Smokeskin wrote:

What communists think about such things don't really count, like how creationist opinions on evolutionary theory aren't relevant either.

Smokeskin wrote:

Should we also applaud communism for its lofty ideals and ignore the oppression and poverty it leads to?

You've several times made statements to the effect that nothing anarcho-capitalist [i]like[/i] can be used to judge anarcho-capitalism (unless it's the French health care system, which just happened to appear to support your argument) because it's not actually anarcho-capitalism. You seem to allow more leniency for politics you don't support.

Smokeskin wrote:

They were not a legal private army, no. You could hire detectives, and guards, but they could only apply force for self defense. In several cases they wanted the private detectives to be able to act more aggressively, so they got the sheriff to deputize them. Again, the government and its monopoly on violence sides with the company.

That's [i]counterfactual[/i]. The company called in the Baldwin-Felts Detective Agency, which would machine-gun tents at random. This is a clear case of the company hiring paramilitary group to attack and terrorize the strikers. This is not force that could be applied only in self defence, this was force used actively to attack and terrorize. This was a force that was employed and used for this purpose for almost [i]two months[/i] without National Guard involvement. This is not a case where the government maintained a monopoly on force; this is a case where the government was [i]uninvolved[/i] and didn't maintain a monopoly on the use of force; force was used [i]by[/i] private organizations [i]for[/i] private organizations. How can you possibly claim that this is caused a [i]government[/i] monopoly on force?

Smokeskin wrote:

Who would take the job? When they fight off the company detectives and the militia arrives afterwards, do you think they'd be able to fight them off too? Was it 8,000 militiamen that arrived in the Ludlow incident? What do the workers' detectives do then? Surrender and let the militiamen teach the rioting workers a lesson, or fight alongside them and the workers still lose (which by the way also shows why the workers had no incentive to hire detectives, even if they could afford it).

This situation changes [i]nothing[/i] if you remove the government; the rich company is still going to have more money than the strikers for financing a bigger private army. Just because the company isn't going to be able to call upon a government army, that doesn't mean it can't still throw around lots of force. You keep mentioning the militia; the militia was financed by the company and comprised mostly company employees. The difference between the strikers and the company isn't that the strikers can't expect government support so nobody will fight for them; the difference is that the company is so much richer than the strikers that the strikers can't pay for enough Pinkerton Agents to win against the Baldwin-Felts and the company militia. The solution is to do away with private armies, not to do away with governments.

Smokeskin wrote:

Also, there is the concept of insurance. Rich people have the means to pay for the rebuilding if their house burns down. Ordinary people however pay insurance - a little bit of money each year in return for the promise of a big sum in case of a low probability event like a house fire. If the government didn't have a monopoly on violence, ordinary people could have a security insurance contract so that in the unlikely event that they needed a private army, they would get it.

Insurance is something people often don't have because they can't afford it.

Smokeskin wrote:

I have used an example of security contractors working for a cut of the damages. Is that pro bono? In lawsuits where the lawyer is on a no-cure-no-pay contract, do you think he's working pro bono too?

Perhaps pro bono weren't the right words; no-cure-no-pay was the term you used, and I should have addressed that directly. Contingency fees for private security work would mean that private security would only be willing to help if it can expect to win (after all, if it loses, there's no profit). For example, taking the Ludow Massacre as an example, the hypothetical no-cure-no-pay Pinkerton Detective Agency would have no incentive (other than the goodness of their hearts) to help the strikers unless they were sure they could a) win and/or b) collect damages enough to be profitable. The net effect is that being rich gives you better access to armies and lawyers, and being poor gives you extremely spotty access to protection against violence because who are going to pick a fight with the top dog and his army of lawyers?

Smokeskin wrote:

Why should there be lots and lots of welfare? Just like most people pay taxes today, they'd pay for their security. The welfare would only be needed for the poor (and to the extent the damages-sharing model wouldn't cover it), which for reason you write would have to pay for it.

Because, as mentioned over and over and over again, charity barely stretches to keep people alive, and your anarcho-capitalist society proposes to remove [i]all[/i] welfare in favour of charity. And that tax money isn't all going to go to charity, since quite a lot of people resent paying it already. So we end up with a situation where there's [i]less[/i] money spent on charity/welfare, and in addition to keeping people alive it's now also supposed to pay for their private security contracts. Do you see why I don't think this is a workable solution?

Smokeskin wrote:

Slavery. Burning witches. Cutting off ears and hands. Flogging. Public humilation on a pillory. Work safety conditions. Child labor. Environmental concern. Level of violence. Women's rights. Child labor. Violence against children.

Given how many of the bad things on that list still happen, and the fact that these are completely random examples that give no actual quantifiable evidence that people do, in fact, care more these days, I'm still not convinced.

Smokeskin wrote:

You are apperently not aware of what the Nobel Prize in Economics mean: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_Memorial_Prize_in_Economic_Sciences: he Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences, commonly referred to as the Nobel Prize in Economics

Um... yes. Like I said. There's no Nobel Prize in economics, though the memorial prize in economics is often issued by the same group and you could be considered a Nobel laureate for getting it. Asking which prize someone received is hardly unreasonable, given that the Literature Prize doesn't really imply any sort of authority or proficiency in, say, physics.

Smokeskin wrote:

Well, I refuse to let them drag me off to jail. How would that work?

They'll probably try to drag you along, and handcuff you and then drag you along if you physically try to avoid being dragged along? Acts that are necessary for the state to collect taxes that it uses to perform acts as representatives of the people?

Erenthia wrote:

Smokeskin wrote:

What communists think about such things don't really count, like how creationist opinions on evolutionary theory aren't relevant either.

By what justification do you dismiss their views? Creationists have been thoroughly debunked for over 200 years. I'm not a communist myself but this stinks of ad-hominem.

Communists have been thoroughly debunked too, both theoretically and in practice. We can start a communism thread too if you like.

Quote:

Smokeskin wrote:

I'd like to meet he ancap who would give up his freedom and willingly commit himself to the oppression of democracy just to save a few bucks and the simplicity of not having to deal with troublesome neighbors who play by their own rules. Anarcho-capitalism is about freedom.

This is the fundamental problem I have with anarcho-capitalists. (Not anarcho-capitalism as a philosophy, but the people who espouse it) You assume everyone in an anarcho-capitalism would be an ancap. How would you deal with the situation where most people in a given area don't agree with your philosophy? Move away? Make them move away? Your ideas of freedom are not necessarily your neighbors ideas of freedom.

I don't assume any such thing. Everyone else is free to have their own opinion and live like they want, within the constraints of the nom-aggression principle and the contracts they enter of course. Ancaps (as in actual ancaps, not say communists living in an ancap society) would not choose to voluntarily live under a democracy. That's like saying "communists wants markets so they can get bread and toilet paper" ;) If neighbors don't like eachother, they're both free to move (or to pay the other to move if both parties think that would be a good deal), but none of them have the right to force anyone to move.

Quote:

Smokeskin wrote:

Also, how do you propose that this "democracy-in-ancap" would stop developing the exact same problems that actual democracies have?

By being subject to market forces. If one democracy turns despotic, people are free to choose another.

Huh? The democratic process is not a market. Voters don't have a choice. They will get whatever the government decides, no matter who they voted for, even if some other politicians get elected, and no matter what the politicians do even if wildly different than what they promised. On a market, you don't order a pickup truck and get a subcompact. And if you do, you have a contract and you can sue and get your money back. And if they give you a broken pickup truck, you can sue and get your money back or have it fixed at their expenses. See, that's fair. That's treating people with respect. Do politicians live up to the same standards? Not at all. They want laws for everyone else to behave, but not for themselves - that would be highly annoying for them, not having double standards. And voters don't seem to care, and for good reason because the next politicians is also going to be free from accountability and they'll do the same thing.

Quote:

Smokeskin wrote:

[Of course not. What right does the state have to extort me like that? I live here, I have my friends and family and business here.

But that kind of extortion is exactly how ancaps say that enforcing prison and arrest will work. http://freedomain.blogspot.com/2006/04/stateless-prisons.html Extending the logic I found here to my example, the state isn't forcing you to do anything. They are giving you the freedom to decide whether or not you want to follow their laws.

