Welcome! These forums will be deactivated by the end of this year. The conversation continues in a new morph over on Discord! Please join us there for a more active conversation and the occasional opportunity to ask developers questions directly! Go to the PS+ Discord Server.

New political views

210 posts / 0 new

Topic locked

Last post

Tue, 2014-02-04 06:19

#52

Smokeskin

bibliophile20 wrote:

bibliophile20 wrote:
I linked to that article and to all of the articles that I posted links to as a Criticism of how real-world capitalism and its resulting fetishization of wealth and the parallel demonization of the poor are far-reaching, damaging on every level to our society and encourage sociopathic behaviors. That is what I was trying to say. I was NOT criticising AnCap, because there is not enough hard data to actually criticise AnCap with, just theoretical objections. Please note the differences. You asked me what my opinion was regarding the Freedom Industries case was--a real world, crony-capitalism, corporate oligarchy case. I gave you my opinion. You then turned around and tried to interpret as a criticism of AnCap--repeatedly. I, and others, are doing are our best to separate the two points. We ask that you join us in that separation, and to stop taking every opportunity to either: act defensively about perceived criticisms of AnCap or to explain how, theoretically, AnCap will fix all of the problems that we face. Please learn to separate the two points--Criticism of AnCap vs. Criticism of Real Life Capitalism--or this conversation is going to spiral downhill quickly. Please stop telling us how great life will be under AnCap, and instead try and share with us the horror and anger provoked by the actions that these articles document. I posted those articles very deliberately. Real Life Capitalism is prone to abuses and outright sociopathy.

I think I'm not explaining myself clearly then. In most of the examples you give, I completely agree that there is a problem. We see the exact same injustice, but we see the problem in different places. You see problems with Real Life Capitalism, and I agree - but Real Life Capitalism is not capitalism. It is highly regulated by an oligarchy with a monopoly on violence and the power to trample us all. And that's where I see the problems. It is not a problem with capitalism - it is a problem of politics and regulation. I understand that you were criticizing capitalism, but I believe in capitalism, and I was defending that. The solution to most of the problems you presented is to remove regulation though. And when the solution is ancap, perhaps that comes across as defending ancap. The problem with Freedom Industries is not capitalism. It is not capitalism that prevents the harmed people from getting justice - it is the regulation that politicians implemented that gives them limited liability. Limited liability creates the incentive to partition off risk in a legal entity you can just dump if something goes wrong. Limited liability in a consensual agreement is fine, but limited liability elevated to law so it even cuts you off from damages, that strikes me as crazy. The problem with the drug company that won't sell their product to poor people is not a problem of capitalism. It is a problem of intellectual property rights and patents, implemented by politicians. The state will (ultimately with armed men in dark uniforms) shut down any competitor trying to produce the drug and sell it to anyone at a fair price. In free market capitalism, a competitor would just start producing the drug and selling it cheaply. It's the same with the affordable housing shortages. Without zoning laws and other regulation, competitors would just build affordable housing. The free market wants to solve the problem, but if you go against the zoning laws, again the armed men in dark uniforms come for you. In short, I wasn't defending ancap. I was defending capitalism, and pointing out that in these cases, I believed that capitalism was unfairly being accused of problems that actually stem from regulation - which does make ancap the solution, or at least that we as a society move closer to ancap. We should stop accepting that politicians protect corporations like they do. Other of your presented problems, I don't see a problem with those. For example I certainly have my reservations on WalMart, but that they have a playbook on how to counter union demands isn't one of them. Unions want higher wages for their members, that's natural and they're entitled to try. Corporations are also entitled to fight back. The optimal for everyone is that we reach the market price point for wages. Just setting wages higher won't solve anything, since that would a) also happen in other corporations so prices would just rise and workers wouldn't see a real increase in purchasing power and b) jobs would be exported or automated away for no good reason. Here you're arguing against actual capitalism, which I defend because I agree with capitalism. I believe that alternatives to capitalism has been thoroughly tested around the world and failed spectularly and horribly. Even attempts at protectionism have provably caused much harm, both to the countries implementing them and certainly to the poor of the world (for whom economic harm can be case of life and death). I don't see corporations as nice. But on their own, they couldn't do anywhere near as much harm as they can when they team up with politicians. The corporate oligarchy you speak of would be largely toothless with their influence on the state and the monopoly on violence. Sure, if people didn't care at the time of purchase they could still share data and form price cartels, but I'd take those over the harm they do now. So my proposed solution is ancap. Freedom Industries, I don't think the state should be allowed to shield the responsible from getting sued. The drug company, I don't think the states should be allowed to shield it from competitors. What is your solution?

Tue, 2014-02-04 07:07

#53

Smokeskin

ShadowDragon8685 wrote:If

ShadowDragon8685 wrote:
If they can pay, but [i]won't[/i], because, for instance, they be assholes [i]par excellence[/i], you take advantage of the governmental monopoly on force and garnish their wages. If they can't pay, period, you [i]eat the damn loss[/i] and take whatever steps are required to put them in the rights with whatever free lunch program is available.

So you're saying, we pass a law that requires all parents to pay for cafeteria food to the children, that requires all cafeterias to serve to all children, and that the state guarantees that police officers will collect the lunch money if the parents don't pay willingly? The government actually tried to implement af mandatory food programme at all pre-school institutions here in Denmark a few years ago. The law got passed, but when they began rolling it out, there was a lot of popular resistance and they ended up dropping it again. A lot of parents disagreed with the food being served and would rather give their children lunchboxes from home instead. Of course I feel for any child being ridiculed and bullied for some mistake some grownups made (like the cafeteria exercising horribly bad judgment or even being mean in handling the case), but I don't think the solution is to pass a law that forces every school and every family to make the exact same choice. Without going into the argument on how much government should interfere in our everyday lives, if we go down the road of passing laws that regulates behavior so tightly that no one can get hurt, I think life will become unbearable in purely practical terms. Could it even work? Could the same solution serve everone? To stay with school food and bullying, what about kids who are bullied for being overweight? Should they receive special mandatory healthy food that will help you keep your weight down? Should everyone get healthy food so the overweight kids don't get jealous at the better tasting high calorie stuff or teased with not getting it? What about people like me who were too skinny as a kid, giving me a lunch of salat, brown rice and lean turkey meat would only make the problem worse? I understand your intention to protect children from getting bullied, but I'm not sure there's a practical solution that could work. There seem to be too many considerations to take, too many people who need too different things.

Tue, 2014-02-04 10:41

#54

LatwPIAT

Smokeskin wrote:Fail to pay

Smokeskin wrote:
Fail to pay that, they will say now you owe us more money. Then they will come and try and rob you off your possessions. If you protect your property, armed men in dark uniforms will come and rob your stuff. If you protect yourself against them, they will kill you, or wound you and lock you in small room for decades.

As far as I can remember, you live in Denmark. I feel that this representation here of what the government and police do is more blatant scare-mongering than a coherent argument. For one, your constant insistence upon the detail that the police wear "dark uniforms", which is not really a relevant detail and seems to serve only to artificially inflate the scariness of the police. Secondly, I feel the need to ask you how real this threat is; in Denmark, how many people have the police killed for failure to pay their fines? It, again, seems like an unreal threat that doesn't actually illustrate what living under a government is like. For that matter, the detail about locking people in small rooms for decades - is that a realistic consequence of failure to pay fines?

Smokeskin wrote:
In discussions on actual anarcho-capitalism (which I don't recommend with anyons but the genuinely interested and openminded) it is paramount that you learn how the current institutions would work (and work much better) in ancap society. Take consumer protection. In a democracy, producers will often bribe politicians to not ban their deceitful practices, or at best politicians will always lack behind the latest schemes as it takes them years to solve anything, and you only get a one-size-serves-all solution. And consumers in democracies have no alternative. In ancap society, consumer protection codes would be something you signed on to, and agreed to with the seller when making a purchase, and there would be several providers. They would compete for different spots on the price-quality curve for example, and you could choose one that matched what you wanted, and your neighbor something else. Of course, everyone couldn't have their own code, but even with just a few providers, a lot of people would be much closer to what they liked. And as private companies, these providers would compete in getting protection against new schemes and harmful substances on the market as soon as possible. It's very important that people understand that ancap has almost all the same institutions as modern democracies, and they work better. It also makes for great arguments for liberalization.

This seems strange to me. For one, what specifically is it about consumer-producer contracts that makes them better than government regulations at preventing deceitful practices? I really don't see why, if we assume that corporations are willing to break government laws, lie and bribe to get away with deceit, that they wouldn't also be willing to break their contracts, lie about having broken those contracts, and generally be deceitful anyway. There really seems to me to be no particular benefit to getting rid of the government. Secondly, if we assume that contracts are magically binding... there's nothing stopping corporations from forming contracts while a government exists. In fact, they already do this; Fair Trade labels, government health-regulation approval stamps, and corporate PR campaigns about their green initiatives are all "contracts" where a corporation promises their consumers that, if they buy the product, certain clauses have been upheld. Service-corporations, such as banks, will allow negotiation for the terms of contracts. The fact that there is a government that imposes a certain minimum requirement for what a contract and corporation can and cannot do doesn't [i]force[/i] everyone to stick to the bare minimum of skirting the legal line.

Smokeskin wrote:
My experience of living in a democratic state has rarely been that the state acts on my behalf, but mostly that the state uses threats of violence to ensure that I do what other people think I should do.

Roads. Fire departments. Police services. The Army. Health care. Water supplies. The power-grid. Health regulations on food. Health regulation of medicine. Laws that prevent dumping toxic waste in your water supply. Education. Laws that prevent corporations from redefining the the weight of a kilogram to short measure you. Merchants have short-charged people since the dawn of time.

Smokeskin wrote:
I agree that education is often a no-brainer investment. The reason private companies aren't involved much in it is that the state keeps private investors out of the market with laws against high interest loans and indenture.

This is a good thing. High-interest loans and an education that lasts for years before you can start paying back those loans is not a good thing. And indenture is [i]slavery[/i]. I, for one, am extremely grateful the governments prevent corporations from buying me as a slave.

—

@-rep +2 C-rep +1

Tue, 2014-02-04 11:35

#55

Lilith

LatwPIAT wrote:High-interest

LatwPIAT wrote:
High-interest loans and an education that lasts for years before you can start paying back those loans is not a good thing.

I can heartily second this, considering that this is one of the primary reasons why I never completed my secondary education after high school.

Tue, 2014-02-04 14:01

#56

Steel Accord Steel Accord's picture

HEY GUYS!

Can't we all just agree to disagree? Some of us are anarcho-capitalist, some of us are anarchy-socialist, and all the varying spectrums of the black and rainbow flag. With even a few statists here. Can't we just support the systems we believe in, in our lives, let others believe and act as they wish, and let the results speak from themselves?

—

Your passion is power. Focus it. Your body is a tool. Hone it. Transhummanity is a pantheon. Exalt it!

Tue, 2014-02-04 14:04

#57

Lilith

Chill

So long as our dear mod isn't quashing the thread, there's no reason to squelch discussion. It wouldn't be a very interesting thread if everyone had the same viewpoint, and a little friendly discourse—so long as it remains that—never hurt anyone.

Tue, 2014-02-04 14:13

#58

Steel Accord Steel Accord's picture

Not the purpose

Lilith wrote:
So long as our dear mod isn't quashing the thread, there's no reason to squelch discussion. It wouldn't be a very interesting thread if everyone had the same viewpoint, and a little friendly discourse—so long as it remains that—never hurt anyone.

But the purpose of the thread was for calm and respectful sharing of how we came to our respective viewpoints, not for heated debate as to which is more moral/viable. I don't know, I guess I just hate conflict and would rather people get along.

—

Your passion is power. Focus it. Your body is a tool. Hone it. Transhummanity is a pantheon. Exalt it!

Tue, 2014-02-04 14:29

#59

ShadowDragon8685 ShadowDragon8685's picture

Steel Accord wrote:Can't we

Steel Accord wrote:
Can't we all just agree to disagree? Some of us are anarcho-capitalist, some of us are anarchy-socialist, and all the varying spectrums of the black and rainbow flag. With even a few statists here. Can't we just support the systems we believe in, in our lives, let others believe and act as they wish, and let the results speak from themselves?

No, we can't. Because unfortunately, people don't actually have the ability to choose which system to live under. We're stuck with whatever prevails, and quite honestly, listening to you and Smoke prattle on about Anarcho-Capitalism gives me the creepie crawlies to such an extent that I think your vision of an economic ideal is one of the few models I can envision which is actually [i]worse[/i] than the utterly [i]wrecked[/i] government-regulated capitalism we have now. Remember when bibliophile said what he said about "a living hell for others?" Well, that's what I hear being described - an economic Mordor bereft of even what regulatory control its Sauron imposes. A living, breathing [i]nightmare[/i] of usury and misery and financial feudalism, of the rich oppressing the masses without even the [i]slightest. tiniest. [b]trace[/b][/i] of any kind of handicaps or playing-field levelers. A Hell on or beyond Earth which is literally worse than a complete and total breakdown of social order leading to a rise of order through biker gangs, second only the lunacracy of North Korea. In short, your Heaven is my Hell. Your economic paradise is my economic nightmare; as bad off as I am now, and it's fucking bad, it would be [i]infinitely worse[/i] under the regime you'd see imposed. "Agree to disagree" doesn't work when the disagreement is over an existential matter.

Steel Accord wrote:
But the purpose of the thread was for calm and respectful sharing of how we came to our respective viewpoints, not for heated debate as to which is more moral/viable. I don't know, I guess I just hate conflict and would rather people get along.

If you don't want conflict on the internet, don't go to the internet. If you want to avoid the very worst of it, then don't bring up religion, politics, or economics, because no matter what position you take, you are [i]anathema[/i] to at least one large bloc. Also, it's amusing that you hate conflict and espouse AnCap views. Anarcho-Capitalism would be nothing but an unending conflict of parties trying to fuck each other over on contractual legalese and working out if they have yet accumulated enough power and solid allies to say "fuck the contracts, I'm taking over by force." It's a nightmare of bargaining power, where, as in the real world, said bargaining power will very, very rapidly become accumulated in the hands of the fewest and wealthiest, and they'll quite gladly take out the gigantic, sopping penis of that power and smack it in the face of everyone who hasn't got any power to challenge them or make them deal fair. That will [i]definitely[/i] lead to conflict, as has been pointed out with the analogy to unions and Pinkerton mercenaries masquerading as private detectives.

—

Skype and AIM names: Exactly the same as my forum name. [url=http://tinyurl.com/mfcapss]My EP Character Questionnaire[/url] [url=http://tinyurl.com/lbpsb93]Thread for my Questionnaire[/url] [url=http://tinyurl.com/obu5adp]The Five Orange Pips[/url]

Tue, 2014-02-04 14:55

#60

Steel Accord Steel Accord's picture

I'm sorry you feel that way

ShadowDragon8685 wrote:
Steel Accord wrote:
Can't we all just agree to disagree? Some of us are anarcho-capitalist, some of us are anarchy-socialist, and all the varying spectrums of the black and rainbow flag. With even a few statists here. Can't we just support the systems we believe in, in our lives, let others believe and act as they wish, and let the results speak from themselves?
No, we can't. Because unfortunately, people don't actually have the ability to choose which system to live under. We're stuck with whatever prevails, and quite honestly, listening to you and Smoke prattle on about Anarcho-Capitalism gives me the creepie crawlies to such an extent that I think your vision of an economic ideal is one of the few models I can envision which is actually [i]worse[/i] than the utterly [i]wrecked[/i] government-regulated capitalism we have now. Remember when bibliophile said what he said about "a living hell for others?" Well, that's what I hear being described - an economic Mordor bereft of even what regulatory control its Sauron imposes. A living, breathing [i]nightmare[/i] of usury and misery and financial feudalism, of the rich oppressing the masses without even the [i]slightest. tiniest. [b]trace[/b][/i] of any kind of handicaps or playing-field levelers. A Hell on or beyond Earth which is literally worse than a complete and total breakdown of social order leading to a rise of order through biker gangs, second only the lunacracy of North Korea. In short, your Heaven is my Hell. Your economic paradise is my economic nightmare; as bad off as I am now, and it's fucking bad, it would be [i]infinitely worse[/i] under the regime you'd see imposed. "Agree to disagree" doesn't work when the disagreement is over an existential matter.
Steel Accord wrote:
But the purpose of the thread was for calm and respectful sharing of how we came to our respective viewpoints, not for heated debate as to which is more moral/viable. I don't know, I guess I just hate conflict and would rather people get along.
If you don't want conflict on the internet, don't go to the internet. If you want to avoid the very worst of it, then don't bring up religion, politics, or economics, because no matter what position you take, you are [i]anathema[/i] to at least one large bloc. Also, it's amusing that you hate conflict and espouse AnCap views. Anarcho-Capitalism would be nothing but an unending conflict of parties trying to fuck each other over on contractual legalese and working out if they have yet accumulated enough power and solid allies to say "fuck the contracts, I'm taking over by force." It's a nightmare of bargaining power, where, as in the real world, said bargaining power will very, very rapidly become accumulated in the hands of the fewest and wealthiest, and they'll quite gladly take out the gigantic, sopping penis of that power and smack it in the face of everyone who hasn't got any power to challenge them or make them deal fair. That will [i]definitely[/i] lead to conflict, as has been pointed out with the analogy to unions and Pinkerton mercenaries masquerading as private detectives.

