ama gi:If a law has been passed by democratic processes (or any other process) that is not consistent with natural law, it is a moral imperative to violate that law. It's as simple as that.
It is not imperative to break an unjust law. You can be indifferent to it. Like I don't have to smoke weed in order for me to actual propound drug decriminalization.
ama gi:Now the question is, who? Some dictator? Some legislature? Some privileged nobility class?
Not who, what? Human reason.
'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael
ama gi: By natural law. Morality is not optional. It is not "entered into" by contract. You are obligated to respect the lives and properties of others, regardless of whether or not you signed a contract to that effect. For that reason, contracts are not the be-all and end-all of civil law. If a law has been passed by democratic processes, and it is consistent with natural law, it is a moral imperative to obey that law. If a law has been passed by democratic processes (or any other process) that is not consistent with natural law, it is a moral imperative to violate that law. It's as simple as that. Natural law is what protects human rights. But--here's the kicker--natural law is invisible. Inaudiable. Almost imaginary. And for that reason, somebody needs to put that law into words. Now the question is, who? Some dictator? Some legislature? Some privileged nobility class? Or maybe some myriad of private corporations? I'd rather have natural law be verbalized by you and me. Ordinary people without any fancy titles.
By natural law.
Morality is not optional. It is not "entered into" by contract. You are obligated to respect the lives and properties of others, regardless of whether or not you signed a contract to that effect. For that reason, contracts are not the be-all and end-all of civil law.
If a law has been passed by democratic processes, and it is consistent with natural law, it is a moral imperative to obey that law. If a law has been passed by democratic processes (or any other process) that is not consistent with natural law, it is a moral imperative to violate that law. It's as simple as that.
Natural law is what protects human rights. But--here's the kicker--natural law is invisible. Inaudiable. Almost imaginary. And for that reason, somebody needs to put that law into words.
Now the question is, who? Some dictator? Some legislature? Some privileged nobility class?
Or maybe some myriad of private corporations?
I'd rather have natural law be verbalized by you and me. Ordinary people without any fancy titles.
Are you are saying that natural law dictates that all humans are bound to each other by direct democratic vote?
To paraphrase Marc Faber: We're all doomed, but that doesn't mean that we can't make money in the process. Rabbi Lapin: "Let's make bricks!" Stephan Kinsella: "Say you and I both want to make a German chocolate cake."
Daniel Muffinburg:Are you are saying that natural law dictates that all humans are bound to each other by direct democratic vote?
Yes, unless there is some better way to protect our natural rights. And I don't think there is.
"As long as there are sovereign nations possessing great power, war is inevitable."
ama gi: Daniel Muffinburg:Are you are saying that natural law dictates that all humans are bound to each other by direct democratic vote? Yes, unless there is some better way to protect our natural rights. And I don't think there is.
Are we bound into the same democracy?
ama gi:By natural law.
Oh jeez...
ama gi:If a law has been passed by democratic processes, and it is consistent with natural law, it is a moral imperative to obey that law. If a law has been passed by democratic processes (or any other process) that is not consistent with natural law, it is a moral imperative to violate that law. It's as simple as that.
ama gi:I'd rather have natural law be verbalized by you and me. Ordinary people without any fancy titles.
If something can be "consistent with natural law" then it doesn't matter who verbalizes it.
Angurse: ama gi:By natural law. Oh jeez...
Atlas just shrugged. lol
Daniel Muffinburg:Are we bound into the same democracy?
No, of course not. You might be the citizen of one democracy, while I might be the citizen of another.
But if some dispute should arise between you and I, then there is only room enough for one democracy to intervene.
ama gi:Yes, unless there is some better way to protect our natural rights. And I don't think there is.
given that it is the rights of the consumers of rights protectiion and restitution services, I'm going with consumer sovereignty.
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
ama gi: Daniel Muffinburg:Are we bound into the same democracy? No, of course not. You might be the citizen of one democracy, while I might be the citizen of another. But if some dispute should arise between you and I, then there is only room enough for one democracy to intervene.
So, theoretically, every human could be bound to his or her own democracy?
ama gi:Morality is not optional.