Sure, punishments for people who break the non-aggression principle (or if their contracts line out punishments in the terms), that's fine. But just showing up and saying "we're the state and we have more guns, obey or leave your private property", that's extortion and aggression.

Quote:

Smokeskin wrote:

Some people would want that, and they'd be free to go live there. I wouldn't. Why would I put myself in a position where what my neighbors think could end up dictating what I could do?

Because you won't be able to find much work outside the consortiums. As more and more people move into them fewer and fewer jobs will exist that are either outside of their jurisdiction or don't deal with at least one of them.

If democracies outcompete ancap so thoroughly, I'd have to concede of course. But I have to say, the whole thing about relying so much on guns tells me that people don't really agree with much of what democracies do to them. And if you look at polls on satisfaction with the government, the majority tend to not like it most of the time. Approval ratings are very often below 50%, aren't they?

Quote:

Smokeskin wrote:

Most people never had any say in any state forming. Some guy homesteaded some land, and then he sold it to someone who passed it onto his son who sold it to someone who... and so on. Along the way, a baron comes along and says he has to pay allegiance, and then a king, and then another king, and then maybe the king hands over state to a parliament, or some there was a civil war and the revolutionaries won and made it a democracy. Very few people were involved in creating the state. And I think that very, very few would have just willingly signed their land over to the new states.

Technically they're only signing away a portion of their property rights, not all of them. I only used that as an example because ancaps seems to only recognize property transfer in whole, rather than in part.

As part of a contractual agreement, you can assign any fraction of your rights that you want to. If you don't want everything for the state, then go and ask people to sign off parts of their property rights, and leave the rest of us alone. That's totally fair and it would be the right thing for states to do. It would instantly elevate them to voluntary institutions instead of being based on having the most guns and outlawing guns for everyone else.

Quote:

Smokeskin wrote:

But let's do it your way, I'm fine with that. The state announces that in 3 years, it will go from house to and ask people to either sign over their land to the government or go anarcho-capitalistic - the state would no longer have any jurisdiction over us or our property. And I know this is being generous of us ancaps, but as a full and final settlement all the anarcho-capitalists gets a fair stake in all the government property as compensation for all the stuff it stole from of us and all the crimes it committed.

That's not what I'm advocating. I was, rather satirically, pointing out that people who form their own self-governing state wouldn't realize that you, as an outsider, wouldn't consider their government legitimate because they didn't do something silly like sign over all their land to a central authority. That wouldn't occur to most people to be a necessary component of legitimate authority.

I agree, people who force you to comply at gunpoint very rarely care about contracts or consent. But really, if everyone at the dawn of a democratic state would willingly give up large portion of their rights and freedoms, and you just forgot to get consent, then go out and get it now.

Quote:

Smokeskin wrote:

The whole economy of scale thing only really works out when there's competition though - without it, you get all the typical diseases of monopoly. Competition isn't just about having to stay ahead of the next guy, it also has a lot to do with tinkering and trial and error. We humans aren't half as smart as we think we are and even less apt at planing for the future. We need different actors to do different things and then let the market test who had the best idea. But mostly, I think you're focusing way too much on economic efficiency and way too little on the freedom. Once you get your huge consortiums, then freedom evaporates and we're living under the boot of an elite again. Stuff like that will just never work. It's been analyzed to death. Look at the principal-agent problem: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principal%E2%80%93agent_problem . The incentive structure is just never going to work out for the principal - and that's us, folks. The ancap solution to the problem is to remove the principal and make everyone their own agent that can choose on the free market.

Why shouldn't their be competition? With multiple states competing for citizens the market would produce it's own solution to the principle agent problem.

If we're talking about the small city-states, then I agree that it would fix many problems. There's still a problem with so much being bundled into one when you choose a state, but it would be a huge improvement.

Quote:

And I am focusing on freedom. Some people [i]want[/i] to live in a place that is homogeneous with respect to its laws. Some people [i]want[/i] a nonprofit organization that protects everyone equally from the abuses of large organizations regardless of their income or ability to pay. In other words, some people [i]want[/i] to live in a state. They should be free to do so.

I agree that they should be allowed to do so. To me, it sounded like you thought ancaps would consent to a state's oppression and forced uniformity if it was just a bit cheaper to live in, and I felt the need to point out that ancap ideology is mostly about freedom and not so much about the price of stuff. We're just not that worried about price cartels making plane tickets a bit more expensive when we're getting freedom in return.

Quote:

If your argument is that ancaps need their own country, then I may have wasted both our times. I think you guys should totally have your own country - I'm being completely serious. I just don't want to live there.

You're free to live like you want among ancaps, and form your own state if you can find likeminded people for it. We're not going to force you to live under our rules, that's what they do in democracies.

Smokeskin wrote:

every time property is destroyed, or men injured, the employers win public support, the aid of the press, the pulpit, the police, the courts, and all the powers of the State

Smokeskin wrote:

The argument that violence benefits employers is not just theoretical, it has frequently played out in a very specific manner. For example, mine owners have used violence as an excuse to demand intervention by state police, the national guard, or even the United States army

These statements are taken from separate parts of the text. They are not one paragraph. And yes, violence benefits the companies. That's why the companies are the ones going to be paying for private armies to ensure they maintain that advantage.

Smokeskin wrote:

As you can see, the state uses its monopoly on violence against the workers. Whenever they commit violence, in goes the police and the militia.

I have never claimed that states have not used force against rioting workers. What I [i]have[/i] claimed is that there are cases where [i]non[/i]-state actors have had access to private "defence agencies" (armies/law enforcement), and that these cases can and will lead to abusive practices - such as those private companies being used to attack and terrorize the poor. In particular, that this happens [i]without[/i] the government using force, as can be seen in the months leading up to the Ludlow Massacre. And, in particular, that [i]without[/i] the government, this would still happen, seeing as the government didn't participate in the first place. Whether the government [i]also[/i] sometimes shoots workers is besides the point. We know that governments sometimes do horrible things. We also have examples of governments [i]not[/i] doing horrible things and having very strict laws about what you can and can't do against striking workers. We also have examples of private security contractors like the Baldwin-Felts Detective Agency doing horrible things to poor people when the government isn't around. What we [i]don't[/i] have examples of are poor strikers hiring their own security companies, because for some [i]odd[/i] reason, [i]only rich people can afford private armies[/i]. When the government doesn't interfere, private armies [i]are[/i] used to murder striking workers. When the government doesn't interfere, private armies are [i]not[/i] used to defend striking workers from murder.

Smokeskin wrote:

Can you see how the democratic system works? The workers get no protection from the state, and when they try to protect themselves, the militia rolls in and puts them down. The factory owners are free to commit violence, and the courts let them off.

These are examples of things that have happened in dysfunctional democracies with insufficient worker's rights. They are not examples of endemic problems of democracies any more than North Korea is an example of endemic problems of states. You won't find companies that hire private detective agencies in Sweden to gun down unions and strikers, and to the best of my knowledge, Swedish firms can not politely ask the Swedish Army to assassinate union leaders. Yes, states sometimes do reprehensible things, especially when it profits them. Companies also do reprehensible things when it profits them. By removing the state you've not reduced the amount of reprehensibly that goes around, you're just making the companies pick up the slack. Heck, after the Ludlow Massacre, Woodrow Wilson called in the Federal Army to [i]stop the company militia from killing strikers[/i], (and vice versa), ending the conflict and allowing proper mediation to happen between the miners and the Colorado Fuel & Iron Company. This isn't a problem that goes away when you remove the state; then you just get companies using the bribe money to buy larger private armies - after all, in the aftermath of the Ludlow Massacre, the Colorado Fuel and Iron Company were the ones paying for and supplying the majority of the militia. Remove the state, and the CF&I are still going to be paying for that militia.

