is that a point that demands address? :-p
He replied to it trying to say that the American founding fathers knew that the republic had to be maintained, as if I had erroneously dismissed that, but that was not even my point, and not even a part on the entire post.
I think thismay be a case, where you both agree. but a post of agreement has been interpreted as though a criticism.
i might be wrong though. we may have to wait for LS to get back.
The list is what Nirgraham said, my response are the “not-listed format” parts.
- Dot care if some jerk starts by owning the moon. if the jerk has lots of land, that he doesnt use. (i.e. we wouldnt agree had had ‘homesteaded it’ in the ‘traditional sense’. then the value to him outside of his phsyicic gains will be what he can earn from selling off the land to others.
Clearly you have never met a farmer in your entire life. I have, they’re in some respects extremely irrational and frequently only hold and buy substantial amounts of land for the simple sake of pissing off a different farmer. I know a guy who owes a tiny plot of land right in the middle of patches of land owned by a different one, he’s been offered literally 12 times the price he paid for it a decade ago, has nothing on the piece of land and doesn’t plan on having anything on it either, he is quite adamant in saying that the only reason he doesn’t sell is just to piss off the other guy. I know several of these cases not from hearsay but from actually witnessing them happen and talking to the people involved; I trust my own experience over your deskbound theories about rationality winning out and everything going as planned. Rich people can be just as big of an asshole as poor ones, not more or less and they can thereby value economic monetary gain over being an asshole for the sake of it and enjoy it just the same.
- courts care about pleasing their customers so as to get their customers money. they go about pleasing their customers by providing the justice customers demand, if most consumers of justice are libertarians, then it will be libertarian justice that they provide.
It seems pretty hard for you to understand that what you’re saying is basicly the exact definition of democracy, with libertarian principles winning out by majority vote, the parties involved try to please their electorate, if most of the electorate is libertarian then you have libertarian policies, if not you do not.
- the billionaire doesnt not have the consent of the populace to be a wielder of legitimate violence. in fact the opposite. i dont think you have been paying attention. the dynamic powers of the capitalist free market system ,are all geared to incentivising peaceful cooperation. whereas the opposite is true in any kind of archy, which incentivises being the state, being the criminal.. there is no such position to occupt in anarchy.
Yes, incentives. Incentives count for nothing unless you assume rationality all of the time.
- you are teh won that believes force is provided by purchasing power, you have performed a ridiculous unwarranted recudtion. surely a component of providing force is purchasing power. but its not the whole story.
Wishing it isn’t so doesn’t change a thing about it. If the power of a court to enforce its rules comes from how many mercenaries they can buy then purchasing power equals force and equals “right” completely arbitrary and unconnected to any normative ethics. If you say that their power comes from more backing by more people then it’s democracy.
- you sue the guy that polluted you. if he feels he has a claim against whoever ‘miss’-sold him pollution rights then thats his business.
So practically, you can’t pollute anything or you end up paying for the entire ocean because of the chain reaction, unless several people let their patch of ocean be polluted freely out of the goodness of their heart.
- socialism has indeed been tried. what has not been tried is utopion communism with new socialist man. key differnece, having not yet tried something that can be tried. having not tried something that could not ever be tried
It’s exactly the same with your anarcho capitalism. What has not been tried is utopian communism with the new libertarian (= rational) man. The plain fact that you put “capitalism” into the term of anarcho capitalism implies special preconditions which are understood and agreed upon by those who participate. What’s the difference between regular anarchy and anarcho capitalism and how are you suggesting this difference will be made?
- if you dont believe in morality, you have no credibility to enter moral debates or criticise others morals poisitions aparpt from grounds of personal aestheticism (whcih is another way of saying you have not entered moral debate). if you do have a moral system. .and its not libertarian. and it therefore involves the moral permissabilty of initiating aggression against innoccents, it would seem to be an inferior moral theory right out of the gate by any ‘common or laymans understanding’
A fig for the “layman’s understanding”. To claim superiority of your moral ideas on the basis of nothing but morality as such as opposed to force, is to claim that there is a set absolute and universally true standard to measure morality on. Where is it, who makes you the holder of absolute truth and absolute knowledge about good and evil. You seem to say that it’s the layman and the commoner who decides about good and evil. Are we going to vote for it? Who says you have a monopoly on common sense. I surely disagree. There’s nothing contradictory to what I’m saying but you seem to grasp your own theory less than the other guys who’ve talked about it here.
