have already accounted for such possibilities, better than you or I could.

On September 04 2010 08:45 EndlessRain wrote:
Anarchocapitatalism. What a joke of a concept dreamed up by losers with no basis in reality who were a failure in life so they blame society and the BIG BAD GUVMENT rather than their own shortcomings.

On September 04 2010 05:54 dvide wrote:

This is just utterly confusing. Enforcement is a bad word for what I am describing; just call it defence. It's not "enforcing the law" when I defend myself from a mugger, for example. Technically I am, but it comes with it other baggage that is not needed if we were to simply call it defence.

What you want to do is make it sound like there will obviously emerge a chaotic system of competing arbitrary and aggressive "laws", all being enforced by different organisations within one neighbourhood. Each one believing that there are "right". Am I correct in that this is what you're ultimately opposing here? So one enforcement agency will be out on the street breaking people's noses for eating beef burgers, because some people think burgers are bad for your health and so they will pay for this action. And another enforcement agency will be out there breaking people's noses for reading the wrong type of literature. It's just a fantasy scare scenario. It a knee jerk response that has no basis in reality. What would actually happen? I mean, how much support would each arbitrary, aggressive "law" get? And especially when contrasted with the support for defence against it.

Is any organisation or individual going to risk their own lives in support of street warfare all for the sake of banning salt from restaurants or something like that? You see, just because democratic governments ban salt from restaurants doesn't mean free individuals would ever dream of doing the same thing. That's the mistake you make. By assuming the people in a democratic government actually get their wishes. Do you think Koreans asked for this, or is it clearly just an extortion racket? Do you think that in a truly free society there will be private law enforcement officers going around shutting down Korean Steam servers? Because after all, Korea is a democracy right? So that's evidence that there must be a lot of demand for this kind of action, right? WRONG.

So, you say, "if some laws are meaningful to enforce there need to be people who care for their enforcement". Yes. Why would people not care when they're being mugged or something? If mugging is a big issue, people will care. I fail to understand the point you're making.

"In order to do so they need somehow to realize which law has to be enforced." The non-aggression principle? Basic common sense approach here methinks. People don't like being mugged; they stop muggers. Simples. What's the big issue? Do you need a law degree for that? To recognise the right to stop a mugger? Do you need permission from any central authority or "societal structure" or whatever? Of course not. I don't understand where you're going with this.

"You simply advocate to enforce laws sometimes and sometimes not for the "same crime"". You make it sound arbitrary, where as in-fact it's far less arbitrary than a blanket approach by a central authority. I advocate a common sense approach, instead of a superstitious one. The inter-subjective common sense understanding is that initiating violence is immoral. I want people to apply the same understanding to the government too.

On September 04 2010 05:54 dvide wrote:

So then why is it acceptable for governments to do this? Since it has nothing then to do with land ownership then, right? Assuming the government even legitimately owns all the land. If it has nothing to do with land ownership, then what? Because you can vote every 4 years?


I can't sue them for failing to defend me. In-fact, you might be surprised to hear that the supreme court of the USA has ruled that police have no obligation to defend anyone. Maybe it's better over there in Germany, but I doubt it. Educate me if I'm wrong. And no, you don't live in a free society and neither does your girlfriend. Free society with a government is an oxymoron.


Obvious facts are obvious. We are in no disagreement that immoral acts can be committed without states. Is that supposed to be a defence of immoral acts? You don't defend immoral actions even if they are inevitable.

But actually you are ignoring my point. Because my point relates to the cultural meme that the people calling themselves the government have the right to initiate violence. And it is commonly understood that nobody else but the people in the government have this right. I want it to be applied to the people in the government too. After all, there is nothing special about those human beings that they get an arbitrarily different set of moral rights. So in this sense, consent of the majority is not too dissimilar to a widespread religion. But you haven't addressed that at all.

THE SYSTEM works on the principle that we need somebody to initiate force against peaceful people in some circumstances in order to solve social problems.

On September 04 2010 05:54 dvide wrote:

That's right in principle? Wow. But what if the law is fucking immoral? Was it right to punish Germans hiding Jews from the Gestapo in principle? Because after all they violated the god-damn law, right? Law that you call "legitimate" =) (in the neutral sense of the word, of course)

Do you not see how the morality of a certain law is a modifier that CHANGES EVERYTHING YOU ARE SAYING? My assertion is that tax laws are immoral. Now you can disagree with me if you think otherwise, and we can then go on to discuss that. But then what you have just said here is not even relevant so there was never any point to you ever making it.

And I like how you wouldn't personally be willing to use force against me. Just send your thugs to do the dirty business eh? =)

On September 04 2010 05:54 dvide wrote:

But a company CAN be morally bad, so what you just said makes no sense at all. If a "company" is extorting people, it is immoral even by a colloquial, inter-subjective, common sense understanding of what constitutes immorality. The Mafia is an immoral organisation. We don't need to examine the advantages and disadvantages of different political systems in Italy to know that the Mafia is fucking immoral because it extorts people. Do you assert that a company's actions are amoral if it extorts its "customers", because one can only assess the fuzzy advantages and disadvantages of "social structures"? What you're saying is very confusing to me.

But ok fine - you don't think the state uses extortion. That is another topic we can discuss, but at very least you accept that it is an important modifier to everything you have said. Because if not, then why did you even mention it?