There is always choice, you can choose to be immoral. Libertarianism, as a political philosophy deals with what should be law. Part of that contains punishment theory, ie. what would be considered just.
ama gi:It is not "entered into" by contract. You are obligated to respect the lives and properties of others, regardless of whether or not you signed a contract to that effect. For that reason, contracts are not the be-all and end-all of civil law.
Depends what contract theory is supported.
"In short, a contract should only be enforceable when the failure to fulfill it is an implicit theft of property. But this can only be true if we hold that validly enforceable contracts only exist where title to property has already been transferred, and therefore where the failure to abide by the contract means that the other party’s property is retained by the delinquent party, without the consent of the former (implicit theft). Hence, this proper libertarian theory of enforceable contracts has been termed the “title-transfer” theory of contracts."1
ama gi:Natural law is what protects human rights.
Natural law is a guide.
ama gi: But--here's the kicker--natural law is invisible. Inaudiable. Almost imaginary. And for that reason, somebody needs to put that law into words. Now the question is, who? Some dictator? Some legislature? Some privileged nobility class?
But--here's the kicker--natural law is invisible. Inaudiable. Almost imaginary. And for that reason, somebody needs to put that law into words. Now the question is, who? Some dictator? Some legislature? Some privileged nobility class?
But--here's the kicker--natural law is invisible. Inaudiable. Almost imaginary. And for that reason, somebody needs to put that law into words.
"The answer is not who but what: man's reason. Man's reason is objective, i.e., it can be employed by all men to yield truths about the world. To ask what is man's nature is to invite the answer."
ama gi:Ordinary people without any fancy titles.
Just labels... there would be no separate classes [rulers vs ruled] in an ancap society.
Daniel Muffinburg:So, theoretically, every human could be bound to his or her own democracy?
ama gi taking heavy fire!
You can take the secessionist approach to this debate ad-infinitum and say that we're all a bunch of one-man democracies. But then we are stuck with the question, "Who is going to resolve disputes between these one-man democracies and determine their innocence or guilt in a fair and impartial manner?"
And then we are back to where we started.
liberty student: Daniel Muffinburg:So, theoretically, every human could be bound to his or her own democracy? ama gi taking heavy fire!
I'm not familiar with that expression, but I'm glad you're enjoying the show.
ama gi:The reason I am growing weary of anarcho-capitalist theory is because it seems to involve reinventing the wheel. Anarcho-capitalist theory seems to involve tearing down government bureaucracies, and then replacing them with private-sector bureaucracies that are modeled after the State bureaucracies.
Strawman.
ama gi: An example of this is the anarcho-capitalistic "PDA" I keep reading about in these forums. If I see one more discussion on PDAs, my head is going to explode. PDA stands for "personal digital assistant"; it does not stand for "private defense agency". Whenever I see the letters PDA, I think, "Are they talking about a Palm Pilot? No, wait, they are talking about some hypothetical anarchy police force."
An example of this is the anarcho-capitalistic "PDA" I keep reading about in these forums. If I see one more discussion on PDAs, my head is going to explode.
PDA stands for "personal digital assistant"; it does not stand for "private defense agency". Whenever I see the letters PDA, I think, "Are they talking about a Palm Pilot? No, wait, they are talking about some hypothetical anarchy police force."
Yes, Ancap must be wrong if you don't like the acronyms. This is a very serious analysis.
ama gi:Not only is the acronym ridiculous, but the concept itself is unsavory. I don't want armed, uniformed, trained cops patrolling the streets, tax-paid or otherwise.
Strawman!
ama gi:In anarcho-capitalist theory, private property reigns supreme, with private mercenaries enforcing property. I think that is quite unethical; I think that property rights should be protected with the minimum amount of force possible. Don't chase away a thief or trespasser with a gun, if you could use a pepperspray or an angry rottweiller.
More strawmen!
ama gi:At least under the current regime, the leaders can hold power for several years at a time;
How is that working out for you so far?
ama gi:"Private law-givers" are totally unnecessary. People do not need to be "given" law;
You're right. And it is a strawman. Easy to be right when you make up false arguments!
ama gi:I was stupified! The author simply assumed that every single person would be willing and able to purchase "insurance". This "insurance" sounds almost like a tax.