- your woman has been hurt and victimised. we do not have a theory of time machines that allowes us to go back and have her avoid the crime. it seems you are merely asking for her to receive charity. well whats the connection to justice?
No, I ask you about how your system would deal with a woman who has been brutalised and has no recourse whatsoever as she has no claims to sell since her agressor has nothing of value. From there on I ask whether you consider this deed to go unpunished is justified in any sense, if so de facto condoning the rape of women as long as they’re defenceless. What will you do about it and based on what principle. If you decide that you should intervene, then how and by what right while holding on to your specific set of standards if the pimp claims that he owns her regardless of what you say. Will you agress what he holds to be his legitimate property? Will you use force to enforce him to comply to your set of values? Then you’re complying exactly with what I say: namely that the only thing that matters is whether you have enough force to put your own arbitrary convictions into practice. On a similar note if somehow the pimp was able to employ more force against you making you unable to have him relinquish the property of the woman, where does that leave you with your supposed categorical imperative. Or will you just stand by and let it happen and condone abuse of innocents.
- no justice agency will want to be associated with such a violator as you imagine, as such you would have no justice services. see how much you like that. you are basically putting up a flag to the much wider more powerful libertarian society that a new state is forming ‘;here’. and this tieme the libertarians have the guns and the power, the new state wouldnt stand a chance…
Please, listen to yourself. “This time the libertarians will have the guns”. Poor libertarians being repressed and not being able to throw off the shackles. But wait untill we do! Then we’ll get our revenge! Slave morality, try and look into that some time.
- wars are symptoms of states, of monopolies on force. states allow irrationalities to persist and not be weeded out by reality through the free market system of profit and loss. as such the irratiojnalities, persist, bloom and blossom, result :war.
Wars are symptoms of humanity. Chances are I’d go to war with you pretty quickly seeing how easily you can be agitated into a frenzy. And this is with two people who hold all in all pretty similar believes. What are you going to do though, cry that I can’t initiate force? That’s your standard, who says it’s mine and if so what are you going to do about it anyway? Assume that you’ll be in a stronger position? It seems to me that you have very little reason to assume that as an a priori given, I’m not exactly the least capable person I know, in whatever regard. Maybe you do end up “more powerful”, but I might as easily assume the exact same thing on my end and would bet on my own horse based on what I’ve been reading. In any case it is what I have been saying all along: might makes right is the only thing that matters in a reality where normative standards mean nothing unless having enough force behind them to be implemented. Say that I somehow end up lucky and end up more powerful, in that case, where would that leave you? Exactly where you are today: feeling oppressed by an external superior force and somehow being what seems to me pretty frustrated about it.
My point is that there is no need for frustration and no need to consider yourself oppressed, you’re whatever our differences may be undoubtedly an above average intelligent human being, there is no reason for you to feel or act like a victim. If anything I’d like you to abandon that kind of slave morality altogether and not think of yourself as oppressed but as part of the force that tries to outforce the enemy; instead of thinking of yourself as an oppressed slave start thinking about yourself as a force of your own instead of a constantly forcibly submitting pulp whose only hold on legitimacy is some vague notion of absolute moral truth that just lacks the strength to be backed up.
- there is no economic law entailing the founding of states. what are you on about? you are just tossing words around without care. evolution, society. well, i can do that too. magumbo brockheads, lillian farthweights.
Evolution is guided by economic principles. Society evolved from stateless into state structure independently all over the world, therefor there must be sound economic reason for it to do so or it wouldn’t have been the dominant force that it is today.
- the evolution of states is bound up with peoples ideas of states. consent is vital to states. do i need to evidence this? ergo, if states can not get consent. they can not persist, not long exist, particularly in the face of viable alternatives. which there ‘could be’ if only a sufficient number, a critical -mass, removed their consent. Tthe libertarian project is one of educating individuals unitl there is this necessary critical mass, to achieve viability.
