why I am not "anarcho-capitalist"

[Laughing_Man]

@ama gi

If a law has been passed by democratic processes (or any other process) that is not consistent with natural law, it is a moral imperative to violate that law. It’s as simple as that.

It is not imperative to break an unjust law. You can be indifferent to it. Like I don’t have to smoke weed in order for me to actual propound drug decriminalization.

@ama gi

Now the question is, who? Some dictator? Some legislature? Some privileged nobility class?

Not who, what? Human reason.

[DanielMuffinburg]

@ama gi

By natural law.

Morality is not optional. It is not “entered into” by contract. You are obligated to respect the lives and properties of others, regardless of whether or not you signed a contract to that effect. For that reason, contracts are not the be-all and end-all of civil law.

If a law has been passed by democratic processes, and it is consistent with natural law, it is a moral imperative to obey that law. If a law has been passed by democratic processes (or any other process) that is not consistent with natural law, it is a moral imperative to violate that law. It’s as simple as that.

Natural law is what protects human rights. But–here’s the kicker–natural law is invisible. Inaudiable. Almost imaginary. And for that reason, somebody needs to put that law into words.

Now the question is, who? Some dictator? Some legislature? Some privileged nobility class?

Or maybe some myriad of private corporations?

I’d rather have natural law be verbalized by you and me. Ordinary people without any fancy titles.

Are you are saying that natural law dictates that all humans are bound to each other by direct democratic vote?

[ama_gi]

@Daniel Muffinburg

Are you are saying that natural law dictates that all humans are bound to each other by direct democratic vote?

Yes, unless there is some better way to protect our natural rights. And I don’t think there is.

[DanielMuffinburg]

@ama gi

@Daniel Muffinburg

Are you are saying that natural law dictates that all humans are bound to each other by direct democratic vote?

Yes, unless there is some better way to protect our natural rights. And I don’t think there is.

Are we bound into the same democracy?

[Angurse]

@ama gi

By natural law.

Oh jeez…

@ama gi

If a law has been passed by democratic processes, and it is consistent with natural law, it is a moral imperative to obey that law. If a law has been passed by democratic processes (or any other process) that is not consistent with natural law, it is a moral imperative to violate that law. It’s as simple as that.

@ama gi

I’d rather have natural law be verbalized by you and me. Ordinary people without any fancy titles.

If something can be “consistent with natural law” then it doesn’t matter who verbalizes it.

[liberty_student]

@Angurse

@ama gi

By natural law.

Oh jeez…

Atlas just shrugged. lol

[ama_gi]

@Daniel Muffinburg

Are we bound into the same democracy?

No, of course not. You might be the citizen of one democracy, while I might be the citizen of another.

But if some dispute should arise between you and I, then there is only room enough for one democracy to intervene.

[nirgrahamUK]

@ama gi

Yes, unless there is some better way to protect our natural rights. And I don’t think there is.

given that it is the rights of the consumers of rights protectiion and restitution services, I’m going with consumer sovereignty.

[DanielMuffinburg]

@ama gi

@Daniel Muffinburg

Are we bound into the same democracy?

No, of course not. You might be the citizen of one democracy, while I might be the citizen of another.

But if some dispute should arise between you and I, then there is only room enough for one democracy to intervene.

So, theoretically, every human could be bound to his or her own democracy?

[Conza]

@ama gi

Morality is not optional.

There is always choice, you can choose to be immoral. Libertarianism, as a political philosophy deals with what should be law. Part of that contains punishment theory, ie. what would be considered just.

@ama gi

It is not “entered into” by contract. You are obligated to respect the lives and properties of others, regardless of whether or not you signed a contract to that effect. For that reason, contracts are not the be-all and end-all of civil law.

Depends what contract theory is supported.

"In short, a contract should only be enforceable when the failure to fulfill it is an implicit theft of property. But this can only be true if we hold that validly enforceable contracts only exist where title to property has already been transferred, and therefore where the failure to abide by the contract means that the other party’s property is retained by the delinquent party, without the consent of the former (implicit theft). Hence, this proper libertarian theory of enforceable contracts has been termed the “title-transfer” theory of contracts."1

@ama gi

Natural law is what protects human rights.

Natural law is a guide.

@ama gi

But–here’s the kicker–natural law is invisible. Inaudiable. Almost imaginary. And for that reason, somebody needs to put that law into words.

Now the question is, who? Some dictator? Some legislature? Some privileged nobility class?

“The answer is not who but what: man’s reason. Man’s reason is objective, i.e., it can be employed by all men to yield truths about the world. To ask what is man’s nature is to invite the answer.”

@ama gi

Ordinary people without any fancy titles.

Just labels… there would be no separate classes [rulers vs ruled] in an ancap society.