I don't consider Bob Murphy an authority on ancap. So why appeal to him?
ama gi:Anybody without this "insurance" would not be able to purchase anything or even walk down the street. He would be almost like an illegal alien, with no legal "citizenship".
Strawman, strawman!
ama gi:Under anarcho-capitalism, such "citizenship" would be necessary because all law would be based on contract. Somebody who had not specifically agreed in a contract not to rape or kill anybody would a lawless person, to be avoided at all costs.
Non sequitur, strawman!
ama gi:Such a concept is ridiculous in my opinion.
Well, since you made almost all of it up, I have to agree. It is ridiculous. It is ridiculous that you thought this was ancap, and you called yourself an ancap. Do not pass go, do not collect $200.
liberty student: ....
....
And now I'm the one who's enjoying the show!
ama gi: Daniel Muffinburg:So, theoretically, every human could be bound to his or her own democracy? You can take the secessionist approach to this debate ad-infinitum and say that we're all a bunch of one-man democracies. But then we are stuck with the question, "Who is going to resolve disputes between these one-man democracies and determine their innocence or guilt in a fair and impartial manner?" And then we are back to where we started.
Well, we could start with: who owns the land on which the disputed claim occurred?
Daniel Muffinburg:Well, we could start with: who owns the land on which the disputed claim occurred?
Nobody knows. That's been the subject of dispute for ten years!
Ultimately, the only two ways to organize a society are bullets and ballots. There is no third solution.
ama gi:Ultimately, the only two ways to organize a society are bullets and ballots. There is no third solution.
Argument from ignorance. Haven't you trolled enough for one day?
ama gi: Ultimately, the only two ways to organize a society are bullets and ballots. There is no third solution.
Why is a society organized by ballots? People vote in online polls all the time and that does not seem to have any effect on social organization.
The fallacies of intellectual communism, a compilation - On the nature of power
ama gi: Daniel Muffinburg:Well, we could start with: who owns the land on which the disputed claim occurred? Nobody knows. That's been the subject of dispute for ten years! Ultimately, the only two ways to organize a society are bullets and ballots. There is no third solution.
What does it mean for a society to be "organized," and why does society need to be "organized"?
Daniel Muffinburg:What does it mean for a society to be "organized," and why does society need to be "organized"?
"Organized" does not mean "commandeered"; it simply means "functional". Functional in the sense that disputes are resolved and property rights are respected.
Somehow, an anarcho-capitalist system with a hundred different PDAs and a hundred different courts each following their own rules and overlapping jurisdiction doesn't sound very functional. Or appealing.
Call me crazy.
ama gi: Somehow, an anarcho-capitalist system with a hundred different PDAs and a hundred different courts each following their own rules and overlapping jurisdiction doesn't sound very functional. Or appealing. Call me crazy.
You're crazy.
Stranger: ama gi: Somehow, an anarcho-capitalist system with a hundred different PDAs and a hundred different courts each following their own rules and overlapping jurisdiction doesn't sound very functional. Or appealing. Call me crazy. You're crazy.
I thought so.
ama gi: Daniel Muffinburg:What does it mean for a society to be "organized," and why does society need to be "organized"? "Organized" does not mean "commandeered"; it simply means "functional". Functional in the sense that disputes are resolved and property rights are respected. Somehow, an anarcho-capitalist system with a hundred different PDAs and a hundred different courts each following their own rules and overlapping jurisdiction doesn't sound very functional. Or appealing. Call me crazy.
The same can be said about multiple direct democracies.
ama gi:Functional in the sense that disputes are resolved and property rights are respected.
You can't respect individual rights with a jury or with a democracy. You can't protect property, and then tie everyone to an implicit social contract, just because you believe natural rights are objectively true.
ama gi:Somehow, an anarcho-capitalist system with a hundred different PDAs and a hundred different courts each following their own rules and overlapping jurisdiction doesn't sound very functional. Or appealing.
Re: appealing, no one cares about your sense of aesthetics. If you don't agree with having different PDAs and different courts, them you must be for one world government, right/ Can't have the Japanese using different standards than someone else! Doesn't sound very functional!!!!
ama gi:Call me crazy.