I'm sorry you feel that way, but I won't be sorry for holding my views. Furthermore, I have found a place where religion, politics, etc. are discussed freely but with respect for the other person's character and belief that their view holds merit. It's called the MLP Forums, and the off topic section is as pleasant a place as anywhere else on the site. If you wanted to exist in an Anarcho-Syndacalist society, I would be happy for you. Your living in a place that fits your ideals. Yet you would stand against me and mine if we lived in a community completely separate from yours that just followed a different mindset?

—

Your passion is power. Focus it. Your body is a tool. Hone it. Transhummanity is a pantheon. Exalt it!

Tue, 2014-02-04 14:57

#61

Lilith

SD8685

Your ability to take things to the most utmost and ludicrous extremes is nothing short of wondrous.

Tue, 2014-02-04 15:20

#62

ShadowDragon8685 ShadowDragon8685's picture

Quote:If you wanted to exist

Quote:
If you wanted to exist in an Anarcho-Syndacalist society, I would be happy for you. Your living in a place that fits your ideals. Yet you would stand against me and mine of we lived in a community completely separate from yours that just followed a different mindset?

Did you [i]even read what I wrote above?[/i] People don't [i]get[/i] to choose under what system they live in, not now, not for very long or very successfully in the past for the vast majority of people, and not likely in the future. They get to live under whatever system has either evolved or been forcibly installed by way of revolution. The only way [i]you[/i] get to have your Anarcho-Capitalist paradise is if (a) it happens somewhere else and you emigrate, or (b) [i]you and yours[/i] topple the existing structure of the place I live now and make it an Anarcho-Capitalist place to live. Quite frankly, (a) doesn't concern me as long as I (or at least, the entity I belong to,) has enough firepower to wipe you and yours out if you should decide to say "you know what, those guys have a lot of stuff we want, let's make a contract that we're all gonna hire all the mercenaries ever and go take it from them." (b) is what concerns me. As completely messed-up as things are now, the idea of Anarcho-Capitalists taking over and disbanding all forms of government to make their John Galt Paradise is even more existentially frightening than continuing on as things are. And that is, in and of itself, already pretty damn bad.

Quote:
Furthermore, I have found a place where religion, politics, etc. are discussed freely but with respect for the other person's character and belief that their view holds merit. It's called the MLP Forums, and the off topic section is as pleasant a place as anywhere else on the site.

That's it. I've held my tongue so far. I've not brought it up. [b]You[/b] did. You, Steel, do not [b]deserve[/b] to call yourself a brony. Anarcho-Capitalism flies in the face of [i]everything[/i] Friendship is Magic teaches. You mentioned in another thread how momentarily appealing the idea of having a virtual Fluttershy to be your waifu would be - buddy, are you [i]thinking[/i] about these things when you say them?! How in the world can you reconcile that with anarcho-capitalism? Anarcho-Capitalism is the unrestricted essence of the freedom to [i]screw over everybody you can[/i]. Fluttershy would be [i]appalled[/i] and [i]horrified[/i] to hear of the "virtues" of an An-Cap society - virtues such as having to buy your own security or risk anyone who felt like it being perfectly free to buck you up and take whatever you had or otherwise do with you as they pleased. "Virtues" such as all interactions with others being dominated by contracts and needing to be negotiated. [b]That is not in keeping with the ideals of love and tolerance.[/b] In fact, it's very much the opposite! These are not virtues to be aspired to, they are certainly not the kind of place that timid, shy, easily-intimidated and meek Fluttershy would flourish in. Quite the opposite, she'd quickly wind up in a state of misery and oppression, being exploited mercilessly after being browbeaten or tricked into signing a usurious contract. So you need to take a good, [i]long[/i] look inside yourself on this one. Because Anarcho-Capitalism is [i]fundamentally at odds[/i] with the values, morals, and ideals espoused by bronyism. That most bronies are too polite to call you out on this is, I think, a fundamental virtue of the Herd. But I'm not, and I am calling you out on it. You're simultaneously attempting to espouse two fundamentally opposed concepts. I don't know why: perhaps cognitive dissonance, or perhaps it's because you genuinely believe the party line about Anarcho-Capitalism being a paradisial system which will solve all ills and that somehow, against all odds, an Ancap society will be populated only by benevolant actors who don't take advantage in any way, shape, or form, of the complete and utter dearth of checks upon their power to write and enforce monstrous contracts. But it will not be. So you think about that, and you think about what you said about the appealing nature of Fluttershy as a companion, and you tell me [i]exactly[/i] how well you think timid, shy, sweet, meek Fluttershy would fare in your ideal poli-economic environment. Is that what you really want?

—

Tue, 2014-02-04 15:43

#63

Steel Accord Steel Accord's picture

What I want

ShadowDragon8685 wrote:
Quote:
If you wanted to exist in an Anarcho-Syndacalist society, I would be happy for you. Your living in a place that fits your ideals. Yet you would stand against me and mine of we lived in a community completely separate from yours that just followed a different mindset?
Did you [i]even read what I wrote above?[/i] People don't [i]get[/i] to choose under what system they live in, not now, not for very long or very successfully in the past for the vast majority of people, and not likely in the future. They get to live under whatever system has either evolved or been forcibly installed by way of revolution. The only way [i]you[/i] get to have your Anarcho-Capitalist paradise is if (a) it happens somewhere else and you emigrate, or (b) [i]you and yours[/i] topple the existing structure of the place I live now and make it an Anarcho-Capitalist place to live. Quite frankly, (a) doesn't concern me as long as I (or at least, the entity I belong to,) has enough firepower to wipe you and yours out if you should decide to say "you know what, those guys have a lot of stuff we want, let's make a contract that we're all gonna hire all the mercenaries ever and go take it from them." (b) is what concerns me. As completely messed-up as things are now, the idea of Anarcho-Capitalists taking over and disbanding all forms of government to make their John Galt Paradise is even more existentially frightening than continuing on as things are. And that is, in and of itself, already pretty damn bad.
Quote:
Furthermore, I have found a place where religion, politics, etc. are discussed freely but with respect for the other person's character and belief that their view holds merit. It's called the MLP Forums, and the off topic section is as pleasant a place as anywhere else on the site.
That's it. I've held my tongue so far. I've not brought it up. [b]You[/b] did. You, Steel, do not [b]deserve[/b] to call yourself a brony. Anarcho-Capitalism flies in the face of [i]everything[/i] Friendship is Magic teaches. You mentioned in another thread how momentarily appealing the idea of having a virtual Fluttershy to be your waifu would be - buddy, are you [i]thinking[/i] about these things when you say them?! How in the world can you reconcile that with anarcho-capitalism? Anarcho-Capitalism is the unrestricted essence of the freedom to [i]screw over everybody you can[/i]. Fluttershy would be [i]appalled[/i] and [i]horrified[/i] to hear of the "virtues" of an An-Cap society - virtues such as having to buy your own security or risk anyone who felt like it being perfectly free to buck you up and take whatever you had or otherwise do with you as they pleased. "Virtues" such as all interactions with others being dominated by contracts and needing to be negotiated. [b]That is not in keeping with the ideals of love and tolerance.[/b] In fact, it's very much the opposite! These are not virtues to be aspired to, they are certainly not the kind of place that timid, shy, easily-intimidated and meek Fluttershy would flourish in. Quite the opposite, she'd quickly wind up in a state of misery and oppression, being exploited mercilessly after being browbeaten or tricked into signing a usurious contract. So you need to take a good, [i]long[/i] look inside yourself on this one. Because Anarcho-Capitalism is [i]fundamentally at odds[/i] with the values, morals, and ideals espoused by bronyism. That most bronies are too polite to call you out on this is, I think, a fundamental virtue of the Herd. But I'm not, and I am calling you out on it. You're simultaneously attempting to espouse two fundamentally opposed concepts. I don't know why: perhaps cognitive dissonance, or perhaps it's because you genuinely believe the party line about Anarcho-Capitalism being a paradisial system which will solve all ills and that somehow, against all odds, an Ancap society will be populated only by benevolant actors who don't take advantage in any way, shape, or form, of the complete and utter dearth of checks upon their power to write and enforce monstrous contracts. But it will not be. So you think about that, and you think about what you said about the appealing nature of Fluttershy as a companion, and you tell me [i]exactly[/i] how well you think timid, shy, sweet, meek Fluttershy would fare in your ideal poli-economic environment. Is that what you really want?

What I want is freedom for all. And I'd rather live in a society where my defense was up to me, and I could choose my lifestyle according to what I earn, than one where even my very freedom is subject to the whims of a mob. Benjamin Franklin once said that those who choose security over freedom deserve neither. Flawed as those men were and imperfect the system they made, those are words I truly believe in. Anarcho-Capitalism, would not be perfect no. Very few guards as to prevent crime before it happens, just being one issue. But I'd like see those problems addressed by services that directly answer to their customers and can be fired and/or replaced if they can't. As I stipulated at the beginning of this thread, which I now severely regret making, this is not a stance I came to lightly. I have given it a great amount of thought and consideration. Bronies, are a large part of why I think this kind of system would work. Collaboration, ambition, voluntary, and a willingness to stand by your vision and passions. It's not just bronies, contracts, are just references to the agreements of a deal. A deal is a bond two or more people make to the arrangement of trust and mutual benefit. People are good. When we make deals, most people keep their word. I think a society based on a handshake, is better than one symbolized by a rising red fist. No though . . . I do not think Fluttershy would want to live in such a place. She lives in a forest. She takes care of animals. She lives in a world watched over by twin deities who love and protect her. She is want for nothing. An anarcho-capitalist society is a place for people who want to make more of themselves and the world. That being said, I don't think she would suffer in one. Fluttershy is may be timid, she may be reserve, but she has a hidden strength. Strength enough to tame monsters and gods. She had a contract with Iron Will, that his lessons would produce results that would satisfy her. With the clause, that if she wasn't satisfied, she would not be obligated to pay. So, when the minotaur came barging and yelling, Fluttershy did not break or cry. She stood her ground, and she didn't give in to his game of aggression. I learned that lesson well. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7gmXepU7568

—

Your passion is power. Focus it. Your body is a tool. Hone it. Transhummanity is a pantheon. Exalt it!

Tue, 2014-02-04 15:55

#64

Lilith

...

This thread has gone to a [i]really strange place[/i] now.

Tue, 2014-02-04 16:02

#65

Steel Accord Steel Accord's picture

My lady

Lilith wrote:
This thread has gone to a [i]really strange place[/i] now.

My lady, I've given up by this point of trying to keep any kind of consistency with these things.

—

Your passion is power. Focus it. Your body is a tool. Hone it. Transhummanity is a pantheon. Exalt it!

Tue, 2014-02-04 16:39

#66

ShadowDragon8685 ShadowDragon8685's picture

Steel Accord wrote:What I

Steel Accord wrote:
What I want is freedom for all.

In Anarcho-Capitalism, the only freedom available to the vast majority is the freedom to choose between wage-slavery (or outright slavery) and starvation.

Quote:
And I'd rather live in a society where my defense was up to me, and I could choose my lifestyle according to what I earn, than one where even my very freedom is subject to the whims of a mob. Benjamin Franklin once said that those who choose security over freedom deserve neither. Flawed as those men were and imperfect the system they made, those are words I truly believe in. Anarcho-Capitalism, would not be perfect no. Very few guards as to prevent crime before it happens, just being one issue. But I'd like see those problems addressed by services that directly answer to their customers and can be fired and/or replaced if they can't.

Everyone can't be everything unto themselves. You can't be your own bodyguard, your own chef, your own chauffeur, your own accountant, etcetera, and still actually have time to [i]do[/i] things that matter to us, whether that be bringing home the bacon or working on the projects we desire. You have to be a lot unto yourself, but you can't be everything. For everything else, there is society at large. And frankly, the profit motive does [b]not[/b] work well with things such as "providing law and order" (or a reasonable facsimilie thereof,) or "providing medical care." These are things in which the "provider" has an [i]inherent[/i] financial conflict-of-interest with the person contracting with them. Law & Order doesn't sell very well in a safe, stable society. Medical care isn't in high demand when everybody is as healthy as the proverbial horse. They are also things in which the need for them becomes urgent immediately. In the absence of any laws to prevent it, armed security providers quickly turn into an old, familiar form, that of the protection racket. After all, if they find someone without a protection contract (or worse: without one that isn't so small that they can't profitably prevail,) there's nothing stopping them from personally imperiling the victim and making them sign a contract at gunpoint. Similarly, there's nothing stopping a rogue "doctor" from injecting someone who doesn't have a protection contract with a nasty but non-contagious virus that will kill him far, far more quickly than he can get any other doctor to cook up a cure, but if he signs on with [i]his[/i] practice, why, he already [i]has[/i] the cure!

Quote:
As I stipulated at the beginning of this thread, which I now severely regret making, this is not a stance I came to lightly. I have given it a great amount of thought and consideration. Bronies, are a large part of why I think this kind of system would work. Collaboration, ambition, voluntary, and a willingness to stand by your vision and passions. It's not just bronies, contracts, are just references to the agreements of a deal. A deal is a bond two or more people make to the arrangement of trust and mutual benefit. People are good. When we make deals, most people keep their word.

For every brony out there, how many abhorrent trolls are ready to call "furfag" or "horse-fucker" and malevolently spite them? Huh? Now give those trolls guns and free hand to use them on anyone they can get away with ganking. People [b]are not good.[/b] You need to grok that, mate. For every good person who'd give the shirt off his back to a stranger in need, there's ninety-five people who just want to be left in peace and four people who are actively plotting to enrich themselves at the expense of others. Sure, they'll keep their word! But they will make sure that the agreement they made [i]massively[/i] favors them. It's easy to keep your word when the promise is that the other guy will give you all his widgets and in exchange you'll [i]not[/i] thrust a knife through his eye socket. Or the financial servitude equavilent thereof.

Quote:
I think a society based on a handshake, is better than one symbolized by a rising red fist.

The bigger the smile, the sharper the knife. And yes, I [i]did[/i] just quote [url=http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Rules_of_Acquisition]Rule of Acquisition #48[/url] at you. That was quite intentional, because that's where anarcho-capitalism will lead. Not so some utopia of handshakes and smiles and agreements. But to a place with proverbs like "A man without profit is no man at all," or "You can't make a deal if you're dead." A nightmare of legalese, fine print, confusing text, and more usury than you can throw a solid-steel bible at out of a mass driver.

Quote:
No though . . . I do not think Fluttershy would want to live in such a place. She lives in a forest. She takes care of animals. She lives in a world watched over by twin deities who love and protect her. She is want for nothing. An anarcho-capitalist society is a place for people who want to make more of themselves and the world.