First reasonable comment which you made, and I agree, that’s why I myself actively try and steer people away from collectivism as well. So basicly you’re waiting for a democratic reform and democraticly elect to have democracy done away with based on a critical mass of consent among the populace? Are we reading the same lines?
- what do you object to about the notion of private property, or about the injunction against aggressing innocents? i believe libertairianism is sufficently simple for a layman to grasp. so it could certainly have wide appeal (approaching univeral appeal)
I object nothing about the notion of private property, I see it as one of the most important things about civilized life, if not “the” most important. I also don’t doubt that it could have a wider appeal than it has today (liberalism), but if wide appeal is what you’re after and based on what you said above, I still don’t see where it’s any different from democratically deciding to eradicate the state, which is pretty ironic don’t you think that you need democracy to do away with itself and that you can only have your anarchy as long as thereis democratic consent for it. Using “critical mass of agreeing people” instead of “democratic majority” is only calling the same dog Fido or Lassie; the dog itself stays the same and the only difference is the name.
- fuck you buddy.
No need to get hostile. I applaud your eloquence though, bravo.
You refuted nothing.
Anyway, I’ll be back to comment on the “irrational” thing tomorrow or something, right now this opressed libertarian is heading out to a poolside barbecue 
You all behave while I’m gone, enjoy the rest of your day.
I stopped reading at this. Whoever filled your head with such a stupid notion?
I hope you drink, because if we ever meet, I am going to buy you one.
- · ‘so what?’ if people own stuff that you think they should sell.
- · It seems pretty hard for you to understand the difference,. its institutional. with all the good will in the world , libertarians who elect a Minarchy will not achieve the same ends as libertarians who live in anarchy
- · Bizarre non-sequitor. Are we not allowed to speak about people at all? is economics bunk (Austrian and mainstream and any other conception) simply because we cant speak about utterly random incomprehensible thingamajigs? i thought you wanted to discuss politics. not deny the project of discussion whilst still holding a definite position. That would be silly.
- · If I offer you a million dollars in exchange for you killing your own mother. would you do it? and under Minarchy only one set of guys can have guns. what’s more dangerous?
- · it seems like innovative solutions need to be found. do you suppose you understand what the role of entrepreneurship is ?
- · I don’t know what you imagine ‘regular anarchy’ to be. The only anarchy is an-cap. since its NAP and private property. I think if you ponder, you can far easily imagine that people can understand these two ideas and live in harmony with them, than when you contrast with what would be involved in changing human nature itself which communism would demand.
- · So you are a moralist that believes it is perfectly compatible with morality to aggress innocents. ha! ha! Ha! priceless
- · well, perhaps you can concede that the pimp owns some other things besides this poor woman, and so it’s not the case that he could not be separated from these things, further, recognise that its not the case that he could not be separated from the woman,. Finally, perhaps you could also concede that if he was ostracised from society this would be a punishment.
- · What the hell are you on about it. Nietzchean nonsense. are you mocking the principle of self defence? Are you mocking yourself for not knowing the difference between self defence and aggression. what a sorry state.
- · I’ll self defend against irrational animals like you that think nothing of aggressing innocents. i would be in the right. and I think even most non-libertarians that you might meet today and stop on the street to ask would support me in that clear case, which is unobfuscated as opposed to the more political scenarios that lead people astray from the fundamental moral truths
- · Evolution is change in the genetic material of a population of organisms from one generation to the next guided by natural selection and subject to genetic drift. This has no connection to economics. no connection to economic laws, which are laws of acting man. Get a grip. Get praxeology. There surely are incentives for rulers to rule, are there incentives to be rule, or are the ruled merely captured. you are speaking like someone that believes social contract nonsense. If i cam e to your house and bossed you about. and i punched you and overpowered you so that you could not hope to defeat me. and i ruled your home. would a neighbour that spoke of the justice of self-sovereignty be laughed at by other neighbours who believed that, since your domination’ evolved over time’ it must have been brought about through ‘economic laws’, that it was therefore ‘inevitable’ and ‘above criticism’.? how absurd do you hope to portray yourself?