It's fine if you don't want to be an ancap, it's fine if you hate ancap, but is it so much to ask that you actually understand what it is you are rejecting and criticizing?
liberty student:You can't respect individual rights with a jury or with a democracy.
Why not?
ama gi:Why not?
Because it is arbitrary. It has nothing to do with facts or ethics, you're leaving liberty up to opinions. Might as well put the blacks back in the cotton fields and march the Jews into the ovens because that is what democracy is good for. The tyranny of the majority.
And why would a jury of uninterested laymen, with their own knowledge deficits, petty biases and other shortcomings, be any better at resolving a dispute than a trained professional arbitrator? How would it be more just to be judged by 12 fools neither party trusts, than have an expert at restitution, ethics and precedent guide both parties to a mutually acceptable outcome?
You don't have to respond, I'm out of this discussion.
liberty student:Argument from ignorance. Haven't you trolled enough for one day?
bloomj31:I think an-cap would be worse than what we have now. I understand that the concerns I tend to have are usually met by logical explanations of why they wouldn't ever be possible. But the logic accepts a premise I can't entirely accept. Mainly that man is logical and rational and that morality is an innate characteristic of man and so it would be impossible for say....a feudalistic society to spring up where PDAs compete for control of different territories because it would be irrational, illogical and immoral.
...and this is exactly why I question objective ethical theories. There are far better arguments against the state than these.
Why anarchy fails
Sage:the anarchist has no burden of proof to show how specific scenarios would be handled. What they do have to show is that the incentive structure of anarchy is superior to the incentive structure of minarchy. And this they have done decisively: market competition has a more effective incentive structure than political democracy.
It all comes back to this ^^
filc: What Ancap seeks to address is the economic calculation issue akin to state-run systems and coercive monopolies alike. Removing the coercive monopoly puts economic calculation back into the game. By Econ calc I mean, directly addressing the needs of the individual, the consumer. Calling it re-inventing the wheel isn't entirely correct. We don't know what types of security services will be rendered on the free market. Those types of discussions are to be left to the speculative entrepreneur.
What Ancap seeks to address is the economic calculation issue akin to state-run systems and coercive monopolies alike. Removing the coercive monopoly puts economic calculation back into the game. By Econ calc I mean, directly addressing the needs of the individual, the consumer.
Calling it re-inventing the wheel isn't entirely correct. We don't know what types of security services will be rendered on the free market. Those types of discussions are to be left to the speculative entrepreneur.
Brilliantly stated.
filc: ama gi:In anarcho-capitalist theory, private property reigns supreme negative. It's the sovereignty of the consumer that reign's supreme in ancap.
ama gi:In anarcho-capitalist theory, private property reigns supreme
negative. It's the sovereignty of the consumer that reign's supreme in ancap.
The fact that ama gi had this misconception and...
filc: ama gi:I was stupified! The author simply assumed that every single person would be willing and able to purchase "insurance". This "insurance" sounds almost like a tax. Anybody without this "insurance" would not be able to purchase anything or even walk down the street. He would be almost like an illegal alien, with no legal "citizenship". I haven't read it but I assume you realize it's only hypothesizing about types of business models in an ancap society? Not necessarily what will happen. Your welcome to take issue with what he says but that doesn't mean Ancap is flawed per se, it may mean his argument is flawed I'm somewhat disappointed that you give it so much weight and don't realize that it's all speculative talk.
ama gi:I was stupified! The author simply assumed that every single person would be willing and able to purchase "insurance". This "insurance" sounds almost like a tax. Anybody without this "insurance" would not be able to purchase anything or even walk down the street. He would be almost like an illegal alien, with no legal "citizenship".
I haven't read it but I assume you realize it's only hypothesizing about types of business models in an ancap society? Not necessarily what will happen. Your welcome to take issue with what he says but that doesn't mean Ancap is flawed per se, it may mean his argument is flawed I'm somewhat disappointed that you give it so much weight and don't realize that it's all speculative talk.