Want to make more for themselves and the world? Are you [i]kidding[/i] me?! Fluttershy is a [i]vital[/i] public service to the good citizenry of Ponyville. She's the town's vet; she's also the caretaker for the critters who live in and around Ponyville, keeping them healthy and happy, presumably keeping their populations stable and working overtime to ensure the carnivores have enough fish to eat that they don't have to resort to predation on the herbivorous land animals (which are shown to have a higher order of intelligence and moral worth than fish.) We know that the denizens of Equestria deal in money. Who, exactly, do you think pays for Fluttershy's work? Ultimately, Her Majesty Princess Celestia does. Fluttershy isn't in the employ of any individual, she doesn't have some "contract" to do what she does. She certainly isn't making any money charging the critters for medical care and food, but what she does is clearly a form of public service; ergo, she must be drawing a stipend from the town coffers, which ultimately will be funded by Her Majesty's Royal Tax Office. Think about who the town gentry are. Filthy Rich. Silver Spoon and Diamond Tiara. Do you think for a [i]minute[/i] those selfish assholes would fund a timid Pegasus who forgets she can fly half the time to care for the critters? No. No, they would not. In an AnCap society, Fluttershy would be bankrupting herself, trying to fund her critter-care out of whatever she could extort for caring for pets (for those ponies that have them,) and the ponies who keep livestock, like the Apples. And she wouldn't be doing well, because Fluttershy is the Element of Kindness. There isn't a selfish bone in her body, so she'd have difficulty even working up the stomach to charge a paying customer an amount higher than her own costs, let alone soaking the paying customers high enough to fund the non-paying charitable work she does for the critters. Now add to that all the complexities of working out contracts for [i]everything[/i], from deciding who will protect her when some jackass (who need not actually be a mule, no need to get racial on it,) decides to buck the door to her cottage in and rob her, to the complexities of working out contract deals with the suppliers who provide the medicines she must stock, and she'd be reduced to a weeping wreck ery quickly.

Quote:
That being said, I don't think she would suffer in one. Fluttershy is may be timid, she may be reserved, but she has a hidden strength. Strength enough to tame monsters and gods. She had a contract with Iron Will, that his lessons would produce results that would satisfy her. With the clause, that if she wasn't satisfied, she would not be obligated to pay. So, when the minotaur came barging and yelling, Fluttershy did not break or cry. She stood her ground, and she didn't give in to his game of aggression.

And if Iron Will had decided to push the issue? If she hadn't caught him in the wording of his guarantee? What, exactly, would Fluttershy have been able to do against him? Even with Rarity and Pinkie Pie on-hoof, the answer is somewhere between "jack" and "squat." Fluttershy won't get the better of many ponies in deals, let alone Minotaurs, and she's definitely not lawyer enough to go through a huge contract to ferret out the hidden clauses which would screw her over. By and large, [i]she'll[/i] be the one having the better gotten of her. Fluttershy may have hidden strength, but she has [i]never[/i] had to stand up to a real, determined predator, the kind who isn't intimidated by The Stare and doesn't give one flying crap about her attempts to guilt-trip them. So, no. Fluttershy [i]will[/i] suffer in an Anarcho-Capitalist society. She would [i]suffer[/i] in ways you can hardly [i]imagine[/i], and she wouldn't raise a complaint above a whisper because, despite the events of Putting your Hoof Down, she remains shy, meek, timid Fluttershy, fundamentally afraid of confrontations. All contract negotiations are inherently a form of confrontation, with each party trying to extract the most out of the other and being forced to compromise. Fluttershy will easily cave, meaning the only pony being satisfied when making a contract with her is the one who's screwing her as hard as he can.

—

Tue, 2014-02-04 17:00

#67

Steel Accord Steel Accord's picture

Idealism

ShadowDragon8685 wrote:
Steel Accord wrote:
What I want is freedom for all.
In Anarcho-Capitalism, the only freedom available to the vast majority is the freedom to choose between wage-slavery (or outright slavery) and starvation.
Quote:
And I'd rather live in a society where my defense was up to me, and I could choose my lifestyle according to what I earn, than one where even my very freedom is subject to the whims of a mob. Benjamin Franklin once said that those who choose security over freedom deserve neither. Flawed as those men were and imperfect the system they made, those are words I truly believe in. Anarcho-Capitalism, would not be perfect no. Very few guards as to prevent crime before it happens, just being one issue. But I'd like see those problems addressed by services that directly answer to their customers and can be fired and/or replaced if they can't.
Everyone can't be everything unto themselves. You can't be your own bodyguard, your own chef, your own chauffeur, your own accountant, etcetera, and still actually have time to [i]do[/i] things that matter to us, whether that be bringing home the bacon or working on the projects we desire. You have to be a lot unto yourself, but you can't be everything. For everything else, there is society at large. And frankly, the profit motive does [b]not[/b] work well with things such as "providing law and order" (or a reasonable facsimilie thereof,) or "providing medical care." These are things in which the "provider" has an [i]inherent[/i] financial conflict-of-interest with the person contracting with them. Law & Order doesn't sell very well in a safe, stable society. Medical care isn't in high demand when everybody is as healthy as the proverbial horse. They are also things in which the need for them becomes urgent immediately. In the absence of any laws to prevent it, armed security providers quickly turn into an old, familiar form, that of the protection racket. After all, if they find someone without a protection contract (or worse: without one that isn't so small that they can't profitably prevail,) there's nothing stopping them from personally imperiling the victim and making them sign a contract at gunpoint. Similarly, there's nothing stopping a rogue "doctor" from injecting someone who doesn't have a protection contract with a nasty but non-contagious virus that will kill him far, far more quickly than he can get any other doctor to cook up a cure, but if he signs on with [i]his[/i] practice, why, he already [i]has[/i] the cure!
Quote:
As I stipulated at the beginning of this thread, which I now severely regret making, this is not a stance I came to lightly. I have given it a great amount of thought and consideration. Bronies, are a large part of why I think this kind of system would work. Collaboration, ambition, voluntary, and a willingness to stand by your vision and passions. It's not just bronies, contracts, are just references to the agreements of a deal. A deal is a bond two or more people make to the arrangement of trust and mutual benefit. People are good. When we make deals, most people keep their word.
For every brony out there, how many abhorrent trolls are ready to call "furfag" or "horse-fucker" and malevolently spite them? Huh? Now give those trolls guns and free hand to use them on anyone they can get away with ganking. People [b]are not good.[/b] You need to grok that, mate. For every good person who'd give the shirt off his back to a stranger in need, there's ninety-five people who just want to be left in peace and four people who are actively plotting to enrich themselves at the expense of others. Sure, they'll keep their word! But they will make sure that the agreement they made [i]massively[/i] favors them. It's easy to keep your word when the promise is that the other guy will give you all his widgets and in exchange you'll [i]not[/i] thrust a knife through his eye socket. Or the financial servitude equavilent thereof.
Quote:
I think a society based on a handshake, is better than one symbolized by a rising red fist.
The bigger the smile, the sharper the knife. And yes, I [i]did[/i] just quote [url=http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Rules_of_Acquisition]Rule of Acquisition #48[/url] at you. That was quite intentional, because that's where anarcho-capitalism will lead. Not so some utopia of handshakes and smiles and agreements. But to a place with proverbs like "A man without profit is no man at all," or "You can't make a deal if you're dead." A nightmare of legalese, fine print, confusing text, and more usury than you can throw a solid-steel bible at out of a mass driver.
Quote:
No though . . . I do not think Fluttershy would want to live in such a place. She lives in a forest. She takes care of animals. She lives in a world watched over by twin deities who love and protect her. She is want for nothing. An anarcho-capitalist society is a place for people who want to make more of themselves and the world.
Want to make more for themselves and the world? Are you [i]kidding[/i] me?! Fluttershy is a [i]vital[/i] public service to the good citizenry of Ponyville. She's the town's vet; she's also the caretaker for the critters who live in and around Ponyville, keeping them healthy and happy, presumably keeping their populations stable and working overtime to ensure the carnivores have enough fish to eat that they don't have to resort to predation on the herbivorous land animals (which are shown to have a higher order of intelligence and moral worth than fish.) We know that the denizens of Equestria deal in money. Who, exactly, do you think pays for Fluttershy's work? Ultimately, Her Majesty Princess Celestia does. Fluttershy isn't in the employ of any individual, she doesn't have some "contract" to do what she does. She certainly isn't making any money charging the critters for medical care and food, but what she does is clearly a form of public service; ergo, she must be drawing a stipend from the town coffers, which ultimately will be funded by Her Majesty's Royal Tax Office. Think about who the town gentry are. Filthy Rich. Silver Spoon and Diamond Tiara. Do you think for a [i]minute[/i] those selfish assholes would fund a timid Pegasus who forgets she can fly half the time to care for the critters? No. No, they would not. In an AnCap society, Fluttershy would be bankrupting herself, trying to fund her critter-care out of whatever she could extort for caring for pets (for those ponies that have them,) and the ponies who keep livestock, like the Apples. And she wouldn't be doing well, because Fluttershy is the Element of Kindness. There isn't a selfish bone in her body, so she'd have difficulty even working up the stomach to charge a paying customer an amount higher than her own costs, let alone soaking the paying customers high enough to fund the non-paying charitable work she does for the critters. Now add to that all the complexities of working out contracts for [i]everything[/i], from deciding who will protect her when some jackass (who need not actually be a mule, no need to get racial on it,) decides to buck the door to her cottage in and rob her, to the complexities of working out contract deals with the suppliers who provide the medicines she must stock, and she'd be reduced to a weeping wreck ery quickly.
Quote:
That being said, I don't think she would suffer in one. Fluttershy is may be timid, she may be reserved, but she has a hidden strength. Strength enough to tame monsters and gods. She had a contract with Iron Will, that his lessons would produce results that would satisfy her. With the clause, that if she wasn't satisfied, she would not be obligated to pay. So, when the minotaur came barging and yelling, Fluttershy did not break or cry. She stood her ground, and she didn't give in to his game of aggression.
And if Iron Will had decided to push the issue? If she hadn't caught him in the wording of his guarantee? What, exactly, would Fluttershy have been able to do against him? Even with Rarity and Pinkie Pie on-hoof, the answer is somewhere between "jack" and "squat." Fluttershy won't get the better of many ponies in deals, let alone Minotaurs, and she's definitely not lawyer enough to go through a huge contract to ferret out the hidden clauses which would screw her over. By and large, [i]she'll[/i] be the one having the better gotten of her. Fluttershy may have hidden strength, but she has [i]never[/i] had to stand up to a real, determined predator, the kind who isn't intimidated by The Stare and doesn't give one flying crap about her attempts to guilt-trip them. So, no. Fluttershy [i]will[/i] suffer in an Anarcho-Capitalist society. She would [i]suffer[/i] in ways you can hardly [i]imagine[/i], and she wouldn't raise a complaint above a whisper because, despite the events of Putting your Hoof Down, she remains shy, meek, timid Fluttershy, fundamentally afraid of confrontations. All contract negotiations are inherently a form of confrontation, with each party trying to extract the most out of the other and being forced to compromise. Fluttershy will easily cave, meaning the only pony being satisfied when making a contract with her is the one who's screwing her as hard as he can.

That's ultimately what it comes down to isn't it? You believe the majority of people are inherently evil, I believe they are not. So, you believe the best kind of society is where no one is able to do assert a position of power, regardless of motivation because that motivation is most likely for the ill of all. All right, I can respect that. It's not a view I share nor will I ever. I don't want to convince you that you are wrong, I just wanted to get some clarity if anypony was going through something similar. You clearly have given this plenty of thought and research to your feelings and Smokeskin faaaaaaar outranks me in the debate category. Good for both of you. Me? I'm just a brony who also happens to be against the state as a necessary institution. I came to this belief because I don't think people need government. I believe people to be good and that, even in positions of great power and at liberty to do with that power as they please, they would not abuse it at the expense of others.

—

Your passion is power. Focus it. Your body is a tool. Hone it. Transhummanity is a pantheon. Exalt it!

Tue, 2014-02-04 17:05

#68

bibliophile20 bibliophile20's picture

*blink* *blink*

*blink* *blink* *backs away slowly, making no sudden movements, from the fighting bronies* *remembers that he is a mod, and doesn't have that luxury* I head off for a little while to get dishes and housework done and... wow. [color=orange]ShadowDragon8685, please calm down. You are very passionate and very angry, and it shows. So I have one thing to say, and one thing only. You made one personal attack. A minor one, so this is just a minor warning, but nonetheless it was a personal attack on Steel Accord. That attack was "you don't deserve to be a brony". Now, you went on to support why you felt that way, but you still tried to exclude Steel Accord from the membership of a community you both identify with--sort of a No True Scotsman argument. Now, while you backed that up with arguments explaining why you felt that way, it was still an attack of exclusion. (A very, very minor one, but I'm hoping to cool this thread off before it catches fire at all, so that means stomping on any smoldering embers I see). [/color] *goes back to watching thread with mixture of awe and worry*

—

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." -Benjamin Franklin

Tue, 2014-02-04 17:15

#69

ShadowDragon8685 ShadowDragon8685's picture

Steel Accord wrote:That's

Steel Accord wrote:
That's ultimately what it comes down to isn't it? You believe the majority of people are inherently evil, I believe they are not. So, you believe the best kind of society is where no one is able to do assert a position of power, regardless of motivation because that motivation is most likely for the ill of all.

The vast majority of people, as I said, are [i]selfish[/i]. To use the D&D term, they're True Neutral. They don't give a toss about law or chaos, about good or evil. They want what's best for [i]them[/i]. They may or may not be interested in stabbing people, or raping people (though with statistics like villages in Alaska devoid of anything resembling law and order and a population of over 50% of the female population having reported being sexually victimized, you've gotta wonder,) or robbing people, or even dishonest cheating. But if they [i]can[/i] negotiate a one-sided contract that massively benefits them and nail the other guy into signing it, they [i]will[/i]. Because they're interested in numero uno, or in them and theirs, first and foremost. That's basic human nature: Get everything you can. Acquire, hoard, lord it over. You can do all of that with an inkpen and a lawyer, and that's happening today! That's not [i]because[/i] of government regulations, though, it's happening [i]in spite[/i] of them. It would be [b]so much worse[/b] without that oversight, and it's already heinously bad.

Quote:
All right, I can respect that. It's not a view I share nor will I ever. I don't want to convince you that you are wrong, I just wanted to get some clarity if anypony was going through something similar. You clearly have given this plenty of thought and research to your feelings and Smokeskin faaaaaaar outranks me in the debate category. Good for both of you. Me? I'm just a brony who also happens to be against the state as a necessary institution. I came to this belief because I don't think people need government. I believe people to be good and that, even in positions of great power and at liberty to do with that power as they please, they would not abuse it at the expense of others.

"People" are not good. "People" are not evil. There are good people, and individual people, but on the whole, people just look out for themselves and their own interests. And in the absence of [i]strong[/i] pressures against it, that will take the form of abusing others to extract the most out of their relationships with them. [i]Look around you.[/i] It happens all the bloody time! They damn well do abuse power as they please, even when and where they are ostensibly [i]not[/i] at liberty to do so. Letting them off the leash completely is tantamount to letting a badly-trained, aggressive dog off the leash. He may or may not turn around immediately and bite your genitalia off, but someone, somewhere, is getting mauled, and as he realizes he can get away with it, the maulings will escalate in intensity and frequency, until he's either put down, or he's mauled everyone.

—

Tue, 2014-02-04 17:43

#70

Smokeskin

LatwPIAT wrote:Smokeskin

LatwPIAT wrote:
Smokeskin wrote:
Fail to pay that, they will say now you owe us more money. Then they will come and try and rob you off your possessions. If you protect your property, armed men in dark uniforms will come and rob your stuff. If you protect yourself against them, they will kill you, or wound you and lock you in small room for decades.
As far as I can remember, you live in Denmark. I feel that this representation here of what the government and police do is more blatant scare-mongering than a coherent argument. For one, your constant insistence upon the detail that the police wear "dark uniforms", which is not really a relevant detail and seems to serve only to artificially inflate the scariness of the police. Secondly, I feel the need to ask you how real this threat is; in Denmark, how many people have the police killed for failure to pay their fines? It, again, seems like an unreal threat that doesn't actually illustrate what living under a government is like. For that matter, the detail about locking people in small rooms for decades - is that a realistic consequence of failure to pay fines?