Smokeskin wrote:

A few weeks later, an undercover security contractor is in worker camp, looking for the widows of killed workers. Now this contractor, he's a greedy fuck and just wants to make a small fortune on this opportunity. He finds 3 widows and makes his pitch: "I heard you men was killed by the factory guards. I think we have a good shot at pinning the murders on the factory owner. I know some reputable judges who are not in the factory owner's pocket and who will take the case,

You have, here, as a [i]premise[/i], that the widowers have a good chance of winning the case. As opposed to having almost no chance of winning the case, because the company is bigger and more powerful than poor strikers, and can afford better lawyers and paying off more judges. And not just as a single case where you're lucky and find a principled, incorruptible judge, but that this is a [i]typical[/i] example of how things would go in an anarcho-capitalist society? Please.

Smokeskin wrote:

and I have an offer on an insurance contract that gives me 2,000 armed men if the factory owner won't comply with the court order. It will cost me, but it is not that expensive - we've looked at his finances, and he can't afford that many and besides

That's a [i]really[/i] contrived convenience. Why does the contractor have a limitless supply of armed guards on insurance while the company doesn't have a limitless supply of Baldwin-Felts agents on "oh no, terrorists are disrupting my business"-insurance? The company is richer and can afford a bigger private army than the strikers [i]and[/i] bigger insurance deposits/premiums, yet by complete [i]fiat[/i] you've said that the strikers will have insurance that is better than the company?

Smokeskin wrote:

, we'd just come back with more if he could, so he's not going to resist. I'll help you with this on one condition - I'm free to settle down to a 15 year prison term for the factory owner, and I'll take 75% of any financial compensation as part of the settlement. That's my take in this, 75% of whatever this millionaire thinks the difference between life and 15 years is worth."

And conveniently, this contingency-fee work will always be able to keep up with the laywers the company can pay up front, right? Where do these contractors come from, who expect to win cases and get paid, rather than say "Company X is too rich, we'll probably lose and there's no profit in this for me" and avoid representing the widows, because it's not worth it? And, again, this is supposed to be [i]typical[/i]? Somehow, in your anarcho-capitalist society, you can expect a fair trial, while in the real (democratic) world, the legal system was so corrupted by it's nature of being part of a state that no contractor willing to take the case on a contingency fee? You're making an [i]awful[/i] lot of allowances and best-case-scenario-isms here for how your anarcho-capitalist system is supposed to work, while your democracies always seem characterized by blatant corruption that somehow always prevents both the market mechanisms and the state/democratic mechanisms from working in democratic states.

Smokeskin wrote:

That's free market justice, where the judges and the militia isn't owned by the state and corrupted. And the factory owners will know it, or at least they will after the first case, and that is the incentive that will end violence. Quite unlike the democratic system they had that encouraged violence against unions.

Or the companies could hire a [i]bigger[/i] army with their "oh no, terrorists are disrupting my business" insurance, and harshly crush any future attempts at organized resistance. Like they did when labour unions organized strikes here in the real world, without the government needing to get involved.

Smokeskin wrote:

That's a bit difficult when the government allows and encourages private armies for the rich. The government was what ensured that only one side, the rich, had private armies.

Thankfully, the democratic governments I am familiar with no longer neither allow nor encourage private armies for the rich. So that's not really a problem in modern democracies.

Smokeskin wrote:

May I ask you what it would take to convince you, since observable behavorial differences don't meet your standards of proof?

[i]Quantified[/i] evidence that "kindness" has gone up. Perhaps a scientific or historical study that shows that average charity payments have gone up disproportionately to the growth in wealth. A case study of "kindness" across history, showing that there's a significant difference in how willing Victorian people were to help the poor and how willing people are now to help the poor. Not just having to accept at face value that your understanding of the history of charity, women's rights, slavery, discrimination, punishment, violence, child labour and all the other ones and their causes is accurate when you claim "there's less/more of it now" and that this will be sufficient for sustainable charity in anarcho-capitalist society.

Smokeskin wrote:

So we're at the point where you agree that they'll kidnap me for not paying taxes? I guess if I kept pushing, you'd acknowledge that they'd kill me too.

Well, [i]yes[/i]. I fully acknowledge that if you violently resist the police attempt to arrest you, especially by [i]threatening to kill them[/i] with a gun, as per your example, they may shoot you to prevent that from happening. What I don't acknowledge is the characterization that "refusal to pay taxes leads to death or decades of imprisonment", since this requires a rather long series of ad hoc details about exactly what is meant by "refuse" that goes rather beyond what the word means. Refusal is showing or indicating that you're not [i]willing[/i] to do something. Fighting the police goes a little beyond "refusal". (Also, I find your claim "decades of prison" rather pointlessly provoking, since if you personally were to violently resist paying your taxes, you'd get no more than 16 years. You'd have to actually kill someone to even have a chance of spending more than 16 years in prison.*) *Also gross arson, plane/ship hijacking, treason, gross sabotage or attempting to build and use a nuclear weapon, but I doubt those are going to factor into not paying taxes or fines.

Smokeskin wrote:

If you recall, what I tried to talk about was whether or not the state had a moral right to perform violent acts necessary to collect taxes, which is what you're saying in your final sentence.

Yes. I am. This was, however, tangential to my point.

LatwPIAT wrote:

Smokeskin wrote:

every time property is destroyed, or men injured, the employers win public support, the aid of the press, the pulpit, the police, the courts, and all the powers of the State

Smokeskin wrote:

The argument that violence benefits employers is not just theoretical, it has frequently played out in a very specific manner. For example, mine owners have used violence as an excuse to demand intervention by state police, the national guard, or even the United States army

And yes, violence benefits the companies. That's why the companies are the ones going to be paying for private armies to ensure they maintain that advantage.

Smokeskin wrote:

As you can see, the state uses its monopoly on violence against the workers. Whenever they commit violence, in goes the police and the militia.

I have never claimed that states have not used force against rioting workers. What I [i]have[/i] claimed is that there are cases where [i]non[/i]-state actors have had access to private "defence agencies" (armies/law enforcement), and that these cases can and will lead to abusive practices - such as those private companies being used to attack and terrorize the poor. In particular, that this happens [i]without[/i] the government using force, as can be seen in the months leading up to the Ludlow Massacre. And, in particular, that [i]without[/i] the government, this would still happen, seeing as the government didn't participate in the first place. Whether the government [i]also[/i] sometimes shoots workers is besides the point. We know that governments sometimes do horrible things. We also have examples of governments [i]not[/i] doing horrible things and having very strict laws about what you can and can't do against striking workers. We also have examples of private security contractors like the Baldwin-Felts Detective Agency doing horrible things to poor people when the government isn't around. What we [i]don't[/i] have examples of are poor strikers hiring their own security companies, because for some [i]odd[/i] reason, [i]only rich people can afford private armies[/i]. When the government doesn't interfere, private armies [i]are[/i] used to murder striking workers. When the government doesn't interfere, private armies are [i]not[/i] used to defend striking workers from murder.

You seem to not acknowledge the concepts of incentive and deterrence. It was the same when we talked about paying taxes, you just couldn't see that I paid taxes not willingly but because there's no alternative between paying and getting killed. In this case, the incentives are exceptionally clear - the companies were free to commit and incite violence (in most cases they also had police officers in their ranks) and when the workers responded in kind, the militia was dispatched to take care of them. Judges sided with the companies and refused to hold them responsible for their crimes. You choose to ignore that. You choose to imagine that people act in vacuum without considering the consequences. That is obviously counterfactual in most cases. You also choose to ignore that the most basic part of ancap was not in place and was in fact outlawed - the creation of private armies, insurance to provide access to it, and private courts with competitive markets to prevent the power concentration in the state that made the corruption we for example see so clearly in the early 20th century anti-union violence. Without that, the common people is denied protection against companies and the state.

Quote:

Smokeskin wrote:

Can you see how the democratic system works? The workers get no protection from the state, and when they try to protect themselves, the militia rolls in and puts them down. The factory owners are free to commit violence, and the courts let them off.

These are examples of things that have happened in dysfunctional democracies with insufficient worker's rights. They are not examples of endemic problems of democracies any more than North Korea is an example of endemic problems of states. You won't find companies that hire private detective agencies in Sweden to gun down unions and strikers, and to the best of my knowledge, Swedish firms can not politely ask the Swedish Army to assassinate union leaders.

