why I am not "anarcho-capitalist"

[ama_gi]

@Daniel Muffinburg

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

“Organized” does not mean “commandeered”; it simply means “functional”. Functional in the sense that disputes are resolved and property rights are respected.

Somehow, an anarcho-capitalist system with a hundred different PDAs and a hundred different courts each following their own rules and overlapping jurisdiction doesn’t sound very functional. Or appealing.

Call me crazy.

[Stranger]

@ama gi

Somehow, an anarcho-capitalist system with a hundred different PDAs and a hundred different courts each following their own rules and overlapping jurisdiction doesn’t sound very functional. Or appealing.

Call me crazy.

You’re crazy.

[ama_gi]

@Stranger

@ama gi

Somehow, an anarcho-capitalist system with a hundred different PDAs and a hundred different courts each following their own rules and overlapping jurisdiction doesn’t sound very functional. Or appealing.

Call me crazy.

You’re crazy.

I thought so.

[DanielMuffinburg]

@ama gi

@Daniel Muffinburg

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

“Organized” does not mean “commandeered”; it simply means “functional”. Functional in the sense that disputes are resolved and property rights are respected.

Somehow, an anarcho-capitalist system with a hundred different PDAs and a hundred different courts each following their own rules and overlapping jurisdiction doesn’t sound very functional. Or appealing.

Call me crazy.

The same can be said about multiple direct democracies.

[liberty_student]

@ama gi

Functional in the sense that disputes are resolved and property rights are respected.

You can’t respect individual rights with a jury or with a democracy. You can’t protect property, and then tie everyone to an implicit social contract, just because you believe natural rights are objectively true.

@ama gi

Somehow, an anarcho-capitalist system with a hundred different PDAs and a hundred different courts each following their own rules and overlapping jurisdiction doesn’t sound very functional. Or appealing.

Re: appealing, no one cares about your sense of aesthetics. If you don’t agree with having different PDAs and different courts, them you must be for one world government, right/ Can’t have the Japanese using different standards than someone else! Doesn’t sound very functional!!! [8-)]

@ama gi

Call me crazy.

It’s fine if you don’t want to be an ancap, it’s fine if you hate ancap, but is it so much to ask that you actually understand what it is you are rejecting and criticizing?

[ama_gi]

@liberty student

You can’t respect individual rights with a jury or with a democracy.

Why not?

[liberty_student]

@ama gi

Why not?

Because it is arbitrary. It has nothing to do with facts or ethics, you’re leaving liberty up to opinions. Might as well put the blacks back in the cotton fields and march the Jews into the ovens because that is what democracy is good for. The tyranny of the majority.

And why would a jury of uninterested laymen, with their own knowledge deficits, petty biases and other shortcomings, be any better at resolving a dispute than a trained professional arbitrator? How would it be more just to be judged by 12 fools neither party trusts, than have an expert at restitution, ethics and precedent guide both parties to a mutually acceptable outcome?

You don’t have to respond, I’m out of this discussion.

[Knight_of_BAAWA]

@Daniel Muffinburg

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

@ama gi

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

How can rights be protected when they’re up for vote? Answer: it’s impossible for them to be protected that way.

[Knight_of_BAAWA]

@ama gi

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

@liberty student

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

Oh come now. If you label everything you disagree with as “trolling”, people will see through that.

[Amanojack]

@bloomj31

I think an-cap would be worse than what we have now. I understand that the concerns I tend to have are usually met by logical explanations of why they wouldn’t ever be possible. But the logic accepts a premise I can’t entirely accept. Mainly that man is logical and rational and that morality is an innate characteristic of man and so it would be impossible for say…a feudalistic society to spring up where PDAs compete for control of different territories because it would be irrational, illogical and immoral.

…and this is exactly why I question objective ethical theories. There are far better arguments against the state than these.

[Amanojack]

@Sage

the anarchist has no burden of proof to show how specific scenarios would be handled. What they do have to show is that the incentive structure of anarchy is superior to the incentive structure of minarchy. And this they have done decisively: market competition has a more effective incentive structure than political democracy.

It all comes back to this ^^

[Amanojack]

@filc

What Ancap seeks to address is the economic calculation issue akin to state-run systems and coercive monopolies alike. Removing the coercive monopoly puts economic calculation back into the game. By Econ calc I mean, directly addressing the needs of the individual, the consumer.

Calling it re-inventing the wheel isn’t entirely correct. We don’t know what types of security services will be rendered on the free market. Those types of discussions are to be left to the speculative entrepreneur.

Brilliantly stated.

@filc

@ama gi

In anarcho-capitalist theory, private property reigns supreme

negative. It’s the sovereignty of the consumer that reign’s supreme in ancap.

The fact that ama gi had this misconception and…

@filc

@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. 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”.