In my experience, when you say "police" people think of them in their benevolent role - catching criminals that hurt and steal. They don't even begin to consider their other roles. So I describe them like they are. I also describe things like "jail" in as it is - being kidnapped and locked in a small room. I call taxes robbery and extortion. For some reason, we have this double vocabulary where the state's actions are described with totally different words that carry a totally different meaning, and it makes it very hard to think accuratedly about how the state operates. As an example at hand, look at how you think I'm exaggerating the consequences for not paying a fine and protecting yourself against the armed men in dark uniforms that come to collect it. Yet it is 100% accurate. If I fail to pay a fine and continue to not pay, eventually a lawyer, a judge and the police will show up to take my possessions from me (the details might de slightly different in your country, but the essence is the same). If I protect myself and my property against their attempted robbery, the police will escalate their force to whatever is necessary to take me down. If I just resist with my fists, they'll peber spray and/or club me and I'll get charged for violence against a police officer. If I get my rifle, they'll retreat and come back with a SWAT team. If I give up, again, a long stay in jail awaits. If I fight back, they'll likely kill me. So yes, the consequence of refusing to pay a fine and protecting your property from the state is locked in a small room or death. The state will escalate to lethal force over a fine if it has to. Wouldn't you agree that it is either pay, go to jail or die?

LatwPIAT wrote:

Smokeskin wrote:
In discussions on actual anarcho-capitalism (which I don't recommend with anyons but the genuinely interested and openminded) it is paramount that you learn how the current institutions would work (and work much better) in ancap society. Take consumer protection. In a democracy, producers will often bribe politicians to not ban their deceitful practices, or at best politicians will always lack behind the latest schemes as it takes them years to solve anything, and you only get a one-size-serves-all solution. And consumers in democracies have no alternative. In ancap society, consumer protection codes would be something you signed on to, and agreed to with the seller when making a purchase, and there would be several providers. They would compete for different spots on the price-quality curve for example, and you could choose one that matched what you wanted, and your neighbor something else. Of course, everyone couldn't have their own code, but even with just a few providers, a lot of people would be much closer to what they liked. And as private companies, these providers would compete in getting protection against new schemes and harmful substances on the market as soon as possible. It's very important that people understand that ancap has almost all the same institutions as modern democracies, and they work better. It also makes for great arguments for liberalization.
This seems strange to me. For one, what specifically is it about consumer-producer contracts that makes them better than government regulations at preventing deceitful practices? I really don't see why, if we assume that corporations are willing to break government laws, lie and bribe to get away with deceit, that they wouldn't also be willing to break their contracts, lie about having broken those contracts, and generally be deceitful anyway. There really seems to me to be no particular benefit to getting rid of the government.

The problem is twofold. The state is often slow, neglient, or actually in favor of corporations when it comes to these things. So in many cases the corporations aren't even breaking the law when they obviously screw people over. And then the fact that the legal system has reached a level of complexity and cost that effectively bars many people from actually using the system. In some ways, the United States has it better than here in Europe, because no-cure-no-pay lawyer agreements are illegal in most countries here, and you have much larger damages awarded. On the other hand, your legal system is more complex and loophole-filled. This gives corporations a huge advantage so they are not as deterred from breaking the law (in ancap: contracts) as they should be.

LatwPIAT wrote:
Secondly, if we assume that contracts are magically binding... there's nothing stopping corporations from forming contracts while a government exists. In fact, they already do this; Fair Trade labels, government health-regulation approval stamps, and corporate PR campaigns about their green initiatives are all "contracts" where a corporation promises their consumers that, if they buy the product, certain clauses have been upheld. Service-corporations, such as banks, will allow negotiation for the terms of contracts. The fact that there is a government that imposes a certain minimum requirement for what a contract and corporation can and cannot do doesn't [i]force[/i] everyone to stick to the bare minimum of skirting the legal line.

I agree, but how many people have actual good advice available to them? They think the law protects them and don't really think much more about it, plus they already paid their taxes for it. In ancap, instead of being forced a consumer protection code on you by politicians who often had to return some favors to their corporate backers for filling up the campaign fund, you go out and choose your own among providers competeting for your order. They have a much clearer incentive to provide something that actually works than the politicians do. And I don't believe that anyone but the most reckless consumer would ever accept any service or product if they had no guarantee at all about the veracity of the seller's claims. The corporations would be forced to accept private consumer protection codes, unlike today where you'd be laughed out almost anywhere if you tried that.

LatwPIAT wrote:

Smokeskin wrote:
My experience of living in a democratic state has rarely been that the state acts on my behalf, but mostly that the state uses threats of violence to ensure that I do what other people think I should do.
Roads. Fire departments. Police services. The Army. Health care. Water supplies. The power-grid. Health regulations on food. Health regulation of medicine. Laws that prevent dumping toxic waste in your water supply. Education.

Those things could just as easily be privately provided, and it would most likely be done much better. For example OECD did a study of efficiency in the private versus public sector back in 2001. In Denmark, the public sector had 62% efficiency compared to the private sector. That's 38% percent that they wasted by forcing the people to use them as a provider. That's not really something to say thanks for.

LatwPIAT wrote:
Laws that prevent corporations from redefining the the weight of a kilogram to short measure you. Merchants have short-charged people since the dawn of time.

Why would that be allowed in ancap?

LatwPIAT wrote:

Smokeskin wrote:
I agree that education is often a no-brainer investment. The reason private companies aren't involved much in it is that the state keeps private investors out of the market with laws against high interest loans and indenture.
This is a good thing. High-interest loans and an education that lasts for years before you can start paying back those loans is not a good thing. And indenture is [i]slavery[/i]. I, for one, am extremely grateful the governments prevent corporations from buying me as a slave.

Education is a high risk, high reward investment. Such a risk/reward profile can't be financed with a low-rate loan since the lender can't make enough on the high reward cases to cover the losses on the cases that end up with loss. What this means is that if you can't put up collateral, you can't get a student loan. The effects of laws against high interest loans is that is that poor people can't borrow money for their studies. Or for anything else for that matter. Indenture is just a variation on that. Instead of an interest bearing loan that you might struggle under for years (or life if your education doesn't work out for you), you agree to a few years of work afterwards and then you're free. Some people would prefer that. Laws against high interest loans keep poor people from getting access to the financing that could get them out of poverty. I am aware that high interest loans can also be tempting for poor people who just really want a new flatscreen and a new car. People have the right to screw themselves over, badly. But I don't think that's a sufficient argument against those responsible enough and willing to improve their situation. By the way, how do you see a modern indenture contract working? Something along the lines of a large percentage of your pay?

Spoiler: Highlight to view

That sounds a lot like taxes - except the taxes aren't voluntary like an indenture contract is.

Tue, 2014-02-04 17:58

#71

Smokeskin

ShadowDragon8685 wrote:

ShadowDragon8685 wrote:
Anarcho-Capitalism would be nothing but an unending conflict of parties trying to fuck each other over on contractual legalese and working out if they have yet accumulated enough power and solid allies to say "fuck the contracts, I'm taking over by force." It's a nightmare of bargaining power, where, as in the real world, said bargaining power will very, very rapidly become accumulated in the hands of the fewest and wealthiest, and they'll quite gladly take out the gigantic, sopping penis of that power and smack it in the face of everyone who hasn't got any power to challenge them or make them deal fair. That will [i]definitely[/i] lead to conflict, as has been pointed out with the analogy to unions and Pinkerton mercenaries masquerading as private detectives.

So you mean they'll make a state? :) But really, try to think about how ancap would work. People would have security contractors. There'd be the same number of cops (ok maybe fewer because of the whole war on drugs thing, but still), there'd still be judges, there'd still be a legal system. Heck, I'd even pay towards an army, and I'm sure I'm not the only one. It wouldn't be that different from today, except that all these people with guns are hired by the people instead of the state. And probably a lot more guns in the hands of the people too. So you have to ask yourself - why don't all these rich people hire a private army and take over now? Perhaps because it isn't really feasible? That even if it could be done, there'd be no upside to it and they'd have to content with uprisings and guerilla fighters for decades, because that's what invaded people tend to do? That maybe only a few of the rich people could actually stomach to start a civil war and commit atrocities and be hated forever? That the rich people who would do such a thing might have trouble agreeing on who gets to be Dear Leader, so it never gets off the ground? You have to admit, the idea of rich people invading is a bit farfetched. I'd argue it is even more farfetched than a majority of the people going ancap and voting to begin dismantling government, abolishing all laws and transititioning its institutions to the free market.

Tue, 2014-02-04 18:06

#72

Smokeskin

ShadowDragon8685 wrote:

ShadowDragon8685 wrote:
The vast majority of people, as I said, are [i]selfish[/i]. To use the D&D term, they're True Neutral. They don't give a toss about law or chaos, about good or evil. They want what's best for [i]them[/i]. [...] But if they [i]can[/i] negotiate a one-sided contract that massively benefits them and nail the other guy into signing it, they [i]will[/i]. Because they're interested in numero uno, or in them and theirs, first and foremost.

That's not true. It has been extensively tested in experimental economics. Most people are more altruistic than they are selfish. They also have great innate sense of fairness and will even at cost to themselves punish people who treat them unfairly. The same is seen in primates that have been tested for it. Your idea of how ancap works and what you can and can't do is also deeply flawed, but I've been pointing out such errors throughout the thread and you seem to want to continue attacking a straw man, so I'm not going to comment on them. That is very hard for me, not to correct wrong things on the internet ;)

Tue, 2014-02-04 18:13

#73

Smokeskin

Lilith wrote:This thread has

Lilith wrote:
This thread has gone to a [i]really strange place[/i] now.

Up until 60 seconds ago, I thought a brony was someone into MLP furry porn. The only people I know that calls themselves bronies are into furries, so it's an honest mistake to make make. So imagine how it was for me (not that I mind, it's just not something people normally talk about on a forum like this).

Tue, 2014-02-04 18:20

#74

ShadowDragon8685 ShadowDragon8685's picture

Smokeskin wrote

Smokeskin wrote:
ShadowDragon8685 wrote:
Anarcho-Capitalism would be nothing but an unending conflict of parties trying to fuck each other over on contractual legalese and working out if they have yet accumulated enough power and solid allies to say "fuck the contracts, I'm taking over by force." It's a nightmare of bargaining power, where, as in the real world, said bargaining power will very, very rapidly become accumulated in the hands of the fewest and wealthiest, and they'll quite gladly take out the gigantic, sopping penis of that power and smack it in the face of everyone who hasn't got any power to challenge them or make them deal fair. That will [i]definitely[/i] lead to conflict, as has been pointed out with the analogy to unions and Pinkerton mercenaries masquerading as private detectives.
So you mean they'll make a state? :)

Whatever you wanna call it. I'd call it financial feudalism. Either way, better statism than Anarcho-Capitalism.

Quote:
But really, try to think about how ancap would work. People would have security contractors.

That you would have to pay for. [b]Yourself.[/b] I can't afford to pay for any fucking security contractors. So it's open season on my ass.

Quote:
There'd be the same number of cops (ok maybe fewer because of the whole war on drugs thing, but still), there'd still be judges,

Judges who are bought and paid for? Who enforce any contract, no matter how biased and one-sided? Sod that.

Quote:
there'd still be a legal system. Heck, I'd even pay towards an army, and I'm sure I'm not the only one.

Yes, because you know what sounds like a really [i]smashing[/i] idea to me? A private army of mercenaries in the collective employ of a bunch of rich oligarchs! Oh wait, no, that sounds like a dystopian nightmare. And don't even delude yourself if you think the contributions of "Average people" will even matter one whit to the purchase of this army. The rich will dictate the rules, they always have. The only way to do away with that altogether is to stop having rich people and poor people and just have people.

Quote:
It wouldn't be that different from today, except that all these people with guns are hired by the people instead of the state. And probably a lot more guns in the hands of the people too.

No, the people with the guns will be hired by the richest. Everybody else will be paying what amounts to protection money - [i]their[/i] contracts won't include anything about being able to direct the actions of those gun hands. The only thing they'll be able to bargain for is the assurance that the gun hands won't come 'round and shoot [i]them[/i]. And of course, the arbitration clause on that contract probably consists of the phrase "In any event of a conflict between Puny Nobody and Mercenaries, Inc, Mercenaries, Inc is automatically to be assumed to be in the right and judged in favor of, irregardless of any merits that Puny Nobody's grievance may have."

Quote:
So you have to ask yourself - why don't all these rich people hire a private army and take over now? Perhaps because it isn't really feasible? That even if it could be done, there'd be no upside to it and they'd have to content with uprisings and guerilla fighters for decades, because that's what invaded people tend to do? That maybe only a few of the rich people could actually stomach to start a civil war and commit atrocities and be hated forever? That the rich people who would do such a thing might have trouble agreeing on who gets to be Dear Leader, so it never gets off the ground?

"Why don't all these rich people hire a private army and take over now?" Simple. They can't hire enough guns to take over anywhere worth taking over. No matter how much money they have, they're not going to outspend the military of any first-world country, let alone that country and its allies. They can't hire enough guns, and they definitely can't hire guns with military weapons and training on par with or exceeding those available to those militaries. It doesn't matter how much money you have. You can't hire a naval task force capable of defeating a U.S. Carrier group at sea. You can't hire a squadron of jet fighters that can take on a squadron of Eurofighters. You can't hire an army large enough to take on NATO. That many well-armed, well-trained mercenaries simply don't exist. But you make an AnCap society, the balance has shifted. There is no governmental monopoly on force. Instead, the [i]de facto[/i] monopoly on force devolves to those who have sufficient money to pay the army large enough sums to make a noticeable impact in their budget. Now the army is [i]already[/i] on their side. They don't have to pick one of their own to be Dear Leader. They just have to agree that it sure is nice to be on the top, and they'd like to keep it that way, so they'll just keep handing out one-sided contracts, none of their so-called "competition" will offer any better deals, and if anyone starts getting too uppity, their protection contract won't be renewed.

Quote:
You have to admit, the idea of rich people invading is a bit farfetched. I'd argue it is even more farfetched than a majority of the people going ancap and voting to begin dismantling government, abolishing all laws and transititioning its institutions to the free market.

They don't have to invade jack shit. They're already there, and they're already paying for the army!

—

Tue, 2014-02-04 18:25

#75

ShadowDragon8685 ShadowDragon8685's picture

Smokeskin wrote:Lilith wrote

Smokeskin wrote:
Lilith wrote:
This thread has gone to a [i]really strange place[/i] now.
Up until 60 seconds ago, I thought a brony was someone into MLP furry porn. The only people I know that calls themselves bronies are into furries, so it's an honest mistake to make make. So imagine how it was for me (not that I mind, it's just not something people normally talk about on a forum like this).

A brony is an adult male (females prefer "Pegasister," on the whole,) who enjoys My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic, and to some degree or another holds to the ideals one can derive from it. They may or may not like pornography based on Friendship is Magic. They may or may not have an affinity for the larger world of anthropomorphic art and roleplay and so forth and so on.

—

Tue, 2014-02-04 18:42

#76

Smokeskin

ShadowDragon8685 wrote:Quote

ShadowDragon8685 wrote:

Quote:
But really, try to think about how ancap would work. People would have security contractors.
That you would have to pay for. [b]Yourself.[/b] I can't afford to pay for any fucking security contractors. So it's open season on my ass.

No it is not. Anyone who hurt you would still be responsible for harming you and eligible for punishment. If you don't have any money there's going to be welfare to help you out, and/or you could have a security contract where the contractor gets all or a large part of the settlement - even if you can't get get any compensation it would at least provide a deterrence.

ShadowDragon8685 wrote:

Quote:
There'd be the same number of cops (ok maybe fewer because of the whole war on drugs thing, but still), there'd still be judges,
Judges who are bought and paid for? Who enforce any contract, no matter how biased and one-sided?

Well, generally they will enforce any contract that both parties agreed to without coercion. Otherwise the non-agression principle and common law still apply. You can't just hire a crazy judge and then everyone will have to do what he says.