On September 04 2010 08:45 EndlessRain wrote:
Anarchocapitatalism. What a joke of a concept dreamed up by losers with no basis in reality who were a failure in life so they blame society and the BIG BAD GUVMENT rather than their own shortcomings.

On September 04 2010 09:12 Incognito wrote:


Your private property theory rests on the fact that you own the entire value of whatever you "produce". There are moral arguments for why you do not own this entire value, and that you morally have a right only to be entitled to a portion of the value. I'm sure you could also form other theories about property too. You are building a society based of of your private property theory, which yes, can be construed as valid from a particular moral point of view. You could also assume that the capitalist entities in your system will support it, and if they agreed with you, then yes you could run an anarcho-capitalist system and eliminate all those who oppose your fundamental concepts through jail/eviction.

On September 04 2010 09:12 Incognito wrote: The assumption here is that durr, everyone agrees with the incontrovertible truth that is private property! Of course this is not so one sided. As shown by your paragraph here the system is enforced by ostracizing people who oppose the fundamental views of your society. The rant against uninitiated use of force ends when people don't agree with the rules. Then you initiate force.

On September 04 2010 09:12 Incognito wrote: Of course from your point of view you think its justified because people are infringing on your "rights", and that therefore you are not initiating force, but are defending yourself against the uninitiated use of force. But in reality these "rights" are arbitrary and based on your principles.

On September 04 2010 09:12 Incognito wrote: Anyone who acts on their moral disagreement with your system you accuse as violating the non aggression principle. Point of view is necessary here. Once you attack the assumptions of the system, you can see that it is merely an ideology that claims to be the one true faith.

On September 04 2010 09:12 Incognito wrote:
The fact is that to outsiders, your system is just like any other type of ideology or dogma.

On September 04 2010 09:12 Incognito wrote: Any explicit opposition to the system results in social rejection or excommunication. Seems no different than people who want to purge the world of non-Christians, non-socialists, or whatever.

On September 04 2010 09:12 Incognito wrote: I guess the common thread between all ideologies is that they do not take into account other points of view, or at least automatically dismiss them as invalid. Perhaps thats why its difficult to have a reasonable discussion with any type of socialist/anarchist/Christian whatever.

On September 04 2010 09:12 Incognito wrote:
P.S. Doesn't matter if "unschooling" or whatever you call it is not new or could be done in anarcho-capitalism. I was merely responding to your challenge of describing a non-government/non-market system of education. But of course you have a knee-jerk reaction to everything everyone else writes. Also I never denied bubbles, and it is a huge part of the problem. But inflation also contributes to the problem. Thing is, there isn't necessarily only one cause for each problem. Of course you will get defensive/accusory.

On September 04 2010 09:12 Incognito wrote:


Continue writing stuff like this. Maybe without the defensive/accusory tone. An example of a constructive statement in a sea of otherwise unhelpful ones.

On September 04 2010 09:37 MiraMax wrote:
How can it be common sense if the risk cannot be assessed? I am not saying that the system emerging in an ancap society will be chaotic. I am just saying that ancap does not help in finding a consistent system with universal guidelines to make sure that the same crimes are punished by the same judgements. And this is simply because it will face the exact same problems than a system with a state ... that is unless you argue in favor of situational laws, which are only enforced if there happen to be individuals with sufficient funds. You further misunderstand how markets function: Lots of demand does not necessarily mean that there are lots of people who demand something, but can also mean that there are individuals who are demanding a lot of something. Your "steam server" example is just too funny to even discuss.

That is just empty rhetoric. Being "peaceful" is not always a meaningful quality. Rules can be violated "peacefully" it remains wrong nonetheless. Force can only be initiated against violators of rules. This makes sense. You can discuss the "morality" or rightfulness of one or the other rule, but also in ancap the same general principle would hold. You are just subject to the romantic idea that in ancap only the "right rules" would be developed, but cannot argue why that should be the case.

You further seem to have a strange paranoia of "the government" and simply project any deed you consider wrong to their doings. As if the government of a state was a select group of people which never changes.

You are further very much confused when you say that "the government" has the right to use force. How so? Can a government member throw somebody in a cage if he so wants? On what basis does he do so? Can a law enforcement officer in ancap just throw somebody in a cage if he so wants?

Can you think of any instance where an ill law could only be developed and enforced with a state, but never without?

Words have meanings. In order to argue meaningfully, you need to understand their meaning. If something is right in principle, it does not mean that it is right in any situation, but that it is the principle that is right.

The immorality of a single law, does not at all make the concept of laws per se immoral, nor the way how laws are derived and enforced. How many murderers have you arrested so far? None? Do you think that murderers should be arrested? Why don't you act then? You propose that in ancap people just hire private agencies to do their "dirty business". Intellectual dishonesty much?

It is not at all an important modifier when you talk about the benefits of states or any social system for that matter. It baffles me that you don't understand this. From saying a company is immoral, it does not follow that all companies are immoral. From saying that the Mafia is immoral, it does not follow that all organisations organised like the Mafia are immoral. From saying that state x is immoral or has an immoral law it does not follow that all states are immoral.

On September 04 2010 10:56 Yurebis wrote:
The one who's unreasonable is you, who has yet to prove why do you have more of a claim over a scarce capital, which you took no part in producing, and did not show up in court to explain yourself.