The anti-union violence was something you brought up, not me. You thought it was a prime example of how bad ancap would be. The fact is that the situation had none of the features of ancap and is instead an example of how bad states are. In ancap we want the common people to have the right to commit violence in their own protection, and in your examples it is evident that the state used its monopoly on violence to deny them. Even wikipedia states that every time the workers used violence the state sent in police and militia to stop them. You thought it was a great of example of the horrors of ancap. It was the opposite. A heuristic I like to use is that when your understanding of the facts change, and your beliefs do not, that's a good sign that you're not thinking. With the amount of democratic indoctrination received from a very early age, that is no surprise.

Quote:

Yes, states sometimes do reprehensible things, especially when it profits them. Companies also do reprehensible things when it profits them. By removing the state you've not reduced the amount of reprehensibly that goes around, you're just making the companies pick up the slack.

Now you're just making stuff up. The state sided with the companies and struck down hard on any attempt from the workers to protect themselves. On top, ancap isn't just about removing the state. It is also about establishing a system of private courts based on the non-aggression principle and a market of insurance-based security contractors. If you want to argue against ancap, then you have to argue against actual ancap, not your own private twisted understanding of it.

Quote:

Smokeskin wrote:

A few weeks later, an undercover security contractor is in worker camp, looking for the widows of killed workers. Now this contractor, he's a greedy fuck and just wants to make a small fortune on this opportunity. He finds 3 widows and makes his pitch: "I heard you men was killed by the factory guards. I think we have a good shot at pinning the murders on the factory owner. I know some reputable judges who are not in the factory owner's pocket and who will take the case,

You have, here, as a [i]premise[/i], that the widowers have a good chance of winning the case. As opposed to having almost no chance of winning the case, because the company is bigger and more powerful than poor strikers, and can afford better lawyers and paying off more judges. And not just as a single case where you're lucky and find a principled, incorruptible judge, but that this is a [i]typical[/i] example of how things would go in an anarcho-capitalist society? Please.

Luck doesn't factor into it. The private courts are exposed to competition. If you're corruptible and people notice, it is not just a case of "well boo hoo the governor likes the judge so he stays". He will stop getting business from people who suspect he is corrupt, and eventually other courts stop recognizing his rulings.

Quote:

Smokeskin wrote:

and I have an offer on an insurance contract that gives me 2,000 armed men if the factory owner won't comply with the court order. It will cost me, but it is not that expensive - we've looked at his finances, and he can't afford that many and besides

That's a [i]really[/i] contrived convenience. Why does the contractor have a limitless supply of armed guards on insurance while the company doesn't have a limitless supply of Baldwin-Felts agents on "oh no, terrorists are disrupting my business"-insurance? The company is richer and can afford a bigger private army than the strikers [i]and[/i] bigger insurance deposits/premiums, yet by complete [i]fiat[/i] you've said that the strikers will have insurance that is better than the company?

The security contractor asks for an insurance to cover a recognized court ruling. In contrast, what you're suggesting is that the company asks for an insurance to cover resisting a recognized court ruling. Look at it from the insurance company - someone who has recognized court ruling is in the right. The insurance will only come into effect is someone actually violated the non-aggression principle or their contracts AND decided not to honor a court ruling based on that. That's the stuff you can get insurance for - the insurance taker can't exploit the insurance but it covers accidents and injustices commited against him. What you suggest for the company, an insurance contract for the opposite - one that gives you an army whenever someone else has a court ruling AGAINST you - that's going to cost the insurance company big time. The insurance taker can screw over anyone and the insurance company would have to fund the fight against everyone else with legitimate claims. And on top, the security company that the company uses and quite possibly all of its men would be acting against the non-aggression principle and be liable for punishment too.

Quote:

Smokeskin wrote:

, we'd just come back with more if he could, so he's not going to resist. I'll help you with this on one condition - I'm free to settle down to a 15 year prison term for the factory owner, and I'll take 75% of any financial compensation as part of the settlement. That's my take in this, 75% of whatever this millionaire thinks the difference between life and 15 years is worth."

And conveniently, this contingency-fee work will always be able to keep up with the laywers the company can pay up front, right? Where do these contractors come from, who expect to win cases and get paid, rather than say "Company X is too rich, we'll probably lose and there's no profit in this for me" and avoid representing the widows, because it's not worth it? And, again, this is supposed to be [i]typical[/i]?

Why do you think that the widowers would lose the case? Has the company committed the perfect crime? And if they really were up against the perfect crime, why wouldn't they also lose the case in a righteous democracy?

Quote:

Somehow, in your anarcho-capitalist society, you can expect a fair trial, while in the real (democratic) world, the legal system was so corrupted by it's nature of being part of a state that no contractor willing to take the case on a contingency fee?

LawtPIAT, stop being silly. In the actual cases that you brought up the judges WERE so corrupted by being part of a state that they sided with the companies. Your democracy has a system where corrupt politicians and judges can collude and stay in power and profit from oppressing. Ancap has a market based judicial system, and with markets you get mechanisms that gives people access to a fair judges.

Quote:

You're making an [i]awful[/i] lot of allowances and best-case-scenario-isms here for how your anarcho-capitalist system is supposed to work, while your democracies always seem characterized by blatant corruption that somehow always prevents both the market mechanisms and the state/democratic mechanisms from working in democratic states.

LawtPIAT, the reason we're talking about the worst kinds of state corruption is because you brought up examples where that was the case. Obviously states will get some things right too. I again suggest that you look into public choice theory and the principal-agent problem. There are solid findings and solid game theoretical reasons for why states are especially prone to suffering from these things. You NEED politicians that don't serve their interests for democracy to work properly, and that is just very, very unlikely. On the other hand, markets are much better at weeding out actors who fail to serve the needs of the customers. There are market failures too and they have also been studied extensively, and they just don't tend to give problems of the same magnitude.

Quote:

Smokeskin wrote:

That's a bit difficult when the government allows and encourages private armies for the rich. The government was what ensured that only one side, the rich, had private armies.

Thankfully, the democratic governments I am familiar with no longer neither allow nor encourage private armies for the rich. So that's not really a problem in modern democracies.

You brought up the anti-union violence, not me. And now that it seems that the violence was brought about by the state, you think they no longer apply. Hypocricy much? Of course I agree that private armies for the rich are not an issue in modern democracies, that's why I didn't bring it up. The rich* today are exerting their influence in many other ways to line their pockets at our expense, much more subtlely and effectively. Hiding behind limited liability, having a legal system that is so complex and time-consuming that only those with deep pockets can use it properly, fleecing the population for tax while they get deductions and loop holes and subsidiaries for their businesses on top, bailouts, they privatize winnings and pass on the losses to the public.

Quote:

Smokeskin wrote:

So we're at the point where you agree that they'll kidnap me for not paying taxes? I guess if I kept pushing, you'd acknowledge that they'd kill me too.

Well, [i]yes[/i]. I fully acknowledge that if you violently resist the police attempt to arrest you, especially by [i]threatening to kill them[/i] with a gun, as per your example, they may shoot you to prevent that from happening. What I don't acknowledge is the characterization that "refusal to pay taxes leads to death or decades of imprisonment", since this requires a rather long series of ad hoc details about exactly what is meant by "refuse" that goes rather beyond what the word means. Refusal is showing or indicating that you're not [i]willing[/i] to do something. Fighting the police goes a little beyond "refusal".

I have repeatedly stated that I don't consider it refusing to just say "I don't want to" and then just letting them take the taxes anyway. Why do you want to play word games when I've clearly defined my position and definition? If you want to, tell me what word to use. What I'm talking about is refusing to pay the taxes and not letting them take them. This has been obvious from the start.

Quote:

Smokeskin wrote:

If you recall, what I tried to talk about was whether or not the state had a moral right to perform violent acts necessary to collect taxes, which is what you're saying in your final sentence.

Yes. I am. This was, however, tangential to my point.

So your point was to just dodge the question? I say "I don't agree that the state has a moral right to collect taxes under the threat of violence" and your counter is "well you can just let them steal the money and they won't have to threaten you anymore"? I can't tell if you're just being dishonest in your argumentation or if you really are just so ideologically biased that you can't even consider someone who doesn't share your beliefs, but it is really hard getting to the point with you.