Tue, 2014-02-04 18:47

#77

Lilith

On Bronies

It's not the presence or admission of bronies that surprised me, Smokeskin, but more the rather ... [i]heated[/i] discussion of the current topic as it would relate to the fictional land of Equestria. Then again, I've seen more bizarre things come out of that community, so perhaps I should've expected as much. Like I said ... [i]strange place[/i].

Tue, 2014-02-04 18:47

#78

Smokeskin

ShadowDragon8685 wrote:

ShadowDragon8685 wrote:
A brony is an adult male (females prefer "Pegasister," on the whole,) who enjoys My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic, and to some degree or another holds to the ideals one can derive from it. They may or may not like pornography based on Friendship is Magic. They may or may not have an affinity for the larger world of anthropomorphic art and roleplay and so forth and so on.

I don't get why it isn't more popular. I didn't really know the show as it isn't on regularly here, but Cartoon Network aired 2x5 episodes a weekend and I tivoed it, and it is really high quality, much better than Dora the Explorer that my daughter (2½ years old) mostly watched. It is also the only show that both my son (just turned 5) and her both like to watch. They've watched those 10 episodes so many times. I'm going to teach them that they're a brony and pegasister (pegasøster)

Tue, 2014-02-04 19:00

#79

ShadowDragon8685 ShadowDragon8685's picture

Smokeskin wrote:No it is not.

Smokeskin wrote:
No it is not. Anyone who hurt you would still be responsible for harming you and eligible for punishment. If you don't have any money there's going to be welfare to help you out, and/or you could have a security contract where the contractor gets all or a large part of the settlement - even if you can't get get any compensation it would at least provide a deterrence.

Eligible for [b]what[/b] punishment? I don't have a security contractor, and there aren't any fucking laws. [i]That's the point of Anarcho-Capitalism![/i] There's no law that says "Attacking another physically is a crime and punishable." There's only contracts, and [i]I don't have any contracts.[/i] I am a null entity in an Anarcho-Capitalist society, fair game. And no, there won't be any welfare. Welfare only exists when there are taxes to pay for them, and there are only taxes when there is a state monopoly on force. And if I have a contract where a security provider gets some/all of any settlement that might otherwise come my way because I haven't the money to buy a better contract, what then? I am predated upon, I am harmed, and I have no redress. The security contractor may be a deterrant, but not a lot of one, and when I am harmed, [i]I[/i] get shafted twice - first by the guy who fucked me over, and then by the security contractor who took what was to be my recompense for the damage I suffered. So my situation only gets better, and the security contractor's looks brighter. There's a word for that. Usury.

Quote:
Well, generally they will enforce any contract that both parties agreed to without coercion.

Guess what? There is no contract signed without duress when it's being signed between a little guy and a big guy. I don't have the option of "shopping around," the almighty free market does not provide me with paletable alternatives. I can get fucked by means of A, I can get fucked by means of B, I can get fucked by means of C, but at the end of the day, I'm still covered in lube and regret, and the smugly-satisfied other party is the one who got a judgement handed down in his favor because that was how the contract was worded.

Quote:
Otherwise the non-agression principle and common law still apply. You can't just hire a crazy judge and then everyone will have to do what he says.

You don't need a crazy judge. You just need a crazy contract that I don't have any choice but to sign. And when the alternatives to signing are "get predated upon" and "asphyxiate," I don't have much of a choice but to sign, do I? No, I don't.

—

Tue, 2014-02-04 19:05

#80

LatwPIAT

Smokeskin wrote:In my

Smokeskin wrote:
In my experience, when you say "police" people think of them in their benevolent role - catching criminals that hurt and steal. They don't even begin to consider their other roles. So I describe them like they are. I also describe things like "jail" in as it is - being kidnapped and locked in a small room. I call taxes robbery and extortion. For some reason, we have this double vocabulary where the state's actions are described with totally different words that carry a totally different meaning, and it makes it very hard to think accuratedly about how the state operates.

Yes. You say this like it's some profound revelation, yet you seem to ignore the simple truth; the reason we have different words for when the state does something and when private persons does something is because quite a lot of people [recognize/believe] that there is a functional difference between the police putting someone in a small room (with the use of force if necessary) to prevent that person from committing further crimes (/rehabilitation/punishment) and private persons locking up other private persons for harmful reasons.

Smokeskin wrote:
If I fail to pay a fine and continue to not pay, eventually a lawyer, a judge and the police will show up to take my possessions from me (the details might de slightly different in your country, but the essence is the same). If I protect myself and my property against their attempted robbery, the police will escalate their force to whatever is necessary to take me down. If I just resist with my fists, they'll peber spray and/or club me and I'll get charged for violence against a police officer. [b]If I get my rifle, they'll retreat and come back with a SWAT team.[/b] If I give up, again, a long stay in jail awaits. If I fight back, they'll likely kill me.

Yes. They'll bring a SWAT team. Because you a threatening to [i]kill them[/i] for trying to collect a fine. Does it really surprise you that if you try to kill the police for collecting a fine, they'll try to stop you from doing that? Your complaint is that when you threaten to murder people, they try to stop you from doing that. I have problems sympathizing.

Smokeskin wrote:
I agree, but how many people have actual good advice available to them? They think the law protects them and don't really think much more about it, plus they already paid their taxes for it. In ancap, instead of being forced a consumer protection code on you by politicians who often had to [b]return some favors to their corporate backers for filling up the campaign fund[/b], you go out and choose your own among providers competeting for your order. They have a much clearer incentive to provide something that actually works than the politicians do.

That still doesn't answer my question with regards to how this makes a lack of governments a [i]better[/i] option. The government sets a minimum, and even if that minimum isn't the one desired by people, they can still boycott everyone who doesn't acquiesce their demands. Removing the government doesn't seem to do anything in this situation except [i]remove[/i] certain guarantees.

Smokeskin wrote:
And I don't believe that anyone but the most reckless consumer would ever accept any service or product if they had no guarantee at all about the veracity of the seller's claims. The corporations would be forced to accept private consumer protection codes, unlike today where you'd be laughed out almost anywhere if you tried that.

Why would they be forced to accept the private consumer protection codes? If you're going to answer "because people will go elsewhere", I'd like to point out that people could do that today, but as you say, they're laughed out almost everywhere. What about a government is it that prevents the kind of private consumer protection codes you idealize?

Smokeskin wrote:
Those things could just as easily be privately provided, and it would most likely be done much better.

For-profit health care seems to work out splendidly for the US, as does for-profit prisons. They even toyed with buy-in fire-departments once, and the fire department watched while a house burned down because they hadn't paid their protection money on time. As it happens, privatization of services tends to result in terrible institutions more concerned with profit than providing a service, as exemplified by the US health insurance and prisons. Or the UK postal service.

Smokeskin wrote:
Why would that be allowed in ancap?

Who'll stop them? How?

Smokeskin wrote:
Indenture is just a variation on that. Instead of an interest bearing loan that you might struggle under for years (or life if your education doesn't work out for you), you agree to a few years of work afterwards and then you're free. Some people would prefer that.

Because it'll surely be just a few years of slavery, rather than whatever the corporations can wring out of people by hiking the prices up to increase their profit margins.

Smokeskin wrote:
Laws against high interest loans keep poor people from getting access to the financing that could get them out of poverty.

And your solution to this is [i]slavery[/i]? That seems a bit counter-productive.

Smokeskin wrote:
By the way, how do you see a modern indenture contract working? Something along the lines of a large percentage of your pay? That sounds a lot like taxes - except the taxes aren't voluntary like an indenture contract is.

I imagine it'll work a lot like modern debt bondage. Which is, you know, slavery forced upon people experiencing economic hardship by forcing them into debt they cannot ever pay off with a contract to work it off by labour. The net result of which are people perpetually bound by contracts to work, with no economic or employment freedom. Taxes generally don't do this, among other things because taxes are rather often calculated based on income and wealth, rather than an eternal sinkhole of interests based on money you don't have.

—

@-rep +2 C-rep +1

Tue, 2014-02-04 19:57

#81

Equinox

Hi first post

I have a question. in a ancap system who own's the road's and how do you keep that person or person's from abusing there ownership in a way that is as bad and inefficient as the way they say the state is. i.e. can the owner of the road's confine someone to a city block and have a security contracter back them up because they dont have to let someone cross there private property if they don't want. i.e can the owner of the road's buy up or under cut all other businesses in the area and use economies of scale to keep new businesses from competing with them.

Tue, 2014-02-04 21:13

#82

Steel Accord Steel Accord's picture

Brief explanation

Equinox wrote:
I have a question. in a ancap system who own's the road's and how do you keep that person or person's from abusing there ownership in a way that is as bad and inefficient as the way they say the state is. i.e. can the owner of the road's confine someone to a city block and have a security contracter back them up because they dont have to let someone cross there private property if they don't want. i.e can the owner of the road's buy up or under cut all other businesses in the area and use economies of scale to keep new businesses from competing with them.

While I'm sure Smokeskin could give you a more detailed description, basically yes, but with no assurance that it will pan out in the end. Let's say John Gobstopper made a highway out of Ponyville. He decided to keep it his personal highway so he hired a group to keep everypony else off of it. Okay. It's his road, he can do what he wants with it. However, if it's the ONLY way out of Ponyville, nothing's stopping somepony else from building their own highway, in this case, let's say Railright. If Gobstopper has a problem with that, he doesn't have two legs to stand on because that road isn't his property. If he wants to maintain a violent monopoly through the use of his hired force, first off, there are gonna be plenty of ponies just straight up hiking out of Ponyville. Second off, it's a more costly investment to retain a security group just to maintain a highway monopoly than it is to simply let another be built and keep your own. Lastly, a monopoly is virtually impossible to maintain without external regulation, e.g. the state. Even if Gobstopper was obsessed with his highway, (I don't know, his grandmother's ashes are under it or something), he can't keep other businesses from trying to compete with him, no matter how big his is or small theirs is. And when your company's policy is gunpoint extortion, who do you think people (or ponies) are gonna buy from? You or your competitors?

—

Your passion is power. Focus it. Your body is a tool. Hone it. Transhummanity is a pantheon. Exalt it!

Tue, 2014-02-04 21:23

#83

Kremlin K.O.A. Kremlin K.O.A.'s picture

ShadowDragon8685 wrote: You

ShadowDragon8685 wrote:
You're simultaneously attempting to espouse two fundamentally opposed concepts.

How precisely does that make Steel Accord different from 99.9% of the human race?

Steel Accord wrote:
That's ultimately what it comes down to isn't it? You believe the majority of people are inherently evil, I believe they are not. So, you believe the best kind of society is where no one is able to do assert a position of power, regardless of motivation because that motivation is most likely for the ill of all. All right, I can respect that. It's not a view I share nor will I ever. I don't want to convince you that you are wrong, I just wanted to get some clarity if anypony was going through something similar. You clearly have given this plenty of thought and research to your feelings and Smokeskin faaaaaaar outranks me in the debate category. Good for both of you.

Steel I also think the majority of people are good...ish. They try not to be assholes and occasionally help people. They don't help to their full ability, but they don't actively screw over people they encounter. The thing is, it only takes a small minority to screw everyone over.

Quote:
Me? I'm just a brony who also happens to be against the state as a necessary institution. I came to this belief because I don't think people need government. I believe people to be good and that, even in positions of great power and at liberty to do with that power as they please, they would not abuse it at the expense of others.

Consider this, put the residents of Ponyville in a society without a state. How do you think they will end up? A: Form a local council? B: Form an An Cap society? C: Form an Anarcho-Socialist society? D: Other? Personally I suspect the answer to be A or C. BTW if you want to see a real world example of an An Cap society... we did have one. In 1991 the government of Somalia collapsed. For the next 15 years, Somalia had no functioning government, and people lived by personal agreements and contracts. Somalia 1991-2006 was out first example of a society living under an An-Cap structure. Like every other structure tried, the reality did not match the ideal. That said, I like seeing ideologists in the world. It gives me a sense of hope. So, even if this thread kills your An-Cap idealism, please keep that spark of idealism and find a new ideology to link it to. (Maybe An-Soc if you want a stateless world the residents of Ponyville would be happy in.) I also find it an interesting thought that the residents of Ponyville would be the perfect population to make the EP rep economy work.

Tue, 2014-02-04 21:26

#84

ShadowDragon8685 ShadowDragon8685's picture

Steel Accord wrote:Let's say

Steel Accord wrote:
Let's say John Gobstopper made a highway out of Ponyville. He decided to keep it his personal highway so he hired a group to keep everypony else off of it. Okay. It's his road, he can do what he wants with it.

Why? Because he bought up common land to make it a road? Even assuming privatized toll roads are an allowable thing under Equestrian law, he's not just running a privatized toll road, he's intentionally manipulating his control of the road to screw over others and serve himself, [i]not[/i] running a toll road as a toll road. I do believe Her Majesty's Office of Roads and Rights-of-Way would have issue with this practice. Oh, right, you don't believe in laws. What're you gonna do, kill off Celestia and Luna and Twilight Sparkle and Cadence and Shining Armor and Blueblood? Because they sure as hell aren't gonna let you establish Glorious AnCap in Equestria otherwise. (Okay, you can kill Blueblood if you want, I won't raise a hoof to stop you.) Just because something is "yours" doesn't mean you should be allowed to be a dick to others with it.

Quote:
However, if it's the ONLY way out of Ponyville, nothing's stopping somepony else from building their own highway, in this case, let's say Railright.

Sure it is. He can buy up a road-shaped portion of land [i]all around[/i] Ponyville. Railright can't build his road over John Gobstopper's road. That would give him quite an effective monopoly on the only way out of town, especially if his road is vigorously patrolled to keep the proles off without paying.

Quote:
If Gobstopper has a problem with that, he doesn't have two legs to stand on because that road isn't his property. If he wants to maintain a violent monopoly through the use of his hired force, first off, there are gonna be plenty of ponies just straight up hiking out of Ponyville. Second off, it's a more costly investment to retain a security group just to maintain a highway monopoly than it is to simply let another be built and keep your own.

Yes, because allowing a pony to hire a band of mercenaries and [i]wreck[/i] a thriving town in absence of any organized power willing and able to crush him utterly is [i]such[/i] a good idea. Oh wait, no, that other thing. Also, it may be costly to keep a monopoly, but the dividends of having a monopoly versus not having one are worth the cost. So he'll almost certainly do that if he can get away with it.

Kremlin K.O.A. wrote:
How precisely does that make Steel Accord different from 99.9% of the human race?

I was calling him out on it. "Just because a lot of people do it" doesn't mean it's acceptable.

Quote:
Consider this, put the residents of Ponyville in a society without a state. How do you think they will end up? A: Form a local council? B: Form an An Cap society? C: Form an Anarcho-Socialist society? D: Other? Personally I suspect the answer to be A or C.

Well, first off, I would point out that Twilight Sparkle is, in fact, royalty. I know, it's easy to forget that, since her only title besides Princess seems to be the Librarian of Ponyville Library, not exactly a prestigious landed title, but it's true. She is in fact a Princess. In the absence of any other governmental organs, including Their Majesties the Princessess Celestia, Luna, and Cadance, Twilight is [i]de facto[/i] Head of State, and the residents of Ponyville would most likely look to her for leadership and guidance. (How wise a move that would be is debatable, but it remains.) Assuming she's missing, though, and assuming the rest of the Elements of Harmony also turn up missing, as well as the mayor and other ponies who would normally constitute civil authority, the residents of Ponyville would most likely move quickly to reestablish their government as it was, probably by appointing the nearest thing to an authority figure they can find as emergency mayor, even if it's like, the director of the hospital or the town postmaster, while they organize an emergency election to put up a proper mayor, council, aldermen, etcetera. They would most definitely not permit Filthy Rich to simply buy up everything and make himself the contractual liege lord of the town. So, it would almost certainly be A: form a local council. (Followed quickly by sending all the fastest Pegasi in town to fly to the nearest towns and see if they're in similar straits.) If it wasn't A, though, then it would probably be something far more along the lines of Anarcho-Collectivism than Anarcho-Capitalism. In the absence of the state, bits would only hold any semblance of value for so long, and Ponyville ponies aren't the type to let anypony go hungry. I'd hope it would be D, though, Other. Rule by the best musician. Let the epic duel between Vinyl Scratch and Octavia commence! (Just kidding. They're totally besties.)