[liberty_student]

@Daniel Muffinburg

So, theoretically, every human could be bound to his or her own democracy?

ama gi taking heavy fire!

[ama_gi]

@Daniel Muffinburg

So, theoretically, every human could be bound to his or her own democracy?

You can take the secessionist approach to this debate ad-infinitum and say that we’re all a bunch of one-man democracies. But then we are stuck with the question, “Who is going to resolve disputes between these one-man democracies and determine their innocence or guilt in a fair and impartial manner?”

And then we are back to where we started.

[ama_gi]

@liberty student

@Daniel Muffinburg

So, theoretically, every human could be bound to his or her own democracy?

ama gi taking heavy fire!

I’m not familiar with that expression, but I’m glad you’re enjoying the show.

[liberty_student]

@ama gi

The reason I am growing weary of anarcho-capitalist theory is because it seems to involve reinventing the wheel. Anarcho-capitalist theory seems to involve tearing down government bureaucracies, and then replacing them with private-sector bureaucracies that are modeled after the State bureaucracies.

Strawman.

@ama gi

An example of this is the anarcho-capitalistic “PDA” I keep reading about in these forums. If I see one more discussion on PDAs, my head is going to explode.

PDA stands for “personal digital assistant”; it does not stand for “private defense agency”. Whenever I see the letters PDA, I think, “Are they talking about a Palm Pilot? No, wait, they are talking about some hypothetical anarchy police force.”

Yes, Ancap must be wrong if you don’t like the acronyms. This is a very serious analysis.

@ama gi

Not only is the acronym ridiculous, but the concept itself is unsavory. I don’t want armed, uniformed, trained cops patrolling the streets, tax-paid or otherwise.

Strawman!

@ama gi

In anarcho-capitalist theory, private property reigns supreme, with private mercenaries enforcing property. I think that is quite unethical; I think that property rights should be protected with the minimum amount of force possible. Don’t chase away a thief or trespasser with a gun, if you could use a pepperspray or an angry rottweiller.

More strawmen!

@ama gi

At least under the current regime, the leaders can hold power for several years at a time;

How is that working out for you so far?

@ama gi

“Private law-givers” are totally unnecessary. People do not need to be “given” law;

You’re right. And it is a strawman. Easy to be right when you make up false arguments!

@ama gi

I was stupified! The author simply assumed that every single person would be willing and able to purchase “insurance”. This “insurance” sounds almost like a tax.

I don’t consider Bob Murphy an authority on ancap. So why appeal to him?

@ama gi

Anybody without this “insurance” would not be able to purchase anything or even walk down the street. He would be almost like an illegal alien, with no legal “citizenship”.

Strawman, strawman!

@ama gi

Under anarcho-capitalism, such “citizenship” would be necessary because all law would be based on contract. Somebody who had not specifically agreed in a contract not to rape or kill anybody would a lawless person, to be avoided at all costs.

Non sequitur, strawman!

@ama gi

Such a concept is ridiculous in my opinion.

Well, since you made almost all of it up, I have to agree. It is ridiculous. It is ridiculous that you thought this was ancap, and you called yourself an ancap. Do not pass go, do not collect $200.

[ama_gi]

@liberty student

…

And now I’m the one who’s enjoying the show! [:P]

[DanielMuffinburg]

@ama gi

@Daniel Muffinburg

So, theoretically, every human could be bound to his or her own democracy?

You can take the secessionist approach to this debate ad-infinitum and say that we’re all a bunch of one-man democracies. But then we are stuck with the question, “Who is going to resolve disputes between these one-man democracies and determine their innocence or guilt in a fair and impartial manner?”

And then we are back to where we started.

Well, we could start with: who owns the land on which the disputed claim occurred?

[ama_gi]

@Daniel Muffinburg

Well, we could start with: who owns the land on which the disputed claim occurred?

Nobody knows. That’s been the subject of dispute for ten years![:D]

Ultimately, the only two ways to organize a society are bullets and ballots. There is no third solution.

[liberty_student]

@ama gi

Ultimately, the only two ways to organize a society are bullets and ballots. There is no third solution.

Argument from ignorance. Haven’t you trolled enough for one day?

[Stranger]

@ama gi

Ultimately, the only two ways to organize a society are bullets and ballots. There is no third solution.

Why is a society organized by ballots? People vote in online polls all the time and that does not seem to have any effect on social organization.

[DanielMuffinburg]

@ama gi

@Daniel Muffinburg

Well, we could start with: who owns the land on which the disputed claim occurred?

Nobody knows. That’s been the subject of dispute for ten years!

Ultimately, the only two ways to organize a society are bullets and ballots. There is no third solution.

What does it mean for a society to be “organized,” and why does society need to be “organized”?