Smokeskin wrote:

You seem to not acknowledge the concepts of incentive and deterrence. It was the same when we talked about paying taxes, you just couldn't see that I paid taxes not willingly but because there's no alternative between paying and getting killed.

Now you're just [i]making stuff up[/i] to defend your position and attack mine, and rehashing old arguments that weren't good the first time around. I mean, "you just couldn't see that I paid taxes not willingly"? Oh [i]please[/i], like I've ever made any claim that you paid taxes willingly. I'm fully aware that you're paying taxes only because you're afraid of the consequences of not doing so. Also, "no alternative between paying and getting killed", are you really making that claim? We've been over this, and [i]you[/i] even claimed that you could be put in jail for not paying taxes. Yet, somehow, when you need to attack my honesty, "truth" is laid by the wayside so you can make a really provoking statement. There [i]are[/i] alternatives, yet you make obviously dishonest claims to continue bashing democracies.

Smokeskin wrote:

In this case, the incentives are exceptionally clear - the companies were free to commit and incite violence (in most cases they also had police officers in their ranks) and when the workers responded in kind, the militia was dispatched to take care of them. Judges sided with the companies and refused to hold them responsible for their crimes.

And as I was saying, that'd happen without government judges and government National Guards too; it'd be even freer to happen, even if there were lawyers and private courts and insurance companies around, because poor strikers can't afford the adequate legal protection.

Smokeskin wrote:

A heuristic I like to use is that when your understanding of the facts change, and your beliefs do not, that's a good sign that you're not thinking. With the amount of democratic indoctrination received from a very early age, that is no surprise.

Ah, yes, the brainwashing argument. We started off arguing each other's points, and now we're reduced to accusing each other of being political shills. It's certainly nice to know that your position is so unassailable and logical self-evident that anyone who argues otherwise must have been "indoctrinated" with flawed beliefs, while your born-again anarcho-capitalism is, of course, not indoctrination.

Smokeskin wrote:

If you want to argue against ancap, then you have to argue against actual ancap, not your own private twisted understanding of it.

It seems that every time I argue against anarcho-capitalism, the definition of "actual" anarcho-capitalism is not "a system that works by all these neat ideas", but "a system that works as intended by all these neat ideas".

Smokeskin wrote:

Luck doesn't factor into it. The private courts are exposed to competition. If you're corruptible and people notice, it is not just a case of "well boo hoo the governor likes the judge so he stays". He will stop getting business from people who suspect he is corrupt, and eventually other courts stop recognizing his rulings.

I don't know, I'd think that the rich companies would give the corrupt judges the business they need.

Smokeskin wrote:

The security contractor asks for an insurance to cover a recognized court ruling. In contrast, what you're suggesting is that the company asks for an insurance to cover resisting a recognized court ruling.

"Recognized" by whom? It was recognized by a private court; the only "legal basis" that exists is whether the person with the stick decides to acknowledge the rulings of that court, and by necessity when there are more courts you need a way to weed out the "wrongful" courts. If insurance doesn't cover you just because there's a court ruling saying you're in the wrong, that means that corrupt judges could be used to force frivilous lawsuits. If [i]not[/i], then all the company needs to do is use some of its own corrupt judges and pocketed lawyers to challenge the ruling and get to use their insurance anyway. In either case, the company can get a pay-out on its terrorist-insurance because it can throw around vastly more legal and insurance-power than the poor strikers can.

Smokeskin wrote:

Look at it from the insurance company - someone who has recognized court ruling is in the right. The insurance will only come into effect is someone actually violated the non-aggression principle or their contracts AND decided not to honor a court ruling based on that. That's the stuff you can get insurance for - the insurance taker can't exploit the insurance but it covers accidents and injustices commited against him.

Injustices like "evil terrorists" (strikers) interfering with business. That's what the insurance is for. The company and the insurance company can challenge the validity of the ruling, or else there'd be no defence against frivilous lawsuits.

Smokeskin wrote:

What you suggest for the company, an insurance contract for the opposite - one that gives you an army whenever someone else has a court ruling AGAINST you - that's going to cost the insurance company big time. The insurance taker can screw over anyone and the insurance company would have to fund the fight against everyone else with legitimate claims. And on top, the security company that the company uses and quite possibly all of its men would be acting against the non-aggression principle and be liable for punishment too.

Who decides whether they'd be violating the "non-aggression principle" and whether they'd be liable for punishment? More courts the company can throw expensive lawyers at?

Smokeskin wrote:

Obviously states will get some things right too. I again suggest that you look into public choice theory and the principal-agent problem. There are solid findings and solid game theoretical reasons for why states are especially prone to suffering from these things. You NEED politicians that don't serve their interests for democracy to work properly, and that is just very, very unlikely. On the other hand, markets are much better at weeding out actors who fail to serve the needs of the customers. There are market failures too and they have also been studied extensively, and they just don't tend to give problems of the same magnitude.

Funny you should mention the principal-agent problem, since it specifically deals with [i]any[/i] situation where someone has to act in someone else's interests, [i]especially including contractors[/i], such as those lawyers, judges and insurance companies representing people. By the conclusions of the principal-agent problem, you can never really trust your lawyer to represent you properly, your judge to judge you properly, and your insurance company to pay you properly, because it's in their own best interest to draw maximum profits. You've claimed that, in anarcho-capitalist societies, everyone are "agents", but this is obviously not the case when you have people paying security companies, lawyers, judges and insurance companies; then the customer becomes the principal and the provider the agent [i]by definition[/i]. I'm also rather amused by the claim that politicians, voted into position by the mercy of vindictive voters, are prone to not representing the interests of the people who put them into power while markets somehow promote agents who are. Oh, I'm sure this is all explained by "public choice theory", that oh-so rigorous microeconomics hypothesis that even Buchanan noted didn't always describe the situations very well. Especially when the "tragedy of the commons" that public choice theory points out with regards to voters also applies to boycotts. The suggestion that "On the other hand, markets are much better at weeding out actors who fail to serve the needs of the customers. There are market failures too and they have also been studied extensively, and they just don't tend to give problems of the same magnitude." is laughable when we consider the extensive ways in which markets fail to weed out everything from dishonest insurance companies to heavy polluters, and cause things like economic bubbles, recessions, and depressions.

Smokeskin wrote:

You brought up the anti-union violence, not me. And now that it seems that the violence was brought about by the state, you think they no longer apply. Hypocricy much?

That is not what I am saying. I am using the preliminaries and (to a lesser degree) aftermath to the Ludlow massacre to point out what happens when you let people have private armies. What happens is that the rich have access to private armies to enforce their will upon the poor. States can do horrible things with violence. [i]I acknowledge this[/i]. However, where the state does horrible things with violence is, as already mentioned several times, [i]irrelevant[/i] to whether letting people (i.e. companies) have private armies [i]also[/i] causes them to do horrible things with violence. That private armies have sometimes existed within states does not change any part of my argument; states, especially democracies, can, will and have outlawed private armies to prevent this sort of thing.

Smokeskin wrote:

I have repeatedly stated that I don't consider it refusing to just say "I don't want to" and then just letting them take the taxes anyway. Why do you want to play word games when I've clearly defined my position and definition?

[i]I'm[/i] playing word-games when you're the one redefining the verb "to refuse" to include lethal violence?

Smokeskin wrote:

What I'm talking about is refusing to pay the taxes and not letting them take them. This has been obvious from the start.

I am aware of this. That's why my argument has been that you're unfairly, manipulatively and dishonestly twisting words and misrepresenting the situation to create the most emotionally provoking claims possible. You've claimed, and I'm quoting here, "there's no alternative between paying and getting killed". You're very obviously trying to force the idea that governments are mustache-twirlingly evil brutes who will send scary people in black uniforms with guns to your house to murder you if you don't pay taxes. You're doing this by presenting incredibly convoluted scenarios, using obviously emotionally loaded words where none are necessary or representative, redefining common words to support your position, and equivocating to create false dichotomies. What [i]I'm[/i] talking about, which also should have been obvious from the start, is that "if you don't pay taxes, police in black uniforms will come to your house and shoot you to death or beat you up and put you in jail for decades", is not a fair or realistic characterization of how democracies work when it is almost infinitely times more likely that refusal to pay taxes will result in "further fines, being asked to turn up in court by mail, being asked politely to turn up in court by police in uniforms that could be lots of different colours, including bright yellow and light blue, or if you voluntarily choose to force a violent confrontation, end up with a few bruises, and certainly no more than 16 years in jail."