Quote:
Maybe An-Soc if you want a stateless world the residents of Ponyville would be happy in.

Maybe, maybe, but Ponyville residents haven't got any particular hate-on for hierarchy the way most An-Cols need to have to set up An-Col. They'd be more likely to set up an electoral council-based socialist state than go full horizontal, I think.

Quote:
I also find it an interesting thought that the residents of Ponyville would be the perfect population to make the EP rep economy work.

That would be amusing. Pinkie Pie's rep would be a permanent 100. It's pretty damn hard to want to ding the Element of Laughter.

—

Tue, 2014-02-04 21:47

#85

Steel Accord Steel Accord's picture

It will take more

Kremlin K.O.A. wrote:
ShadowDragon8685 wrote:
You're simultaneously attempting to espouse two fundamentally opposed concepts.
How precisely does that make Steel Accord different from 99.9% of the human race?
Steel Accord wrote:
That's ultimately what it comes down to isn't it? You believe the majority of people are inherently evil, I believe they are not. So, you believe the best kind of society is where no one is able to do assert a position of power, regardless of motivation because that motivation is most likely for the ill of all. All right, I can respect that. It's not a view I share nor will I ever. I don't want to convince you that you are wrong, I just wanted to get some clarity if anypony was going through something similar. You clearly have given this plenty of thought and research to your feelings and Smokeskin faaaaaaar outranks me in the debate category. Good for both of you.
Steel I also think the majority of people are good...ish. They try not to be assholes and occasionally help people. They don't help to their full ability, but they don't actively screw over people they encounter. The thing is, it only takes a small minority to screw everyone over.
Quote:
Me? I'm just a brony who also happens to be against the state as a necessary institution. I came to this belief because I don't think people need government. I believe people to be good and that, even in positions of great power and at liberty to do with that power as they please, they would not abuse it at the expense of others.
Consider this, put the residents of Ponyville in a society without a state. How do you think they will end up? A: Form a local council? B: Form an An Cap society? C: Form an Anarcho-Socialist society? D: Other? Personally I suspect the answer to be A or C. BTW if you want to see a real world example of an An Cap society... we did have one. In 1991 the government of Somalia collapsed. For the next 15 years, Somalia had no functioning government, and people lived by personal agreements and contracts. Somalia 1991-2006 was out first example of a society living under an An-Cap structure. Like every other structure tried, the reality did not match the ideal. That said, I like seeing ideologists in the world. It gives me a sense of hope. So, even if this thread kills your An-Cap idealism, please keep that spark of idealism and find a new ideology to link it to. (Maybe An-Soc if you want a stateless world the residents of Ponyville would be happy in.) I also find it an interesting thought that the residents of Ponyville would be the perfect population to make the EP rep economy work.

It will take more than an internet thread for me to change my opinion on Anarcho-Capitalism. And I'm just an idealist at heart, so that isn't going away. Also, I did make a habitat and faction based off of MLP if you are curious. http://eclipsephase.com/homebrew-faction-and-habitat-open-use

—

Your passion is power. Focus it. Your body is a tool. Hone it. Transhummanity is a pantheon. Exalt it!

Tue, 2014-02-04 21:50

#86

Steel Accord Steel Accord's picture

Just an example

ShadowDragon8685 wrote:
Steel Accord wrote:
Let's say John Gobstopper made a highway out of Ponyville. He decided to keep it his personal highway so he hired a group to keep everypony else off of it. Okay. It's his road, he can do what he wants with it.
Why? Because he bought up common land to make it a road? Even assuming privatized toll roads are an allowable thing under Equestrian law, he's not just running a privatized toll road, he's intentionally manipulating his control of the road to screw over others and serve himself, [i]not[/i] running a toll road as a toll road. I do believe Her Majesty's Office of Roads and Rights-of-Way would have issue with this practice. Oh, right, you don't believe in laws. What're you gonna do, kill off Celestia and Luna and Twilight Sparkle and Cadence and Shining Armor and Blueblood? Because they sure as hell aren't gonna let you establish Glorious AnCap in Equestria otherwise. (Okay, you can kill Blueblood if you want, I won't raise a hoof to stop you.) Just because something is "yours" doesn't mean you should be allowed to be a dick to others with it.
Quote:
However, if it's the ONLY way out of Ponyville, nothing's stopping somepony else from building their own highway, in this case, let's say Railright.
Sure it is. He can buy up a road-shaped portion of land [i]all around[/i] Ponyville. Railright can't build his road over John Gobstopper's road. That would give him quite an effective monopoly on the only way out of town, especially if his road is vigorously patrolled to keep the proles off without paying.
Quote:
If Gobstopper has a problem with that, he doesn't have two legs to stand on because that road isn't his property. If he wants to maintain a violent monopoly through the use of his hired force, first off, there are gonna be plenty of ponies just straight up hiking out of Ponyville. Second off, it's a more costly investment to retain a security group just to maintain a highway monopoly than it is to simply let another be built and keep your own.
Yes, because allowing a pony to hire a band of mercenaries and [i]wreck[/i] a thriving town in absence of any organized power willing and able to crush him utterly is [i]such[/i] a good idea. Oh wait, no, that other thing. Also, it may be costly to keep a monopoly, but the dividends of having a monopoly versus not having one are worth the cost. So he'll almost certainly do that if he can get away with it.
Kremlin K.O.A. wrote:
How precisely does that make Steel Accord different from 99.9% of the human race?
I was calling him out on it. "Just because a lot of people do it" doesn't mean it's acceptable.
Quote:
Consider this, put the residents of Ponyville in a society without a state. How do you think they will end up? A: Form a local council? B: Form an An Cap society? C: Form an Anarcho-Socialist society? D: Other? Personally I suspect the answer to be A or C.
Well, first off, I would point out that Twilight Sparkle is, in fact, royalty. I know, it's easy to forget that, since her only title besides Princess seems to be the Librarian of Ponyville Library, not exactly a prestigious landed title, but it's true. She is in fact a Princess. In the absence of any other governmental organs, including Their Majesties the Princessess Celestia, Luna, and Cadance, Twilight is [i]de facto[/i] Head of State, and the residents of Ponyville would most likely look to her for leadership and guidance. (How wise a move that would be is debatable, but it remains.) Assuming she's missing, though, and assuming the rest of the Elements of Harmony also turn up missing, as well as the mayor and other ponies who would normally constitute civil authority, the residents of Ponyville would most likely move quickly to reestablish their government as it was, probably by appointing the nearest thing to an authority figure they can find as emergency mayor, even if it's like, the director of the hospital or the town postmaster, while they organize an emergency election to put up a proper mayor, council, aldermen, etcetera. They would most definitely not permit Filthy Rich to simply buy up everything and make himself the contractual liege lord of the town. So, it would almost certainly be A: form a local council. (Followed quickly by sending all the fastest Pegasi in town to fly to the nearest towns and see if they're in similar straits.) If it wasn't A, though, then it would probably be something far more along the lines of Anarcho-Collectivism than Anarcho-Capitalism. In the absence of the state, bits would only hold any semblance of value for so long, and Ponyville ponies aren't the type to let anypony go hungry. I'd hope it would be D, though, Other. Rule by the best musician. Let the epic duel between Vinyl Scratch and Octavia commence! (Just kidding. They're totally besties.)
Quote:
Maybe An-Soc if you want a stateless world the residents of Ponyville would be happy in.
Maybe, maybe, but Ponyville residents haven't got any particular hate-on for hierarchy the way most An-Cols need to have to set up An-Col. They'd be more likely to set up an electoral council-based socialist state than go full horizontal, I think.
Quote:
I also find it an interesting thought that the residents of Ponyville would be the perfect population to make the EP rep economy work.
That would be amusing. Pinkie Pie's rep would be a permanent 100. It's pretty damn hard to want to ding the Element of Laughter.

I didn't mean for my Ponyville example to be taken literally, I was just trying to roughly explain the concept to someone unfamiliar with it and that was on my mind. Equestria still very much has a state. Albeit one run by divinity, so I don't have "as much" of a problem with it.

—

Your passion is power. Focus it. Your body is a tool. Hone it. Transhummanity is a pantheon. Exalt it!

Tue, 2014-02-04 21:51

#87

Kremlin K.O.A. Kremlin K.O.A.'s picture

Steel Accord wrote:Equinox

Steel Accord wrote:
Equinox wrote:
I have a question. in a ancap system who own's the road's and how do you keep that person or person's from abusing there ownership in a way that is as bad and inefficient as the way they say the state is. i.e. can the owner of the road's confine someone to a city block and have a security contracter back them up because they dont have to let someone cross there private property if they don't want. i.e can the owner of the road's buy up or under cut all other businesses in the area and use economies of scale to keep new businesses from competing with them.
While I'm sure Smokeskin could give you a more detailed description, basically yes, but with no assurance that it will pan out in the end. Let's say John Gobstopper made a highway out of Ponyville. He decided to keep it his personal highway so he hired a group to keep everypony else off of it. Okay. It's his road, he can do what he wants with it. However, if it's the ONLY way out of Ponyville, nothing's stopping somepony else from building their own highway, in this case, let's say Railright. If Gobstopper has a problem with that, he doesn't have two legs to stand on because that road isn't his property. If he wants to maintain a violent monopoly through the use of his hired force, first off, there are gonna be plenty of ponies just straight up hiking out of Ponyville. Second off, it's a more costly investment to retain a security group just to maintain a highway monopoly than it is to simply let another be built and keep your own. Lastly, a monopoly is virtually impossible to maintain without external regulation, e.g. the state. Even if Gobstopper was obsessed with his highway, (I don't know, his grandmother's ashes are under it or something), he can't keep other businesses from trying to compete with him, no matter how big his is or small theirs is. And when your company's policy is gunpoint extortion, who do you think people (or ponies) are gonna buy from? You or your competitors?

Highways aren't the roads to worry about. Look at a built up commercial district. There are about a half dozen roads leading into that area, and maybe a dozen internal streets. Buy them up and place small tolls on them to recoup costs. Raise the tolls over time. Raise them up enough that it reduces the value of businesses within your zone, but not enough that it is worth demolishing a bunch of buildings to add new roads to oppose you. Watch as the businesses inside go bankrupt from not being able to compete with other commercial zones. Buy up those businesses at firesale prices. Drop your tolls to encourage customers into the area. It only takes a small percentage (say 2%) of the population to wreck it for everyone.

Tue, 2014-02-04 22:02

#88

Kremlin K.O.A. Kremlin K.O.A.'s picture

Steel Accord wrote:

Steel Accord wrote:
It will take more than an internet thread for me to change my opinion on Anarcho-Capitalism. And I'm just an idealist at heart, so that isn't going away. Also, I did make a habitat and faction based off of MLP if you are curious. http://eclipsephase.com/homebrew-faction-and-habitat-open-use

Saw that thread, hadn't given it a good read through as of yet, will do so. But do look at my Somalia example. It is the only historical example of an AN-Cap society existing, it might be a good way to explore the break points.

Tue, 2014-02-04 22:18

#89

Equinox

@Steel Accord

Ok that covers highway but what about city streets. i.e. what if John Gobstopper own's the street around a shop, can he make someone pay whatever he want's and what choice would someone have to pay (de facto taxation) or go out of business.

Tue, 2014-02-04 22:21

#90

Equinox

I realiy need learn to write

I realiy need learn to write in english faster, sorry everyone.

Tue, 2014-02-04 22:37

#91

Steel Accord Steel Accord's picture

Tax and cities

Equinox wrote:
Ok that covers highway but what about city streets. i.e. what if John Gobstopper own's the street around a shop, can he make someone pay whatever he want's and what choice would someone have to pay (de facto taxation) or go out of business.

Well it wouldn't be a tax, because you are using his road. A tax, is a federal actor taking part of the labor to support itself. No one's saying you have to use his road, and you can always contest Gobstopper on his ownership through arbitration. I feel like someone with a stronger case would be the shop owners. After, if their customers don't want to pay Gobstopper's fees, then they want come to the shop. So they might be able to bargain with Gobstopper. Reduce the the price to use the road, and they'll share some of the shop's profit with him or some such. As for the idea of cities. Well that depends on what the city wants to do. Landowners, would lease space and specify what could be done on it. If a company, group, or even one person wanted to build an entire city, first they would buy the land. Anyone living within the confines of the city, would sign a contract containing that city's legal codes. These would include how businesses operated and were conducted. Some cities may only want their parent company and their partners running in them. Let's say Disney-City. (Oh how awesome would that be?! :D) Then again, other cities might allow any business enterprise to operate within it. Listen, I'm probably oversimplifying and missing some points. If you really want to understand it, Murray Rothbard is your guy. And don't worry, your english is fine.

—

Your passion is power. Focus it. Your body is a tool. Hone it. Transhummanity is a pantheon. Exalt it!

Wed, 2014-02-05 00:32

#92

Equinox

Thank you.

Steel Accord wrote:
Equinox wrote:
Ok that covers highway but what about city streets. i.e. what if John Gobstopper own's the street around a shop, can he make someone pay whatever he want's and what choice would someone have to pay (de facto taxation) or go out of business.
Well it wouldn't be a tax, because you are using his road. A tax, is a federal actor taking part of the labor to support itself. No one's saying you have to use his road, and you can always contest Gobstopper on his ownership through arbitration. I feel like someone with a stronger case would be the shop owners. After, if their customers don't want to pay Gobstopper's fees, then they want come to the shop. So they might be able to bargain with Gobstopper. Reduce the the price to use the road, and they'll share some of the shop's profit with him or some such. As for the idea of cities. Well that depends on what the city wants to do. Landowners, would lease space and specify what could be done on it. If a company, group, or even one person wanted to build an entire city, first they would buy the land. Anyone living within the confines of the city, would sign a contract containing that city's legal codes. These would include how businesses operated and were conducted. Some cities may only want their parent company and their partners running in them. Let's say Disney-City. (Oh how awesome would that be?! :D) Then again, other cities might allow any business enterprise to operate within it. Listen, I'm probably oversimplifying and missing some points. If you really want to understand it, Murray Rothbard is your guy. And don't worry, your english is fine.

Now i have one last question for you or anyone here. Suppose that there is a company that own's a five thousand square kilometer's, it can show that it uses all the land directly or through contract's with smaller company's, i.e. hunting and fishing or protecting the company's ground water that it sell's all the people living there agreed to it's contract. Now a child is born there and growns up to find he disagrees with the contract, the company tell's him he has two choice's he can agree to the contract and work to change the company from within or he can leave, he say's he will not agree but will not leave because all the good land taken by the company or it rivals. now heare is the question, how is this man's problem any different from the plight ancap's face and how would a ancap company handle it any different than a state could or would. also is this not how we got to where the world is today.

Wed, 2014-02-05 01:20

#93

Steel Accord Steel Accord's picture

I wasn't going to say it was.

Equinox wrote:
Steel Accord wrote:
Equinox wrote:
Ok that covers highway but what about city streets. i.e. what if John Gobstopper own's the street around a shop, can he make someone pay whatever he want's and what choice would someone have to pay (de facto taxation) or go out of business.
Well it wouldn't be a tax, because you are using his road. A tax, is a federal actor taking part of the labor to support itself. No one's saying you have to use his road, and you can always contest Gobstopper on his ownership through arbitration. I feel like someone with a stronger case would be the shop owners. After, if their customers don't want to pay Gobstopper's fees, then they want come to the shop. So they might be able to bargain with Gobstopper. Reduce the the price to use the road, and they'll share some of the shop's profit with him or some such. As for the idea of cities. Well that depends on what the city wants to do. Landowners, would lease space and specify what could be done on it. If a company, group, or even one person wanted to build an entire city, first they would buy the land. Anyone living within the confines of the city, would sign a contract containing that city's legal codes. These would include how businesses operated and were conducted. Some cities may only want their parent company and their partners running in them. Let's say Disney-City. (Oh how awesome would that be?! :D) Then again, other cities might allow any business enterprise to operate within it. Listen, I'm probably oversimplifying and missing some points. If you really want to understand it, Murray Rothbard is your guy. And don't worry, your english is fine.
Now i have one last question for you or anyone here. Suppose that there is a company that own's a five thousand square kilometer's, it can show that it uses all the land directly or through contract's with smaller company's, i.e. hunting and fishing or protecting the company's ground water that it sell's all the people living there agreed to it's contract. Now a child is born there and growns up to find he disagrees with the contract, the company tell's him he has two choice's he can agree to the contract and work to change the company from within or he can leave, he say's he will not agree but will not leave because all the good land taken by the company or it rivals. now heare is the question, how is this man's problem any different from the plight ancap's face and how would a ancap company handle it any different than a state could or would. also is this not how we got to where the world is today.

