EvilSocialistFellow:I think this is a situation where the burden of proof lies on you really. We have had centuries of the state and nowadays life is not too bad - that is proof enough as far as I'm concerned. I'm not promising you a perfect society and I'm not saying that we should necessarily be thinking about making radical changes either. You are doing both.
EvilSocialistFellow:Quite simply put, why risk anarchy?
EvilSocialistFellow:A hundred years ago or so, a couple of Marxists called the Bolsheviks argued that it was worth the risk trying to implement communism. Look how well it went *rolls eyes*.
ladyphoenix:Whoa, whoa, whoa... Who is promising whom a "perfect society?!?!" I have promised no such thing, nor have I seen anyone else promise anything of the sort.
You know, I used to be an 'anarcho-communist' until I gained sense. I didn't think that I was proposing a perfect society either. Now I think that I was.
Anarcho-capitalism is just another silly ideology that thinks society would run just smoothly purely on greed and axiomatic self-interest. You probably won't agree with me but at the end of the day that is the case.
I completely reject all political extremes, including socialism. I was actually seriously considering libertarianism but I think I've gone completely off the idea. Believe me, I've been to the 'romanticised political extreme' idea and I fantasised about all these wonderful ideas for nearly a year. I can see the attraction, really. But in the real world, it never works.
*I* would risk anarchy because *I* value freedom from aggression, or at least the possibility of greater freedom aggression over the almost certain aggression of state. If you place a higher priority on maintaining the way things are today rather than seeking out a situation where there exists greater potential freedom from aggression... then there's no reason why you should risk anarchy.
Well if the free market in its fullest realisation is ever achieved, I won't have much of a choice in the matter. Sure I will apparently have the choice 'to join evil statist societies' but we can't really know that for sure, can we. I also happen to have a concern for weak and vulnerable people unable to defend themselves who might not have a similar opportunity.
As far as I'm concerned, if you want to experiment with anarchy then go to some far distant island and do as you please. I don't see why other people who like things the way they are should have to suffer quite frankly.
And you're sure, without a shadow of a doubt, that their failure was that they tried something "new?" There's no other possible reason their attempts to radically change things failed?
That's not what I'm saying. Who knows, Marxism could have worked. Anarcho-capitalism could also work. But that's as far as we can get. We know a mixed economy works (not perfectly but at least in part) because we have experienced it. Thereby no-one is risking anything by carrying on with things and perhaps making mild changes to the system every now and then. AnCap... who knows how that would turn out?
I think the term 'Marxism of the right' is rather fitting.
I originally thought I would defer to other posters to answer this... But now that I'm on a roll, I think I'll just go ahead and tackle it myself.
EvilSocialistFellow:Not exactly. I am actually quite attracted by the idea of anarcho-capitalism and am sort of playing the Devil's Advocate a little but I think there is a tendency on this site to romanticise it and that puts me off the idea. Some would say AnCap is the 'Marxism of the Right'.
Just a thought.
EvilSocialistFellow:Also what I'm saying is not 'it won't work' but 'why should people risk a society that might not work and could be far worse than the present day system'.
EvilSocialistFellow:How do you know anarchy won't result in tyranny? Mob law? Paedophilia? Nuclear explosions? etc. I would say the same thing about communism or any other ridiculous political extreme.
As for nuclear explosions... Well, I can't say one way or another what would happen there either... Though, to date, more states have caused/created/facilitated nuclear explosions than anarchist societies... So maintaining the status quo (the existence of aggressive state) does more to increase the probability of these things than a change to an AnCap society would.
EvilSocialistFellow:Why should I risk playing along with your utopian lala land fantasies?
EvilSocialistFellow:I want to know that I will have some security in my life, that I won't end up having to sell my soul and body to businesses because of poverty and that there will be national security to protect my body and property from criminals who would happily coerce me.
EvilSocialistFellow:Anarcho-capitalism is just another silly ideology that thinks society would run just smoothly purely on greed and axiomatic self-interest. You probably won't agree with me but at the end of the day that is the case.
From what I see here, most AnCaps or people who prefer a society where aggression is almost universally deplored (even if it's not entirely an anti-state position) advocate such because they believe that it is easier to overcome a couple of criminals who want to take your property than it is to take on the entire state aparatus, an organization which exists only by systemic aggression. It's not that society would some perfectly realized ideal in the absence of state.
EvilSocialistFellow:I completely reject all political extremes, including socialism. I was actually seriously considering libertarianism but I think I've gone completely off the idea. Believe me, I've been to the 'romanticised political extreme' idea and I fantasised about all these wonderful ideas for nearly a year. I can see the attraction, really. But in the real world, it never works.
