Hey, I am quite open about the fact I know so little on AnCap. I’m just trying to learn more about it. I don’t know if you’ve noticed but I have already changed my ideology; I am already leaning towards market based systems.
If you don’t like my posts, don’t read 'em.
If you had just said that private arbiters would prosecute the rapist, I would have been far more convinced, to be honest.
That would be misrepresenting my point of view. I am not interested in convincing you of something I don’t believe in. I am interested in convincing you of something I do believe in or you convincing me of something I previously didn’t believe in.
The means of prosecution isn’t what is being discussed (though we can if you like), it’s the means of ‘punishment’ that we are talking about. You suggested that in an anarchist society people would be ostracized as punishment and I was stating that reparations is how punishment is doled out. The way to calculate reparation costs on a free market is through insurance.
What an enormous waste of our time to talk to you then.
Be nice. Didn’t you just give someone a two week ban for this sort of behavior?
First of all, I don’t hand out bans. Second of all, he’s basically admitting he’s making arguments of positions he doesn’t endorse, which is in my opinion, an enormous waste of our time. If I wanted to role play, I would call a sex line, not chat on Mises.org. YMMV.
Try reading or listening. There is a treasure trove of data here. Arguing positions you haven’t taken any time to understand and misstating them isn’t doing you or anyone else any favors.
Actually I am presently reading Man, Economy and State. But it is a long read and I don’t have time to also read about positive rights and those crucial positions I am lacking on.
Anyway, this is the Newbie forum, therefore I should be allowed to say dumb things in here, so leave me alone you bully :P.
Also, I am not convinced on AnCap by any stretch of the imagination; I merely said I was attracted to the idea. I have (centre) right leanings, that is all.
This thread doesn’t belong in the newbie forum, and the arguments being made aren’t newbie arguments.
I don’t have a problem with people saying dumb things or asking dumb questions. The dumbest path is to not ask a question.
That said, I don’t like when people argue positions they don’t support. We all put a lot of thought and energy into discussions here, arguing a BS position is irritating to say the least.
If you have any interest in logic and morality, you will find Ancap appealing. If you’re comfortable with cognitive dissonance, more mainstream positions may fit the bill.
The thread is in Forums > Misc > Newbies > Education and Voluntarism
(?)
Also, I’m sorry that my newbie questions do not match up to the arguments being made cries.
I do support the positions I argue; I am a minarchist, not an AnCap. I find the idea appealing, my brain is just refusing to let me go to the extreme. If you had just stopped being a communist would the first thing you do be to jump to the opposite extreme?
I don’t understand this statement.
Warning: Off topic!
That said, I don’t like when people argue positions they don’t support. We all put a lot of thought and energy into discussions here, arguing a BS position is irritating to say the least.
I disagree. I find that having someone who tries their hardest to poke holes in theories to be the moste effective way of improving the theory. Whether or not they agree with their stance is of no consequence since the end result is the same, either a stronger original theory or proof that the original theory is invalid.
There is nothing wrong with the theory. This individual can’t articulate what he is criticizing or challenging.
You miss the point, see above.
Then why did you say you were playing Devil’s advocate?
There is nothing wrong with the theory. This individual can’t articulate what he is criticizing or challenging.
My statement had nothing to do with this individual or the theory being discussed. My statement was in response to your statement, “I don’t like when people argue positions they don’t support.”
According to Wikipedia (which aligns with my usage of the word), “…the individual taking on the devil’s advocate role seeks to engage others in an argumentative discussion process. The purpose of such process is typically to test the quality of the original argument and identify weaknesses in its structure, and to use such information to either improve or abandon the original, opposing position.”
Did I misinterpret your statement, “I don’t like when people argue positions they don’t support.”, as being limited to this individual and not to the more general “people”?
So basically, you just wanted to share your opinion about my opinion. Ok.
I’ve been here for over a year now(2?), and I didn’t even know there was a newbie forum. Many of us just look at the most recent posts that float to the top, we may not spend time paying attention to whatever category they get posted in. Not trying to make an excuse, just saying…
“I wonder if you guys could tighten up your critique’s and arugments between each other to improve discussion legibility. It’s becoming difficult and time consuming to follow. There are several un-reletated topics going off in different directions.”
Coercion is necessary for the survival, education, and maturation of the immature, especially children. Second, it is necessary for the survival and prosperity of family, without which human life cannot exist. A society without “mass” education–via family, mythical rites, church, public schools, home schooling, private schools, whatever; “education” broadly defined–would soon revert back to painting itself blue, howling at the moon, and eating its neighbor for lunch. Therefore, voluntarism is no more than an abstract theory that no one can, does, or will ever practice in a world inhabited by humans.
More concretely, some voluntarists can talk about permitting a five year old “of his own free will” deciding to move into the pedophilic neighbor’s house, except when it is your own five year old.
A fine display of the need for coercive education.
^^^
Why are people on the forum so nasty all of the sudden? And to moderators no less?
You have a lot of things going on here.
You claim that “family” is necessary for “human life.” I don’t know this to be true. You claim that absent institutions, surely canibalism will occur. I don’t know this to be true. Neither of these things, unless I assume them to be true out of the gate (which I won’t), support the conclusion that voluntaryism is incompatible with reality.
I also think that you are conflating, still, “coercion” and “aggression.” “Coecion” is not necessarily “aggressive.” If you’re coming at me with a knife and I pull out a gun, that’s me coercing you to stop your current behavior. Is it aggressive? Not hardly. The aggression is you coming at me with a knife. If I understand LS and Wikipedia correctly, it’s not the “coercion” that’s decried in this instance, but the “aggression.”
Really? How do you propose “coercively” educating him?
Can you please substantiate this assertion? That is, can you please support it? What makes “coercion” (any/all coercion?) necessary for these things?
Same thing as above. Also, can you please support the claim that human life cannot exist without the survival/prosperity of the family? It would seem you have it backwards - as families consist of humans, it would seem that “family life” cannot exist without human life already existing.
Once again, I see a completely unsupported claim. Furthermore, you seem to discount any notion of an innate desire to learn things. My understanding is that all human beings are born with such an innate desire - but they may not want to learn the things others want them to learn when those others want them to learn them. Finally, I think the definition used for “education” is the crux of the issue here, as it can mean many different things to many different people.
This seems to me like an unsubstantiated conclusion, since the “support” you offer for it is itself unsubstantiated.
In this rhetorical scenario, does the five-year-old know/understand that the neighbor is a pedophile?
Agreed. Coercion is considered aggression when it’s considered unjustified. So the real question is: under what circumstances is coercion considered justified?