Well there's a variety of ways this problem could be solved. Yes, the landowner is completely within his rights to kick out the guy who is essentially a squatter, but were I in this position, I would think that's a bit harsh. So instead I would sit down with the man for a meeting. Specifically to address his grievances. I mean, if this guy was born on company property and both his parents worked for Awesome CO. and he still doesn't like us, we're CLEARLY doing something wrong. Perhaps this man has some innovative reform ideas, perhaps I could convince him to talk to the other employees and see if they have similar feelings. If not, or if his ideas don't really take, we could always negotiate the exact terms of his contract and come to a compromise. It's not like every employee contract for every position would be some faxed out, all encompassing, plaque. If even he still doesn't agree, I can always offer to sell him a part of the land to call his own and do with he wants. Within that portion, company policy and legal codes wouldn't matter. Yet, he would still be living in the same place. This helps both of us as he gets his autonomy, yet he still frequents the shops and services, he may even work at an unaffiliated burger chain. So he still nets me a profit gain. Everyone wins!

—

Your passion is power. Focus it. Your body is a tool. Hone it. Transhummanity is a pantheon. Exalt it!

Wed, 2014-02-05 01:51

#94

Smokeskin

ShadowDragon8685 wrote

ShadowDragon8685 wrote:
Smokeskin wrote:
No it is not. Anyone who hurt you would still be responsible for harming you and eligible for punishment. If you don't have any money there's going to be welfare to help you out, and/or you could have a security contract where the contractor gets all or a large part of the settlement - even if you can't get get any compensation it would at least provide a deterrence.
Eligible for [b]what[/b] punishment? I don't have a security contractor, and there aren't any fucking laws. [i]That's the point of Anarcho-Capitalism![/i] There's no law that says "Attacking another physically is a crime and punishable." There's only contracts, and [i]I don't have any contracts.[/i] I am a null entity in an Anarcho-Capitalist society, fair game.

There is still the non-aggression principle. It covers any non-contractual interaction. Committing violence against someone will make you eligible for punishment according to that, with the details worked out by common law. You have a wrong idea about the basic principle of ancap, so you continue to argue against a straw man.

Quote:
And no, there won't be any welfare. Welfare only exists when there are taxes to pay for them, and there are only taxes when there is a state monopoly on force.

People can voluntarily pay to private welfare institutions, just like they voluntarily vote for politicians that will increase their taxes. The idea that no one wants to pay for welfare is not rooted in truth. There is a freeloader issue obviously, but that's the price of freedom - some people will use it in ways you don't agree with. I favor social ostracizing to deal with people like that.

Quote:
And if I have a contract where a security provider gets some/all of any settlement that might otherwise come my way because I haven't the money to buy a better contract, what then? I am predated upon, I am harmed, and I have no redress. The security contractor may be a deterrant, but not a lot of one, and when I am harmed, [i]I[/i] get shafted twice - first by the guy who fucked me over, and then by the security contractor who took what was to be my recompense for the damage I suffered. So my situation only gets better, and the security contractor's looks brighter.

Why would it be any less of a deterrant than the police is today? And remember, you're talking the absolutely worst case - you don't have the money for protection yourself and for some reason you've avoided welfare payment. You're still getting protection though, on something like a no-cure-no-pay lawyer agreement where the people helping you out of course gets a percentage of the winnings.

Quote:

Quote:
Well, generally they will enforce any contract that both parties agreed to without coercion.
Guess what? There is no contract signed without duress when it's being signed between a little guy and a big guy. I don't have the option of "shopping around," the almighty free market does not provide me with paletable alternatives. I can get fucked by means of A, I can get fucked by means of B, I can get fucked by means of C, but at the end of the day, I'm still covered in lube and regret, and the smugly-satisfied other party is the one who got a judgement handed down in his favor because that was how the contract was worded.
Quote:
Otherwise the non-agression principle and common law still apply. You can't just hire a crazy judge and then everyone will have to do what he says.
You don't need a crazy judge. You just need a crazy contract that I don't have any choice but to sign. And when the alternatives to signing are "get predated upon" and "asphyxiate," I don't have much of a choice but to sign, do I? No, I don't.

Don't sign the contract if you don't like it. If someone coerces you or predates upon you, go get a security contractor. If you're out of money, get another job or get welfare (I know you think that the widespread support for welfare will disappear but I still don't know why).

Wed, 2014-02-05 04:31

#95

Smokeskin

LatwPIAT wrote:Smokeskin

LatwPIAT wrote:
Smokeskin wrote:
In my experience, when you say "police" people think of them in their benevolent role - catching criminals that hurt and steal. They don't even begin to consider their other roles. So I describe them like they are. I also describe things like "jail" in as it is - being kidnapped and locked in a small room. I call taxes robbery and extortion. For some reason, we have this double vocabulary where the state's actions are described with totally different words that carry a totally different meaning, and it makes it very hard to think accuratedly about how the state operates.
Yes. You say this like it's some profound revelation, yet you seem to ignore the simple truth; the reason we have different words for when the state does something and when private persons does something is because quite a lot of people [recognize/believe] that there is a functional difference between the police putting someone in a small room (with the use of force if necessary) to prevent that person from committing further crimes (/rehabilitation/punishment) and private persons locking up other private persons for harmful reasons.

I agree that there is a difference when we're talking about the benevolent part of police work like catching violent criminals. If you rob, rape, assault or kill people, of to jail you go. However, why is sugarcoated like that when when it is the police that is doing the robbing? Or when people are arrested for victimless crimes, like the war on drugs? Do you agree with kidnapping and locking people up in a small room for a long time for possession of some weed? How many lives are ruined by such laws and police work, without the "criminals" ever having been guilty of harming anyone? How is that morally justifiable?

Quote:

Smokeskin wrote:
If I fail to pay a fine and continue to not pay, eventually a lawyer, a judge and the police will show up to take my possessions from me (the details might de slightly different in your country, but the essence is the same). If I protect myself and my property against their attempted robbery, the police will escalate their force to whatever is necessary to take me down. If I just resist with my fists, they'll peber spray and/or club me and I'll get charged for violence against a police officer. [b]If I get my rifle, they'll retreat and come back with a SWAT team.[/b] If I give up, again, a long stay in jail awaits. If I fight back, they'll likely kill me.
Yes. They'll bring a SWAT team. Because you a threatening to [i]kill them[/i] for trying to collect a fine. Does it really surprise you that if you try to kill the police for collecting a fine, they'll try to stop you from doing that? Your complaint is that when you threaten to murder people, they try to stop you from doing that. I have problems sympathizing.

So now we agree that the police will kill me if I try to protect myself. If anyone else came to my house and tried to extort me for protection money, would I not be allowed to defend myself either? If an armed criminal showed up, wouldn't I be allowed to present my rifle and tell him he's not getting in? And when he raises his gun to aim and shoot at me, am I not allowed to fire back? I think almost everyone agrees that anyone else robbing you, you'd have the moral right to defend yourself. However, when we're talking cops people react with horror. But we have to remember that when they come to collect taxes (and many fines), they're not acting in the role of preventing violent crime. They're extorting money for the state. Do they have the moral right to do so? I don't see where they get that. Democratic citizens don't have the right to rob people for things they would like to give money to, so they have no right they can transfer to anyone else, do they? How can their proxies, the politician and the cop, then gain that right? Is it wrong to protect yourself against cops because they're just doing that job? Obviously not - if the state doesn't have the moral right, then it is no excuse to just be doing your job. The argument wouldn't work for the mafia foot soldier running a protection racket either. As I said earlier, if this was just about welfare for the poor, I probably wouldn't mind. But it is not. They're extorting money not just for good things, not even just unnecessary things like cultural activities - they're extorting people to fund morally repugnant activities like the war on drugs. Like the comtinued wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. If I had said that after removing Saddam, I didn't agree with the continued war effort, so I'd withhold 0.1% of my taxes and refused to pay it, they'd come and kill me if that's what it took to get their money. They'd add fine after fine and then scale up to robbery and assault with a deadly weapon. Does that strike you as morally right? And yeah, I can just pay. Which I do because I don't want to end up dead. But that doesn't make extortion under threat of death even remotely morally right. If the mob really tried to shake me down, I'd pay them too.

Quote:

Smokeskin wrote:
I agree, but how many people have actual good advice available to them? They think the law protects them and don't really think much more about it, plus they already paid their taxes for it. In ancap, instead of being forced a consumer protection code on you by politicians who often had to [b]return some favors to their corporate backers for filling up the campaign fund[/b], you go out and choose your own among providers competeting for your order. They have a much clearer incentive to provide something that actually works than the politicians do.
That still doesn't answer my question with regards to how this makes a lack of governments a [i]better[/i] option. The government sets a minimum, and even if that minimum isn't the one desired by people, they can still boycott everyone who doesn't acquiesce their demands. Removing the government doesn't seem to do anything in this situation except [i]remove[/i] certain guarantees.

Only a state could implement something like limited liability for example.

Quote:

Smokeskin wrote:
And I don't believe that anyone but the most reckless consumer would ever accept any service or product if they had no guarantee at all about the veracity of the seller's claims. The corporations would be forced to accept private consumer protection codes, unlike today where you'd be laughed out almost anywhere if you tried that.
Why would they be forced to accept the private consumer protection codes? If you're going to answer "because people will go elsewhere", I'd like to point out that people could do that today, but as you say, they're laughed out almost everywhere. What about a government is it that prevents the kind of private consumer protection codes you idealize?

You buy products today because you have some protection from the law. Being denied some extra protection typically won't make enough of a difference for you to refuse a product. It works in a few limited cases like environmental friendly labels for some people, but generally people accept that they're not getting the full protection they deserve. In ancap, you wouldn't have any protection if you didn't choose it. How many products would you buy if there was zero guarantee for anything about it? I hope you're going to say "practically none". There's an obvious risk there that you should avoid. So you go looking for a consumer protection code on the free market. I don't expect anyone could get exactly what they wanted (a consumer code that is not known by corporations would be problematic for anything but the largest purchases), but there'd a few options to choose from, with maybe a few optional choices for each. Sort of like say the operating system market where software producers adapt their products to run on the major ones, they'd adapt their products to the major codes, perhaps with a price difference. The main difference would be that you as a consumer would purchase your consumer protection rights directly. Compare those incentives to that of the politicians. What are the odds that some change the politician makes or fails to make to consumer rights is going to affect his next election? Close to zero. But what about the lobbyist whose corporate backers are greatly affected by such changes? That's important enough to warrant lots of good stuff for the politician like campaign contributions, consultancy fees, lucrative token board positions. Politicians have STRONG incentives to favor lobbyists over voters, and as actual politics show again and again, they do.

Quote:

Smokeskin wrote:
Those things could just as easily be privately provided, and it would most likely be done much better.
For-profit health care seems to work out splendidly for the US, as does for-profit prisons. They even toyed with buy-in fire-departments once, and the fire department watched while a house burned down because they hadn't paid their protection money on time. As it happens, privatization of services tends to result in terrible institutions more concerned with profit than providing a service, as exemplified by the US health insurance and prisons. Or the UK postal service.

In other places like France, a competitive health services market has given probably the best health care system on the planet. In Denmark and the UK, public health care is absolutely abysmal. I'd argue that the US health care and insurance system is not a free market but a system rigged by regulation to screw over consumers and put money in corporate pockets.

Quote:

Smokeskin wrote:
Why would that be allowed in ancap?
Who'll stop them? How?

By verbal or written agreement, if you buy something and the seller delivers less, you can sue them. The case is handled through private courts and the ruling carried out by the winning party or his security contractor.

Quote:

Smokeskin wrote:
Indenture is just a variation on that. Instead of an interest bearing loan that you might struggle under for years (or life if your education doesn't work out for you), you agree to a few years of work afterwards and then you're free. Some people would prefer that.
Because it'll surely be just a few years of slavery, rather than whatever the corporations can wring out of people by hiking the prices up to increase their profit margins.

I'm sure they'd like that, but of course an indenture contract should be considered carefully. Agreeing to one where the contract owner can control your costs and extend the duration is obviously setting yourself up for getting screwed.

Quote:

Smokeskin wrote:
Laws against high interest loans keep poor people from getting access to the financing that could get them out of poverty.
And your solution to this is [i]slavery[/i]? That seems a bit counter-productive.

No, I say allow people to get hight interest loans if that's what hey want, and if some prefer indenture, let them do that. And really, indenture isn't slavery. Slavery is forced, indenture is voluntary.

Quote:

Smokeskin wrote:
By the way, how do you see a modern indenture contract working? Something along the lines of a large percentage of your pay? That sounds a lot like taxes - except the taxes aren't voluntary like an indenture contract is.
I imagine it'll work a lot like modern debt bondage. Which is, you know, slavery forced upon people experiencing economic hardship by forcing them into debt they cannot ever pay off with a contract to work it off by labour. The net result of which are people perpetually bound by contracts to work, with no economic or employment freedom. Taxes generally don't do this, among other things because taxes are rather often calculated based on income and wealth, rather than an eternal sinkhole of interests based on money you don't have.

An indenture contract really should work in the way that you do the time and then its over. You can choose to enter a different kind of indenture contract, but that seems to defy the purpose - if you're still carrying interest on your debt, why not just stick to a normal loan? The point of indenture is that it is a bit like an insurance contract - the indenturee knows exactly how much time he has to put in (like your insurance premium), and the indenture holder is making a bet that the indenturee will be highly profitable (the insurance equivalent of the house not burning). High interest loans however, they can last forever, and your concern there is spot on. Certain forms of endless debt would likely be worse in ancap. Ancap is a change, and it will have both positive and negative effects - and it should be judged by the net effects. On the positive side, you have poor people who get access to student loans and actually escape poverty. The exact same loan type that makes that possible can screw over other people. We also shouldn't exagerate how much worse it will be. There will still be competition on the loan market, and people will choose the lowest interest rates available to them. People will also have the option of getting a proper consumer protection code that will flag some of the devious shit in small print there is in some loan contracts, which is a much more serious issue for getting trapped in debt than the obvious interest rate in my opinion, and something where our current laws fail abysmally. See my explanation above on lobbyism and politician incentives for why I think that is so.

Wed, 2014-02-05 05:06

#96

thezombiekat thezombiekat's picture

Steel Accord wrote:

Steel Accord wrote:
So instead I would sit down with the man for a meeting. Specifically to address his grievances. I mean, if this guy was born on company property and both his parents worked for Awesome CO. and he still doesn't like us, we're CLEARLY doing something wrong.

Well you have a hell of a lot of spare time on your hands, or you’re paying a lot of agents to do this kind of thing. Over the last few decades Australia has had a strong debate over the merits of individual contracts or collective bargaining, we had strong powers for unions (supported by a labour government) to represent workers and the contracts negotiated tended to be inflexable. Employers complained that there was no opportunity for flexibility, and pointed out the handful of employs who would be better off working 7-3 instead of 9-5 (so they could pick up the kids after school, the other parent dropped them off before working 9-5) the companies pointed out that they could not grant such requests because the collective contract specified any work before 900AM was overtime and must be payed time and a half. To paraphrase The Dude “they weren’t wrong, just assholes” when the government (now a liberal government) allowed companies to insist on individual agreements companies started offering employs contracts that where flexible in ways that benefited the employer, for example putting people on 5-1 and 1-9 shifts, or having an employ work a split shift while providing no benefit that actually applied to the employs in question. The contracts workers signed where not actually negotiated at all. They were drawn up by the company, copied and presented to each employ on a “sign this or I won’t have a job for you” basis. The employs who actually had wanted some flexibility to their benefit did not generally get it.