Smokeskin wrote:

So your point was to just dodge the question? I say "I don't agree that the state has a moral right to collect taxes under the threat of violence" and your counter is "well you can just let them steal the money and they won't have to threaten you anymore"?

For someone who is increasingly accusing me of dishonest arguments, you do persist beyond all reason in misrepresenting my position so you can demolish a strawman. It's, frankly, annoying. How about you address my point, for once, that "taxes or death by police in scary black uniforms" is not a fair representation of what choices you have in a democracy?

[color=orange]*splashes water on thread* Tone is getting a little too aggressive, people! Let's keep it friendly and not, for example, insinuate that the other person is indoctrinated or shilling or other such things. [/color]

Kremlin K.O.A. wrote:

But in your scenario I would vote for. After all tradition has no value. Morals have no value. But surgery increases risks of infant death, and that reduces the local population's ability to keep passing on DNA and culture.

Why does that have value?

Pyrite wrote:

Smokeskin wrote:

I would kindly ask the statists to defend democracy now, on the above points. And I'm not talking about "but I'm not in favor of the war in Iraq or the war on drugs either". That's not the issue. The issue is that you are in favor of a system that forces me to fund those things and obey those rules because "the majority has spoken". A system that forces me to comply with their rules or be locked up for many years for victimless crimes, or killed if I try to avoid the kidnapping. If you consider the war on drugs and the harm it does to people to be morally questionable, then your case is not easier, it is harder - because the statist stance is that you have to obey and that you're not allowed to defend yourself when the majority has spoken.

Democracy isn't really what you're asking us to defend here, as we would have to defend any statist government with the same arguments. What needs defending in this thread is the existence of a state in the first place. Thomas Hobbes reverse-engineered the state in The Leviathan. To him, any state, no matter how cruel, was acceptable because we as thinking beings recognize the alternative as a state of war. Because of this, we as a society construct government as a Leviathan, a concentration of power so overwhelming that no one can stand against it, with an inborn interest in eliminating sources of chaos in the polity. When a judge makes a ruling that a company's business practices are illegal (for instance, when they involve threatening their customers with violence if they don't buy their product), the company obeys because the leviathan is standing behind that ruling. What you (ancaps) propose is to take away the Leviathan, which to the rest of us seems like it would mean an immediate descent into total war, perhaps even one where many actors do not know that they are at war.

The Leviathan isn't gone. It is insurance and market forces. And unlike the government Leviathan, the ancap one doesn't suffer from a concentration of power.

Pyrite wrote:

You counter this reaction by reassuring us that the system you propose is so perfectly constructed that it will simulate the existence of a Leviathan without actually needing one. You should understand why this proposition meets a lot of skepticism. I think we could really use an extensive explanation for how exactly being a judge in an ancap society will work, because we're just not seeing it.

You start with an insurance market backing the security contracts that (nearly) everyone has. The security contracts gets you access to armed men if someone violates the non-aggression principle (NAO) or breaches their contractual agreements with you. The courts are just private conflict resolution companies, the judges the people who work there. Market forces solve the rest. If a judge's rulings are fair and in accordance with NAP and contracts, other judges are likely to agree, everyone complies, and security contracts won't have to come into effect, and insurance premiums remain low. If a judge rules unfairly, it will result in appeals and conflict, costing lots of money, and such a judge would find himself out of business soon (both because of people not using him but also security contractors refusing to honor his rulings since they are costly). Likewise, a security contractor that refuses to acknowledge the rulings of a fair judge and protects its client anyway will find itself in conflict with the rest of the security contractor and insurance market - if such defectors are not struck down, their business model is destroyed. On top of this, you have people's natural preference for fairness, equality and peace to secure the system. Some people will always prefer that, and others simply have a strong preference for it but they will hurt others if the benefit is large enough. But both provide a stronger pull towards justice and peace than the opposite. Very few people are indifferent to or prefer the suffering of others.

Smokeskin wrote:

The Leviathan isn't gone. It is insurance and market forces. And unlike the government Leviathan, the ancap one doesn't suffer from a concentration of power.

That's not the same thing at all. The Leviathan is centralized power. What you propose to do is kill the Leviathan, and remove its teeth and claws to put them to use for the people.

Smokeskin wrote:

You start with an insurance market backing the security contracts that (nearly) everyone has. The security contracts gets you access to armed men if someone violates the non-aggression principle (NAO) or breaches their contractual agreements with you. The courts are just private conflict resolution companies, the judges the people who work there. Market forces solve the rest. If a judge's rulings are fair and in accordance with NAP and contracts, other judges are likely to agree, everyone complies, and security contracts won't have to come into effect, and insurance premiums remain low. If a judge rules unfairly, it will result in appeals and conflict, costing lots of money, and such a judge would find himself out of business soon (both because of people not using him but also security contractors refusing to honor his rulings since they are costly). Likewise, a security contractor that refuses to acknowledge the rulings of a fair judge and protects its client anyway will find itself in conflict with the rest of the security contractor and insurance market - if such defectors are not struck down, their business model is destroyed. On top of this, you have people's natural preference for fairness, equality and peace to secure the system. Some people will always prefer that, and others simply have a strong preference for it but they will hurt others if the benefit is large enough. But both provide a stronger pull towards justice and peace than the opposite. Very few people are indifferent to or prefer the suffering of others.

Who pays the conflict resolution companies

So the judges are paid entirely through levying fines? And are paid directly for a guilty verdict that would generate a fine or settlement? Prisons have been mentioned before. Will we have private prisons? Will those too be heavily incentivised to make sure people keep getting long prison sentences?

Smokeskin wrote:

How would a prison owner make sure people get long prison sentences? Sponsoring "tough on crime" political candidate campaigns won't work.

Corrupt wardens (and other prison officials) are a thing that happens. You might be surprised at how often a prisoner can find his sentence extended for "reasons".

I consider the education note to be an issue. Children generally are not able to pay for (or select) their own education, and parents don't always have the resources or intent to help their children. Considering this, I would argue education of minors should be handled similar to the pollution issue; if you fail to educate your minor child, you are effectively 'polluting' him or her, and are liable for costs. An independent organization determines common education standards. However, this doesn't answer how parents with no income can educate children. This is one of the examples where I consider government interference being valid (as well as defining standards, above).

Pyrite wrote:

Smokeskin wrote:

I'm in favor of prisons, but not all ancaps are. How would a prison owner make sure people get long prison sentences? Sponsoring "tough on crime" political candidate campaigns won't work.

In the modern world, they've been doing it by directly bribing judges to hand out large sentences to vulnerable defendants. I would assume j an a cap society they would give kickbacks to the company employing the judge.

People are still people so that could and would still happen. They'd still have to keep it secret - I don't see anyone doing business with or respecting the rulings of a judge getting kickbacks. They have to be impartial. In RL sometimes you hear about judges being very unbalanced in their judgments (that may be personality or something more underhand) but you can't do much about it because of how judges are selected and have long terms during which they can't be fired unless there is actual evidence of corruption. In ancap, judges can lose business if they are seen as unfair in their rulings, so there are more checks and balances.

Who decides what judge to use and how? The defendant would have a pretty steep incentive to select the most lenient judge, while the plaintiffs would naturally want one with a history of levying large sentences.

Smokeskin wrote:

Like today, where contracts generally specify the selection of court in case of conflict (country, civil or arbitration), I expect that ancap contracts would specify the mechanism of court selection.

That particular part of recent contracts is considered a serious problem and a cause of disempowerment for the poor. You see usually the larger, or more powerful, party writes the contract. The other party can propose changes, but it is often "our contract or no sale." This means the corporate bodies will be the ones selecting judges in most cases. Now given that judges get paid for the cases they take, judges with a pro corporate bent will be more likely to get named in contracts than judges with an anti corporate bias. Thus, with that mechanism, the market will favour screwing the little guy in favour of the rich and the corporate bodies.