...this misconception as well, is not an accident. The speculative nature of the theorizing is somewhat at odds with the objective ethical theories that the some of the same authors engage in (not sure about Murphy). Hence it could be, judging from how many miss that speculative aspect, that the speculativeness is downplayed in many of the popular AnCap works. Sometimes it is downright ruled out as when speaking openly of "rogue" or "outlaw" courts, as has been discussed in detail in this thread.
Many in that thread wondered why I was on about such minor-seeming points, but here is exactly the problem: if one makes bad arguments against the state, the people won over may eventually come to see the holes in those arguments and have second thoughts (e.g., ama gi).
Oh no! Well, I, and every other Voluntaryist better get some guns!
AJ:Many in that thread wondered why I was on about such minor-seeming points, but here is exactly the problem: if one makes bad arguments against the state, the people won over may eventually come to see the holes in those arguments and have second thoughts (e.g., ama gi).
Thanks for the kind words AJ. Somedays I post something coherent. Other days, Not so much.....
ama gi: ...although I used to use that to describe myself.
...although I used to use that to describe myself.
I don't understand, all your assumptions of flaws of anarchocapitalism seem to be very basic. How could you have believed something that you couldn't doubt?
Freedom has always been the only route to progress.
liberty student: ama gi:Ultimately, the only two ways to organize a society are bullets and ballots. There is no third solution. Argument from ignorance. Haven't you trolled enough for one day?
And yet there is not a single historical case study of such a society lasting. If you wanted to, one could cite medieval Ireland as an example of a pseudo-anarcho-capitalist society. However, medieval Ireland was utterly incapable of protecting itself, and proceeded to become essentially a British colony until the 1900s.
liberty student: ama gi:Why not? Because it is arbitrary. It has nothing to do with facts or ethics, you're leaving liberty up to opinions.
Because it is arbitrary. It has nothing to do with facts or ethics, you're leaving liberty up to opinions.
And that would not happen under anarcho-capitalism? Liberty will always be at the mercy of public opinion.
liberty student:The tyranny of the majority.
In anarcho-capitalism: the tyranny of the greatest market demand.
In anarcho-capitalism: the tyranny of the greatest market demand. No matter what there will always be some sort of tyranny, it is a part of the human condition
liberty student:And why would a jury of uninterested laymen, with their own knowledge deficits, petty biases and other shortcomings, be any better at resolving a dispute than a trained professional arbitrator? How would it be more just to be judged by 12 fools neither party trusts, than have an expert at restitution, ethics and precedent guide both parties to a mutually acceptable outcome?
Biases effect individual more than they effect aggregates decision-making. Expert judgment is not always superior to public judgment.
Abstract liberty, like other mere abstractions, is not to be found.
- Edmund Burke
laminustacitus:And yet there is not a single historical case study of such a society lasting.
laminustacitus:And that would not happen under anarcho-capitalism? Liberty will always be at the mercy of public opinion.
laminustacitus:In anarcho-capitalism: the tyranny of the greatest market demand.
I'm guessing Lam isn't an an-cap.
Thats not true. Business men capitalize on minority interests all the time. In fact that is preceisly what the market does. It sells goods to minorities of interested folk. Not a blanket sale to everyone. Not everyone has a honda, and not everyone has a motercycle. And the majority doesn't decide for us which to choose or even to choose at all.
laminustacitus:In anarcho-capitalism: the tyranny of the greatest market demand. No matter what there will always be some sort of tyranny, it is a part of the human condition
Tyrrany of market demand is oxymoronic. I exploded this point above.
laminustacitus:Biases effect individual more than they effect aggregates decision-making. Expert judgment is not always superior to public judgment.
Liberty student:And why would a jury of uninterested laymen, with their own knowledge deficits, petty biases and other shortcomings, be any better at resolving a dispute than a trained professional arbitrator?
You evaded his question.
Your point is?
I never said otherwise.
If you believe voluntarism can be tyranny, then sure you're right.
laminustacitus:No matter what there will always be some sort of tyranny, it is a part of the human condition
laminustacitus:Biases effect individual more than they effect aggregates decision-making.
I'm a methodological individualist. I am not familiar with aggregate decision making.
laminustacitus:Expert judgment is not always superior to public judgment.
Hey, a blind squirrel finds a nut now and again.
If you want to gamble on lucky nuts when it comes to your property and justice, be my guest.