Quote:
It's not like every employee contract for every position would be some faxed out, all encompassing, plaque.

This is what we had, at least for everybody in the same position, only people with very high demand skills had any say in what was in their contract. Or ability to negotiate a flexibility that helped them. When labour got into power again (because people saw just how badly a company could abuse a potential employ with no threat greater than continued unemployment) collective bargaining got a bit more power but they put in a system that allowed individual variations with mutual agreement that where genuinely of benefit to the employee (if it is not the employ can challenge it), and ether the employer or employee could end the variation with a minimum notice period. Liberal (our more corporate friendly party) is now claiming that they need to change the system to allow more flexibility or both employees and employers. I may have worked this thread out. Steel Accord has spent too much time around bronies. He thinks they represent the wider society. I know little about the show or the community but I get the impression that it attracts nice people who want to be with nice people and are willing to be nice just to make shore everybody can be nice. Every quote or meme from the show has been about being nice in one way or another. A community of those people could use any economic system you want and it would work well just because they are all very nice people. The majority of people in the real world are nice but not nice enough to stick there neck out for a stranger. They will look out for themselves but won’t screw over another for personal gain. There is a minority of people in the real world who are not nice and would be happy to take advantage of others to gain power, and use that power to take advantage of more people. Most people won’t act to prevent that until it happens to somebody they know, or it becomes sensational. And then they usually don’t then manage to form an organised response, a quick complaint and feeling bad because one man can’t make a difference is all most people can manage. That said I think I worked out something that could limit the excesses of power in an an-cap society. a well defined reputation system, and a consumer base that predominantly cares about the social impact of the products they purchase. In this environment a service would be provided that tracks who uses immoral practices and what products are ultimately made from those products. Example, AAA steel mines asteroids using exploitative indenture labour, the hidden penalty clauses mean the average worker will work for 5 times as long as the original contract term that was only 5% shorter than other contracts of similar value. The morality tracking service notes this and also notes who they sell the steel to. Most people subscribe to a morality tracking system (there would be competition) and when they go to buy food and look at a tin of beans it warns them, “this tin is made of steel mined with exploitative labour, estimated 2% of your purchase price will go to the exploiter” so the customer chooses a different tin of beans and dings the rep of the brand of beans. When buying a bag of flower you are warned “this brand of flower is owned by somebody who uses steel made with exploitative labour, but none of that steel is used in this product” so the customer has to decide just how anti exploitative steel they are, considering the alternative brand of flower gets the warning “the manufacturer refused to disclose supply chain information, no morality index available” If the majority of consumers are willing to dynamically boycott exploitative products, and can access information on upstream practices that easily it would become sufficiently disadvantageous to employ exploitative practises, or buy from somebody who uses such practices and potentially taint your entire product line. I suspect the “failed to disclose supply chain information” tag would be pure poison and thus all companies would make the necessary disclosers to avoid it. Similarly failure to contribute a socially acceptable amount of your earnings to a welfare supplier would negatively impact your reputation, so people will refuse to do business with you.

Wed, 2014-02-05 05:13

#97

Kremlin K.O.A. Kremlin K.O.A.'s picture

Smokeskin wrote:

Smokeskin wrote:
There is still the non-aggression principle. It covers any non-contractual interaction. Committing violence against someone will make you eligible for punishment according to that, with the details worked out by common law.

Please elaborate on this common law concept. Because apparently in An Cap common law means something very different to what it means today.

Quote:
People can voluntarily pay to private welfare institutions, just like they voluntarily vote for politicians that will increase their taxes. The idea that no one wants to pay for welfare is not rooted in truth. There is a freeloader issue obviously, but that's the price of freedom - some people will use it in ways you don't agree with. I favor social ostracizing to deal with people like that.

Out of curiosity, what about you? If tomorrow, your glorious revolution came and Denmark was rebuild as an An Cap nation... You no longer pay any taxes, and have the same income you do now. How much, in percentage, of your income would you voluntarily give to welfare systems? How much would you give into education systems? How much would you give into infrastructure maintenance and expansion?

Wed, 2014-02-05 05:23

#98

Smokeskin

Kremlin K.O.A. wrote:

Kremlin K.O.A. wrote:
BTW if you want to see a real world example of an An Cap society... we did have one. In 1991 the government of Somalia collapsed. For the next 15 years, Somalia had no functioning government, and people lived by personal agreements and contracts. Somalia 1991-2006 was out first example of a society living under an An-Cap structure. Like every other structure tried, the reality did not match the ideal.

That was certainly not ancap. They had no functioning markets, no insurance no security contractors, no private courts. The most basic thing you need to bootstrap an ancap society is security contracts and the underlying insurance structure. Just like most of us has insurance to cover our house burning down, life insurance, disability insurance etc. you'd have a security contract that had an underlying insurance. Just like the current insurances that are perfectly affordable to most yet are able to pay out huge insurance sums if an accident befalls you, your security contracts underlying insurance would be able to pay out huge amounts (I personally believe that it would be unlimited in many cases and the security contractors would have a musketeer agreement that kicked in for threats above a certain threshold - it makes sense as deterrant, and current reinsurance agreements work de facto in the same way). Your security contract says that the security contractor will protect you and avenge you if someone breaks the non-aggression principle against you or don't honor the contracts they've made with you. If someone doesn't play nice and fair, the underlying insurance kicks in, pays the insurance contractor who then dispatches the men with guns. Now we have a society that has peace, security and rule of law. Harm people, and you will get punished. Break your contracts, you will be punished. That's the basis we need to start building a proper society. Somalia didn't have that, and without that, you don't have anarcho-capitalism, you just have chaos. Anarcho-capitalism is NOT the absence of security or law - it is security and law provided on a private market. I hope you can see the difference to Somalia. You could just as easily claim Somalia had a democratic welfare state because people could just throw an election and the elected politicians could then ask for taxes and then hire cops. Without some basic institutions in place you don't a democracy, just like you don't have anarcho-capitalism with its basic institutions. And here's what goes through the head of a savvy ancap entrenpeneur just minutes after the ancap society is bootstrapped into existence: Hey, who's that in the back that don't look too happy? It's KremlinKOA, ShadowDragon and Smokeskin. They seem really worried about the poor not having a security contract, or food. Better go talk to them. "Hey guys! Guys! I'm setting up this company, Welfare First, to get money to the needy so they can get security contracts and housing and food and health insurance. Wanna be my first customers?" And next thing you know, there's a competitive welfare market up and running, with smart people trying to be creative in squeezing out the most welfare bang for the buck, because that draws in the paying customers and that's what keeps a welfare company profitable and afloat in the market. Instead of that lame, unambitious welfare project the states run.

Wed, 2014-02-05 05:50

#99

Smokeskin

Equinox wrote:Ok that covers

Equinox wrote:
Ok that covers highway but what about city streets. i.e. what if John Gobstopper own's the street around a shop, can he make someone pay whatever he want's and what choice would someone have to pay (de facto taxation) or go out of business.

I've helped set up many private streets (and sewers and water supply and other utilities, the same problem applies). The state here in Denmark doesn't want to pay for the construction and maintence of new infrastructure, so it is up to the private market to handle it when we develop new areas for housing. What you do is create a cooperative that owns the roads and utilities, it has a charter that stipulates how maintenance and administrative costs are handled and capped, and how decisions are made (typically plot owners get a vote per plot or square meter). The stakes in the cooperative are then assigned to each plot. The cooperative then makes a contract with the major road access, owner of the main sewage line and water pipe etc., on fees for connection and future access. You should never accept buying a building without a contractual agreement with the street owner. If the state was abolished, transfer of street ownership would be a transitionary issue that would need to be resolved, preferably along the lines of how new private roads are handled - give stakes in it to the connected plots, or at least make acceptable contracts with the plot owners before you auction off the roads.

Wed, 2014-02-05 09:12

#100

LatwPIAT

Smokeskin wrote:Or when

Smokeskin wrote:
Or when people are arrested for victimless crimes, like the war on drugs? Do you agree with kidnapping and locking people up in a small room for a long time for possession of some weed? How many lives are ruined by such laws and police work, without the "criminals" ever having been guilty of harming anyone? How is that morally justifiable?

You know as well as I do that unjust laws have [i]nothing[/i] to do with the discussion at hand. Especially since you can just... get rid of unjust laws. Through legal and democratic processes.

Smokeskin wrote:
So now we agree that the police will kill me if I try to protect myself.

Why, it's almost as if the police are armed because they have to deal with armed criminals willing to shoot to avoid paying back their debts!

Smokeskin wrote:
But we have to remember that when they come to collect taxes (and many fines), they're not acting in the role of preventing violent crime. They're extorting money for the state.

Money that pays for, among other things, the police so they can protect you from violent crime. And property crime. And maintaining the legal system that protects you from violent crime (by convicting violent criminals) And the army, to protect you from violent enemy armies. And your health care. The health care of violent criminals, so they're less violent and less criminal. And welfare, so less people turn to crime out of desperation.

Smokeskin wrote:
Do they have the moral right to do so? I don't see where they get that. Democratic citizens don't have the right to rob people for things they would like to give money to, so they have no right they can transfer to anyone else, do they? How can their proxies, the politician and the cop, then gain that right?

That right extends as a mandate from the masses.

Smokeskin wrote:
Only a state could implement something like limited liability for example.

I don't see why limited liability is exclusive to the state. What about non-states makes limited liability impossible?

Smokeskin wrote:
How many products would you buy if there was zero guarantee for anything about it? I hope you're going to say "practically none". There's an obvious risk there that you should avoid. So you go looking for a consumer protection code on the free market.

You seem almost dogmatically convinced that there will [i]always[/i] be the possibility of switching to a "better" alternative. However, if my options are "eat food with no protection it's not filled with polonium" and "starve to death", I don't really have the option of avoiding the obvious risk of no protections - my only other option is [i]certain death[/i].

Smokeskin wrote:
In other places like France, a competitive health services market has given probably the best health care system on the planet. In Denmark and the UK, public health care is absolutely abysmal.

Wow, really? You're using the old lie that the UK public health is absolutely abysmal? It's not like the UK is healthier (according to the OECD) than France, at less cost per capita. It's not like the NHS is notoriously more efficient at using money than private industries or anything... France has perhaps the best health system in the world... and the third most expensive per capita among OECD countries. This [i]Fox News[/i] level arguments about state health care systems.

Smokeskin wrote:
I'm sure they'd like that, but of course an indenture contract should be considered carefully. Agreeing to one where the contract owner can control your costs and extend the duration is obviously setting yourself up for getting screwed.

Yet somehow I don't think the millions of people stuck in indentured debt bondage in India and Pakistan today had any real choice in the matter when they signed their contracts. The choice is is not "evil slavery contract" and "good slavery contract", it's "evil slavery contract" and "starve to death".

Smokeskin wrote:
And really, indenture isn't slavery. Slavery is forced, indenture is voluntary.

Playing games with words? Indenture [i]is[/i] slavery in all but name. You can sell yourself into slavery, and the indenture is usually forced upon people by predatory economics.

Smokeskin wrote:
High interest loans however, they can last forever, and your concern there is spot on. Certain forms of endless debt would likely be worse in ancap. Ancap is a change, and it will have both positive and negative effects - and it should be judged by the net effects. On the positive side, you have poor people who get access to student loans and actually escape poverty. The exact same loan type that makes that possible can screw over other people. We also shouldn't exagerate how much worse it will be. There will still be competition on the loan market, and people will choose the lowest interest rates available to them. People will also have the option of getting a proper consumer protection code that will flag some of the devious shit in small print there is in some loan contracts, which is a much more serious issue for getting trapped in debt than the obvious interest rate in my opinion, and something where our current laws fail abysmally. See my explanation above on lobbyism and politician incentives for why I think that is so.

So... endless debt will get [i]worse[/i], and we've legalized slavery to let people not get out of it? High-interest student loans will [i]somehow[/i] let people get ahead in life... rather than landing them with endless debt that they'll pay off, and this the way you've described it, through [i]slave labour[/i]? You talk and talk and talk about how open markets for everything will let people always choose the best option... yet I have seen absolutely nothing whatsoever in what you've said to convince me that people will always have the ability to choose the best option, rather than the choice between death and accepting a contract designed to screw them over one way or another.

—

@-rep +2 C-rep +1

Wed, 2014-02-05 09:48

#101

Smokeskin

Kremlin K.O.A. wrote

Kremlin K.O.A. wrote:
Smokeskin wrote:
There is still the non-aggression principle. It covers any non-contractual interaction. Committing violence against someone will make you eligible for punishment according to that, with the details worked out by common law.
Please elaborate on this common law concept. Because apparently in An Cap common law means something very different to what it means today.

Common law is exactly what wikipedia says on it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law A few relevant extracts from wikipedia: A common law legal system is a system of law characterized by case law which is law developed by judges through decisions of courts. In contrast to common law systems, civil law systems are founded on a set of legal codes. A common law system is a legal system that gives great potential precedential weight to common law,[5] on the principle that it is unfair to treat similar facts differently on different occasions. One third of the world's population (approximately 2.3 billion people) live in common law jurisdictions or in systems mixed with civil law The common law is more malleable than statutory law. First, common law courts are not absolutely bound by precedent, but can (when extraordinarily good reason is shown) reinterpret and revise the law, without legislative intervention, to adapt to new trends in political, legal and social philosophy. Second, the common law evolves through a series of gradual steps, that gradually works out all the details, so that over a decade or more, the law can change substantially but without a sharp break, thereby reducing disruptive effects.[27] In contrast to common law incrementalism, the legislative process is very difficult to get started, as legislatures tend to delay action until a situation is totally intolerable.[citation needed] For these reasons, legislative changes tend to be large, jarring and disruptive (sometimes positively, sometimes negatively, and sometimes with unintended consequences).
Kremlin K.O.A. wrote:

Quote:
People can voluntarily pay to private welfare institutions, just like they voluntarily vote for politicians that will increase their taxes. The idea that no one wants to pay for welfare is not rooted in truth. There is a freeloader issue obviously, but that's the price of freedom - some people will use it in ways you don't agree with. I favor social ostracizing to deal with people like that.
Out of curiosity, what about you? If tomorrow, your glorious revolution came and Denmark was rebuild as an An Cap nation... You no longer pay any taxes, and have the same income you do now. How much, in percentage, of your income would you voluntarily give to welfare systems? How much would you give into education systems? How much would you give into infrastructure maintenance and expansion?
The short answer is "whatever it takes", but that's a very complex question, and I won't pretend that I'm sure just what things can be handled by markets as investments with a profit, and what would require charity. But if I was forced to guess: Most people should have an unemployment insurance, so only those without insurance (or where it had expired) would require help. Of course it depends on the welfare products on the market, but ideally I'd use a welfare provider that only gave to those who had no savings and who couldn't be expected to have insurance - maybe they never held a job or had only held low income jobs, or where their unemployment insurance had expired. If people who were just irresponsible in not taking unemployment insurance when they had every chance needed help, I wouldn't let them die on the streets, but the terms would be harder. They'd have to accept the welfare as debt and be expected to pay it back in the future. Maybe it would be an investment you got a return on, maybe it would be charity where the money paid back went into a fund and then used to help other people with welfare. I generally prefer money payments over giving people food stamps, security and insurances and such, with the exception of drug addicts and the mentally ill. I believe people are best at prioritizing themselves. Education, I see that as an investment the the private market will easily handle. The return on investment in education is huge. People get the education and agree to pay back the loan or X% of their pay for the next Y% years (de facto very similar to the structure we have in places like Denmark where the state pays for all education but in return you pay taxes afterwards) or some combination. The markets would push the price of such products down to a rate where the investors get a return equal to the market interest rate, though of course for the recipients the rate would be significantly higher as they're effectively paying for the ones who default on their student loans. Roads and infrastructure, I assume that's something for the markets to deal with and the future users to pay for. I'd personally also like to support things you don't mention, like the military and certain foreign aid projects. Overall, I hope I'd get by with paying 25-40% of my income, including my own insurances.

Pages

Topic locked