I haven’t read it but I assume you realize it’s only hypothesizing about types of business models in an ancap society? Not necessarily what will happen. Your welcome to take issue with what he says but that doesn’t mean Ancap is flawed per se, it may mean his argument is flawed I’m somewhat disappointed that you give it so much weight and don’t realize that it’s all speculative talk.

…this misconception as well, is not an accident. The speculative nature of the theorizing is somewhat at odds with the objective ethical theories that the some of the same authors engage in (not sure about Murphy). Hence it could be, judging from how many miss that speculative aspect, that the speculativeness is downplayed in many of the popular AnCap works. Sometimes it is downright ruled out as when speaking openly of “rogue” or “outlaw” courts, as has been discussed in detail in this thread.

Many in that thread wondered why I was on about such minor-seeming points, but here is exactly the problem: if one makes bad arguments against the state, the people won over may eventually come to see the holes in those arguments and have second thoughts (e.g., ama gi).

[Angurse]

@ama gi

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

Oh no! Well, I, and every other Voluntaryist better get some guns!

[filc]

@AJ

Many in that thread wondered why I was on about such minor-seeming points, but here is exactly the problem: if one makes bad arguments against the state, the people won over may eventually come to see the holes in those arguments and have second thoughts (e.g., ama gi).

Thanks for the kind words AJ. Somedays I post something coherent. Other days, Not so much… [:)]

[Libertyandlife]

@ama gi

…although I used to use that to describe myself.

I don’t understand, all your assumptions of flaws of anarchocapitalism seem to be very basic. How could you have believed something that you couldn’t doubt?

[laminustacitus]

@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?

And yet there is not a single historical case study of such a society lasting. If you wanted to, one could cite medieval Ireland as an example of a pseudo-anarcho-capitalist society. However, medieval Ireland was utterly incapable of protecting itself, and proceeded to become essentially a British colony until the 1900s.

@liberty student

@ama gi

Why not?

Because it is arbitrary. It has nothing to do with facts or ethics, you’re leaving liberty up to opinions.

And that would not happen under anarcho-capitalism? Liberty will always be at the mercy of public opinion.

@liberty student

The tyranny of the majority.

In anarcho-capitalism: the tyranny of the greatest market demand.

@liberty student

The tyranny of the majority.

In anarcho-capitalism: the tyranny of the greatest market demand. No matter what there will always be some sort of tyranny, it is a part of the human condition

@liberty student

And why would a jury of uninterested laymen, with their own knowledge deficits, petty biases and other shortcomings, be any better at resolving a dispute than a trained professional arbitrator? How would it be more just to be judged by 12 fools neither party trusts, than have an expert at restitution, ethics and precedent guide both parties to a mutually acceptable outcome?

Biases effect individual more than they effect aggregates decision-making. Expert judgment is not always superior to public judgment.

[Knight_of_BAAWA]

@laminustacitus

And yet there is not a single historical case study of such a society lasting.

That means nothing.

@laminustacitus

And that would not happen under anarcho-capitalism? Liberty will always be at the mercy of public opinion.

Always?

@laminustacitus

In anarcho-capitalism: the tyranny of the greatest market demand.

Sounds like a Marxist slogan.

[DanielMuffinburg]

I’m guessing Lam isn’t an an-cap.

[filc]

@laminustacitus

In anarcho-capitalism: the tyranny of the greatest market demand.

Thats not true. Business men capitalize on minority interests all the time. In fact that is preceisly what the market does. It sells goods to minorities of interested folk. Not a blanket sale to everyone. Not everyone has a honda, and not everyone has a motercycle. And the majority doesn’t decide for us which to choose or even to choose at all.

@laminustacitus

In anarcho-capitalism: the tyranny of the greatest market demand. No matter what there will always be some sort of tyranny, it is a part of the human condition

Tyrrany of market demand is oxymoronic. I exploded this point above.

@laminustacitus

Biases effect individual more than they effect aggregates decision-making. Expert judgment is not always superior to public judgment.

@Liberty student

And why would a jury of uninterested laymen, with their own knowledge deficits, petty biases and other shortcomings, be any better at resolving a dispute than a trained professional arbitrator?

You evaded his question.

[liberty_student]

@laminustacitus

And yet there is not a single historical case study of such a society lasting.

Your point is?

@laminustacitus

And that would not happen under anarcho-capitalism? Liberty will always be at the mercy of public opinion.

I never said otherwise.

@laminustacitus

In anarcho-capitalism: the tyranny of the greatest market demand.

If you believe voluntarism can be tyranny, then sure you’re right.

@laminustacitus

No matter what there will always be some sort of tyranny, it is a part of the human condition

Strawman.

@laminustacitus

Biases effect individual more than they effect aggregates decision-making.

I’m a methodological individualist. I am not familiar with aggregate decision making.

@laminustacitus

Expert judgment is not always superior to public judgment.

Hey, a blind squirrel finds a nut now and again.

If you want to gamble on lucky nuts when it comes to your property and justice, be my guest.