- · So you believe people should withdraw their consent even though 1) its impractical for them to withdraw their consent 2) you want them to consent to being brutalised by your Minarchy. Ha. Real smooth. I didn’t mention democracy at all. Perhaps you have no idea what democracy is, and can not realise that I am not a ‘democrat’.
- · The ability to make correct distinctions between two similar but distinct classes is a mark of intelligence. There is nothing 'ironic’ about my positions. my position on liberty and morality is fixed and un-swayed by popular opinion. Popular opinion literally has nothing to do with liberty and morality. Naturally, I recognise popular opinion will surely effect what ‘actually happens’ . As for Fido and Lassie there are huge differences not least. Legitimacy.
Witty comeback. But, really, you didn’t address my point whatsoever - we cannot know how an anarcho-capitalists society will function, and any attempt to claim to such knowledge is ridiculous.
I stopped reading the walls of text on the last page.
I got suckered in. I was in a mood where I didnt want him to think that he was right simply because he has posted up his fallacies in a hard-to-read and hard-to-respond to manner.
Its possible I made a foolish choice.
I don’t think anyone can disabuse him of his errors. He’s like Randroids who wander in here, hang out for a couple weeks and bail. An unemotional argument from logic is simply beyond them.
In response to your question about “institutionalizing the most violent and criminal among us as absolute authority,” I posted the question, “The most violent and criminal according to whom, and by what measure?” but got no reply. Not a wall of text, and I think it’s a fairly important question, because it seems like anarcho-capitalists believe that government without exception turns otherwise rational men into rabidly irrational oppressors.
I didn’t see it. Sorry. By me, and by the measure of the amount of wealth they steal, and the millions of lives they take.
Ancaps are not a homogenous group, nor should my comments be taken as representative of all, or even many ancaps.
I don’t know who proposed this. It’s not a question of rationality. It’s a question of morality. One can rationalize anything, if as our comrade argues, “might makes right”. Ancaps reject ends justify the means arguments. That isn’t to say that statists can’t achieve their rational ends by hurting, stealing and subjugating others, only that to do so, violates a basic moral principle ancaps accept. That the use of aggressive force is illegitimate.
Christophe’s argument, is that aggressive force is legitimate if you can use it. So when he says he is an ideological ancap, he is not being honest.
In the cultural tradition of my people, I will answer your question with further questions.
how many individuals are jailed by ‘private’ criminals, individuals or gangs?
compare
how many innocents in state jails guilty of victim-less crimes like using or selling drugs, not paying taxes etc etc. ?
how does the size of revenue that criminal gangs extort from innocents compare to how much is extorted by nation states?. one figure dwarfs the other.
oh yes. and the deaths of innocents through war, and meddling in healthcare and roads etc.
NIR BUT WAT ABOT DOKTER EVIL?
He gets a bad rep, but he’s not so bad. He gave us the question mark. and personally, I like question marks…
if people have to die to give us question marks.
so be it.
We have to kill people for question marks, because might makes right, and this is an irrational world.
i think we would have to kill people even if we didnt get question marks as a side benefit.
irrational world and all
Well, everyone except Nietzsche of course.
Not adressing any of the issues does not invalidate them.
None of these questions have been answered, and you not wanting to answer them means diddly squat, it only shows your ignorance and perhaps your inability to formulate a non-dogmatic reply.
I have a hard time believing that either of you two are really as idiotic as you pretend to be. If you don’t feel like reading “the wall of text” then what are you doing in this thread in the first place? I’m not twisting your arm to be here and neither of you have added much if anything to the conversation in the last few pages aside from some petty remarks and embarassing attempts at sarcasm. If you guys circlejerk any faster you’re going to hurt somebody.
If you don’t have anything serious to say, then don’t. Don’t waste your time on still reading and replying if you don’t feel like it and don’t waste mine on still having to deal with the likes of you, I for one do have other stuff to do and I’d rather spend the free time I have available for this on people who have something to say.
I don’t mean any offense by this, I just don’t get what you hope of achieving in trying to provoke me (unsuccesfully, I might add) with some petty playground shenanigans. I’m above that kind of thing, if you have any dignity you should be as well.