Maybe I am being monitored by the police or some government agency. But they’re not…going to publicly shame me if I do something wrong. They’ll just arrest me.
Not the just police, thats the point. Its called a credit score.
Not that I want him to leave either, but his position is obviously absurd, and that has been explained to him quite clearly. He keeps retreating to the non-sequitur of “it’s what I think, you might think different” which is a dodge when he claims to think in regards to an objective reality.
If there is no objective reality, then his claims that ancap doesn’t conform to reality (since he claims there is no reality) and isn’t practical (what is practicality in a paradigm that is unreal?) are just pointless.
@JB, I like you but you’re an enormous waste of time to debate with, because you’re either being dishonest with us, or dishonest with yourself, but one way or the other, you’re not being honest from one post to the next.
Who is going to be the enforcer without the state? A PDA?
Now, admittedly, I’m not an expert on the theory of competing legal agencies, so I’m not in an expert position to judge whether or not your form of enforcement would be better than mine. However, I have seen my form of enforcement in action. I haven’t seen yours. Perhaps yours is better. It needs to be seen to be believed.
Ok, well, we don’t have to talk about these things, I sometimes find these discussions to be fun though.
I don’t even have a credit score. No one refuses to deal with me in real life or treats me like I’m evil. Why? Because they don’t know what my credit score is.
You should be treated like your evil because of a credit score? Who said that?
The point is you are not anonymous in a market, the fact that you have a credit score proves that.
The enforcer of what? You voluntarily accept the state, which is nonsensical, because in relation to you, the US government is not a state, instead, it a PDA.
Maybe I’ve been unclear. We’re talking about the effect of social forces in an economy of scale right?
Yeah, but you might not. If you aren’t willing to play by the rules, who’s going to make you if there’s no state? For that matter, who’s going to make sure I play by the rules if there’s no state? Just because i voluntarily accept the state doesn’t mean I’m just going to voluntarily accept punishment if I do something wrong. I may be a fool but I’m not that great of a fool.
I know you don’t mind being inconsistent, but you’re simply non sequiturs.
Ok, I will try again. I voluntarily accept the existence of the state and the Constitution as the law of the land. What makes sure you play by the rules if you don’t voluntarily accept the existence of the state and the Constitution as the law of the land?
No, no, no. You voluntarily accept the state as your defense agency and the Constitution as the contract, which means that to you, the US government is not a state, instead it is a PDA. Do you agree with that statement?
Ok, yes, that makes sense. It’s a semantics game, but sure, I can agree to that.
I think I’m getting the hang of it now. Morality is impractical ------> the practical is truth-----> truth requires enforcement-----> enforcement requires punishment -------> punishment requires might -------> might is inevitable because it is truth -------> truth makes possible -----> possible makes right.
Damn, that’s like something taken out of my own head.
Except for this “possible makes right”
I don’t usually think in terms of right or wrong. Like you pointed out, I tend to think in terms of calculation.
Very impressive though.
Did I post that before or something?
Credit score is a social force. Its basically shunning without any moral judgment.
Indeed.
And you think it’s a strong external force that would place severe limitations on people’s economic choices?