Steel Accord wrote:

I know not everyone here is for anarchy, or even my preferred stratagem of it, but for those that are. Is this a position you've long held, or is it recent? How do you deal with holding a position that others may fear or may never be put into practice? I'm not asking because I am ashamed, I've just never shifted my politics to be quite so radical.

Over in the United States I've always been wary of nationalism, religious fundamentalism, and militarism ever since I kept up with politics. I really did not like the War in Iraq or the treatment of homosexuals under the Bush Administration, and I found a lot of right-wing ideology overall reprehensible. I wasn't left-wing so much as anti-conservative. Over time I found myself disagreeing with a lot of establishment Democrats and US liberals for not practicing what they preach (not criticizing Obama's poor civil liberties record or his Afghanistan troop surge, etc). Given that liberal means entirely different things in Europe, and I've chatted online with non-US posters about politics, I pretty much dropped the "liberal" label in favor of "leftist." I feel that this is a more accurate descriptor of my views. Amusingly the Red Scare's after-effects are still going strong in the US, which probably means that people will be more inclined to bead me as a "socialist" (defined as "more government control in everything" in US discourse) or some other kind of extremist, but the label works for me. I do feel out of place in mainstream US discourse, as the Democrats and MSNBC are not "left-wing" anymore and more cheerleaders for Obama, and the Republicans are actually the most unpatriotic people around (don't let their rhetoric of "liberty" and "freedom" fool you, their policies are aligned against the Constitution's laws). I'm more inclined to agree with Libertarians on criticism of warrantless wire-tapping and the NSA (not a peep comes from this from either Party), but their free-market rhetoric tends towards a "just world" hypothesis; Society needs a safety net, a way of operating beyond the individual level. As for anarchists? I'm not one, but I do sympathize with several of their positions. I think that anarchists' view of a stateless society isn't easily accomplished in this day and age, but I do myself attracted to several of their ideals. I think that the media stereotype of "bomb-throwing terrorist" is very inaccurate and more suited to an 1880s historical viewpoint. Overall I found anarchists in online discussion pleasant and that their actions over history have been on the right side. Anarchists were abolitionists, they were for gay rights in the early 1900s, a lot of them are feminists and feminist-friendly, they popularized the 8 hour work day and helped worker's rights in Europe, they fought against fascists in World War II Spain, they're just as critical of big business and big religion instead of just big government, and they tend to be very forward thinking on minority rights. I still think that a government is a necessity for society in some shape or form, but that doesn't mean I have any less respect for when they do good work. This is more directed towards "traditional" anarchists in the vein of anarcho-syndicalists than anarcho-capitalists, though. How I deal with it? Well, it doesn't feel that much of a hardship to me. Honestly I think I get more flack online in some circles for being a feminist than a hard leftist :p. I don't actively seek out divisive arguments in public, nor do I really talk about politics at my place of work or anything. If anything, a lot of my social interactions are online, and I tend to not talk politics except in a few spaces.

Kremlin K.O.A. wrote:

Steel Accord wrote:

Overall I found anarchists in online discussion pleasant and that their actions over history have been on the right side. Anarchists were abolitionists, they were for gay rights in the early 1900s,[b] a lot of them are feminists and feminist-friendly, [/b]they popularized the 8 hour work day and helped worker's rights in Europe, they fought against fascists in World War II Spain, they're just as critical of big business and big religion instead of just big government, and they tend to be very forward thinking on minority rights.

There is an entire book of essays from women who found the exact opposite to that in their personal experiences with anarchist movements.

I'm reading that book right now, and it doesn't seem to have much merit to it. None of the issues seem to be even remotely related to anarchism and most of it seem to be misandry rather than actual women's issues. They complain that men like women wearing lingerie and that "we already know all men are sexist, just as all white people are racist because of our society". I'm not really happy about defending leftwing anarchists, but in this case I don't think the criticism is warranted.

Smokeskin wrote:

Kremlin K.O.A. wrote:

Steel Accord wrote:

Overall I found anarchists in online discussion pleasant and that their actions over history have been on the right side. Anarchists were abolitionists, they were for gay rights in the early 1900s,[b] a lot of them are feminists and feminist-friendly, [/b]they popularized the 8 hour work day and helped worker's rights in Europe, they fought against fascists in World War II Spain, they're just as critical of big business and big religion instead of just big government, and they tend to be very forward thinking on minority rights.

There is an entire book of essays from women who found the exact opposite to that in their personal experiences with anarchist movements.

I'm reading that book right now, and it doesn't seem to have much merit to it. None of the issues seem to be even remotely related to anarchism and most of it seem to be misandry rather than actual women's issues. They complain that men like women wearing lingerie and that "we already know all men are sexist, just as all white people are racist because of our society". I'm not really happy about defending leftwing anarchists, but in this case I don't think the criticism is warranted.

So, a bunch of essays from women about their personal experiences being sexually harassed in Anarchist group meetings is 'unwarranted criticism'? I honestly have no idea how to begin to address that.

Holy wrote:

I did not follow the discussion, but just stumbled over the following line.

Smokeskin wrote:

[...]It's government stuff like roads that suck.

I am very much sorry for my silliness, but: All right, but apart from the sanitation, medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, the fresh water system and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?

I don't really know about the Romans, but the expensive, substandard stuff that government provide today isn't something to praise. But let us take the roads. We have tons of traffic in some areas. I've seen studies that say the return on investment here is around 20%. But very often they build new roads in outlying areas where the ROI is a meager 2%, but you know how it is, the politicians are trying to satisfy their constituents. They also completely fail to use road pricing and higher prices during peak hours, which would be the rational thing to do. If those that drove during peak hours paid the true cost, some would shift to public transportions, others would change their work hours or move closer to work, or businesses would place their offices closer to where people live. It would save millions of work hours that are instead wasted in traffic. So instead of supply and demand solving the problems by allocating resources to where people value them, we have the government building roads in the wrong places and making the problem of peak hour traffic worse by spreading the cost on everyone instead of those that desire to use the sparse resource. See how the government is fumbling it up badly?

LatwPIAT wrote:

Smokeskin wrote:

I'm reading that book right now, and it doesn't seem to have much merit to it. None of the issues seem to be even remotely related to anarchism and most of it seem to be misandry rather than actual women's issues. [b]They complain that men like women wearing lingerie[/b] and that "we already know all men are sexist, just as all white people are racist because of our society".

If you're referring to the line on page 8, of the first essay, it says in full [i]"if men in anarchy really secretly want women to make theirfood, watch their kids, not attend school, and to be sexually available and made up in chemicals, lingerie, heels and diet aids to sexually titillate them at all times, while doing men’s laundry and washing most of their dishes, then we have a problem."[/i] The problem is not that anarchist men like women who wear underwear, but that there is an undercurrent of opinion in anarchism where men actively seek to create an "anarchist" society where women have no options other than to be subject to men.

How do you make the leap from "men like" to "women will have no option other than to subject to men"?

Quote:

Smokeskin wrote:

I'm also wondering if you actually read it? They call it sexual harassment when their equals flirt with them - not their bosses, their equals.

Did [i]you[/i] actually read it? Many of the items you cite are misleading, and you seem to ignore vast portions of the book in order to focus on smaller items that are easier to argue against. As for flirting, the word "flirt" is actually never used; the passage you're citing is probably "Do you come on to your female friends even jokingly?" (p. 25). A "come on" is a sexual or romantic proposal, and usually considered inappropriate except in very specific situations, because it puts women in the uncomfortable position of being treated as sexual or romantic partners first and persons second.

That wasn't the passage but it was something like it. Why is it that a sexual or romantic proposal somehow lessens your worth as a person? When if ever are men allowed to present women with such proposals? Why do you consider male sexuality so inappropriate?

Quote:

Besides, the idea that men and women are "equal" in a way that workers and bosses aren't completely ignores the social context, where men and women often do not [i]have[/i] equal power.

What do you mean? How are men and women not equal in power?

Quote:

Smokeskin wrote:

They call it abusive when a woman sides with her boyfriend in a political disagreement.

No, they are saying that one symptom/evidence of sexism is how abusive men are emotionally manipulating their girlfriends into spreading (false) rumours and mindlessly supporting their problematic politics against the women's better judgement.

I'm in favor of personal responsibility. Blaming a woman's bad behavior on her man is missing the point, and it seems that you're implying that women are weakwilled creatures.

Quote:

Smokeskin wrote:

Some of the other stuff they mention is surely problematic, like they mention a girl that had bruises on her arm after her boyfriend grabbed her, but to blame that on the movement, that's unwarranted in my book.

Is it unwarranted even when the entire community of anarchists around that woman tell her to shut up about it and refuse to deal with the problem?

In that passage she didn't want to leave him, there was only the one incident mentioned, and I'm not even sure she wanted anyone to do anything about it. It was another woman who felt that everyone had to do something about it. Maybe it was just one of those things that happen and couples get over? I have 3 scars on my arm where my gf once scratched me because she was upset with me. At that incident she also threw a glass at me, missing my head by about a foot. I was really mad at her for doing that, but I sure don't want anyone to teach her a lesson or go to the police about it. And I'm really happy my friends are normal people who respect my wishes instead of some fanatical men's rights activist who try get everyone riled up against my girlfriend. Yeah, she loses her temper sometimes but she's a good person. Violence is never ok, but calling abuse for every little thing is far out.

LatwPIAT wrote:

Smokeskin wrote:

How do you make the leap from "men like" to "women will have no option other than to subject to men"?

I [i]didn't[/i]. That's the complaint in the essays were are discussing. Don't try to angle this as me having some weird baggage I keep dragging in; you're the one who reads a complaint about men forcing women into subservient and sexual roles and chooses to interpret it as a complaint about men liking lingerie and high heels.

No, this is verbatim what you wrote: The problem is not that anarchist men like women who wear underwear, but that there is an undercurrent of opinion in anarchism where men actively seek to create an "anarchist" society where women have no options other than to be subject to men. And again you write that men "force women into subservient and sexual roles". So I ask you, how do men do this?

Quote:

Smokeskin wrote:

Why do you consider male sexuality so inappropriate?

You're going to drag out that loaded question [i]again[/i]? Demand that I defend opinions I've never claimed that I hold? This is a technique I've seen you use before, and it hasn't become any less dishonest or annoying since the last time you tried it. Fact is, I [i]don't[/i] find male sexuality inappropriate. What I find inappropriate is [i]sexual harassment[/i] and its ilk. Yet when I complain (or support people complaining) about that, you claim that I have something against male sexuality. That could, necessarily, only be the case if male sexuality was [i]predicated[/i] upon things like sexual harassment - which is not the case.

The problem is that you seem to consider male sexuality to be harassment. You're saying we can't flirt with other women, even in an equal setting. I don't know how to interpret that as other than you finding male sexuality inappropriate. When can I flirt with a woman?

Quote:

Smokeskin wrote:

What do you mean? How are men and women not equal in power?

Society inherently favours men. This gives men an advantage in exertable power over women, through many means including money, the ability to exert social influence, and being favoured by courts. Hence men and women are not equal in power.

I can't say that I agree with any of those things, but even assuming they were true - how does that make it sexual harassment by definition that a man flirts with a woman at an anarchist rally? Do you really see women as being so inferior in even an equal situation that they're victims of harassment?

Quote:

Smokeskin wrote:

I'm in favor of personal responsibility. Blaming a woman's bad behavior on her man is missing the point, and it seems that you're implying that women are weakwilled creatures.

Battered-Person Syndrome and Learned Helplessness are real things, and no amount of "personal responsibility" can get around the fact that there are immense social and psychological pressures to stay and obey in abusive relationships. The women are not "weakwilled" any more than humans are weak-willed.

So a woman sides with her boyfriend in a political discussion and badmouths his opponents and from that you infer Battered-Person Syndrome and Learned Helplessness? How do you make that leap? It seems that a recurring theme is that you find women to always be a victim of the circumstances. I just don't recognize that in the women I know. I see them standing up to men in many ways. I see them demanding a lot from their men and succeeding. Could what you're seeing be a problem with a certain subculture rather than a general problem?

Smokeskin wrote:

What I fail to see is the moral justification for extorting me for money for example. I might accept it if it was just for welfare for the poor, but when it is for stuff like cultural activities? How can you justify using violence to force me to pay for some other people's opera tickets or whatever it is used on? Or the war in Iraq? Is that a morally legitimate claim? The democratically elected government goes to war on false pretences, and then even after they win and get Mission Accomplished, they still decide stay there for another decade and fight on in an attempt to convert the locals to democratic statism. When you're justifying a decade long war with your desire to convert the locals, that's a crusade, isn't it? And if that's not enough, you're extorting me to pay for it too? Or let us take the war on drugs. Some people like to drink alcohol, and you can produce, trade and possess it. But weed, a drug that is documented to be less harmful than alcohol, if you grow that, if you trade it with another willing buyer? Where is the victim? Who didn't honor their word? Yet out come the armed men and they treat you like you're a serial rapist and lock you up for many, many years. And then add on top the secondary effects - look at the alcohol industry (ie. organized crime) under the Prohibition compared to today's alcohol industry. Now look at the drug dealing organized crime. All that violence is created by the democratic states' regulation. And again, on top you're forcing me to pay for all the cops and prisons to punish people for victimless crimes? I have done a lot of work in explaining how ancap would deal with the most devious examples you can throw at me. I would kindly ask the statists to defend democracy now, on the above points. And I'm not talking about "but I'm not in favor of the war in Iraq or the war on drugs either". That's not the issue. The issue is that you are in favor of a system that forces me to fund those things and obey those rules because "the majority has spoken". A system that forces me to comply with their rules or be locked up for many years for victimless crimes, or killed if I try to avoid the kidnapping. If you consider the war on drugs and the harm it does to people to be morally questionable, then your case is not easier, it is harder - because the statist stance is that you have to obey and that you're not allowed to defend yourself when the majority has spoken.

Seriously, no one is able to defend democracy? You can go on and on nitpicking at ancap, but give even a basic justification for democracy and the oppression that comes with it, you don't want to do that? What goes wrong when you try to form an argument for democracy? You try and fail and then the cognitive dissonance kicks in and you just stop thinking about the issue? Is your belief in democracy just a cultural tradition, you were raised with it so that's what you like, and everyone should live the same way as you of course? Democracy awards you privileges at the expense of others and you want to keep those, but you can't admit openly that you're in it for selfish reasons? Is it the societal version of Learned Helplessness and Battered Person Syndrom that LawtPIAT believes cause women to accept abusive relationships?

Kremlin K.O.A. wrote:

You want a simple defense of democracy? The alternatives we have tried are all worse. We have tried money based stateless countries... it did not turn out anything like the AnCap you describe

You know what is really funny? That's not true. You mentioned Somalia as a horror example earlier in the thread, and I looked into it. It turns out it did a lot better once it got rid off its government. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somalia And we're talking Somalia. A largely uneducated population, a country torn apart by civil war, with a chaotic transition into not anarcho-capitalism but simply chaos. And still they manage to do better than they did with their government. Now imagine if we did that in a country of reasonable, peaceful, well educated people and had a transition period where the system of security contractors and insurance market got implemented so there was no period of chaos. Have we tried that? Second, if I take your argument at face value, you're saying that the justification for the oppressive practices of democracy is that the alternative is worse. So you're a minarchist? You only want to have the state do the things that are absolutely necessary, like welfare and security? But how about we try to tweak democracy to make it less oppressive then? We could have a constitution that really limited what the politicians could do. We could have an article that guaranteed that no victimless crime could ever be punished. We could have an article that prevented politicians from ever giving subsidiaries (direct or indirect) to any industry or any special interest (like "cultural activities") to limit corruption and extortion - maybe even limit it to only supporting unemployment insurance, disability benefits, health care and education for the poor. We could have an article that required that the government always had to offer a voucher system alternative at equal value so the government couldn't uphold monopolies through tax money.