EvilSocialistFellow:Well if the free market in its fullest realisation is ever achieved, I won't have much of a choice in the matter. Sure I will apparently have the choice 'to join evil statist societies' but we can't really know that for sure, can we. I also happen to have a concern for weak and vulnerable people unable to defend themselves who might not have a similar opportunity.
Why are you concerned for the weak?
EvilSocialistFellow:As far as I'm concerned, if you want to experiment with anarchy then go to some far distant island and do as you please. I don't see why other people who like things the way they are should have to suffer quite frankly.
EvilSocialistFellow:That's not what I'm saying. Who knows, Marxism could have worked. Anarcho-capitalism could also work. But that's as far as we can get. We know a mixed economy works (not perfectly but at least in part) because we have experienced it. Thereby no-one is risking anything by carrying on with things and perhaps making mild changes to the system every now and then. AnCap... who knows how that would turn out?
I don't subscribe to the mentality of "the devil you know over the devil you don't." I prefer no devils, and I'd prefer a situation where I have a greater potential for no or at least fewer devils. Today, I'm subjected to the criminal element of society and the vast criminal element of state. Absent the vast criminal element of state, I would stand a greater chance at a life with less aggression *since all that would remain is the criminal element of society. It's by no means a guarantee of less aggression, and I don't know anyone who thinks it would be.
*edit : I realized what I said wasn't entirely clear. Hopefully that's better.
ladyphoenix:You're attracted to the idea, you're merely playing devil's advocate but you employ incredibly emotive language that would suggest that you are, in fact, invested in either the opposite of AnCap or maintaining the status quo, at the very least. I think it would be easier to discuss if we didn't use words like "ridiculous political extreme" and "utopian lala fantasies." Just a thought.
Yeah, when I started posting on this thread I was being fairly reasonable but some of the other posters kind of irritated me (I am an insanely violent, coercive and mentally derranged individual because I prefer a reduced state over anarchism, apparently) and that got deferred onto you, sorry (mainly because I was on the defensive) :(
Also the issue of child abuse is something that gets you fired up and I find some of the stances people are taking on this subject, well, odd.
Politically, since my change, I would say that I 'lean right'. But libertarianism is too extreme for me and anarcho-capitalism is, well, even worse...
I'm not going to answer most of your post because certain points are being duplicated and my main question is 'why risk it' which is not something I feel anyone has really answered yet. We don't know whether or not a pure free market system would be sufficiently better. If you were talking about a gradual (non-radical) rolling back of the state through established procedures, I suppose I could understand where you are coming from.
If you're looking for an objective reason, I don't think I'll be the one to provide it... in fact, I don't think that anyone would be able to provide you with an answer. If you're looking for more personal, subjective reasons... That has a lot more to do with your personal values, something I am admittedly rather ignorant of at the moment.
I'm not just talking about me personally but other people. It just seems like a huge risk to take, no?
What "security" do you have in your life under state? What guarantees you that security?
Nothing guarantees me security. However, life is good now; I have a lot of security and so do a lot of other British people. I don't know that life will necessarily be good under free market anarchy. Anarchy, really and truely, is something that works on paper rather nicely but there is no real way of knowing what it will be like in the real world.
As far as 'statist' society goes (in the western world), we know that its not perfect. But living standards have improved enormously and things ain't too bad. The mixed economy has the various technological developments and economic/social progress made throughout the 20th Century to back up this statement. Also, AnCaps have a tendency to demonise people like me as statists but we hardly live under a fascistic dictatorship and I personally have always had mistrust for government. I just can't see any viable alternative. Life is tough but it ain't getting any better any time soon.
ladyphoenix:So... You went down a road you later realized was probably not the best road, therefore all roads that lead to a change of the status quo are now "silly" and "romanticised?" I would say that's a pretty narrow and potentially shallow view... Espeically since you seem to have formed it just since I started discussing things with you here in this very thread. It seems like hardly enough time to explore a world-view and decide it's entirely useless... but of course, that's just me.
That is true. And I do change my mind quite frequently.
I don't see why you would be prohibited from forming your own "state" and preserving your current lifestyle to the best of your ability. In fact, there's no reason why you couldn't form a socialist commune in a free-market society. Why are you concerned for the weak?
Self-interest? I dunno.
Also, I don't want to form a socialist commune (though interestingly enough, when I was a socialist I would have argued that this would be impossible since under capitalism it is necessary to invest in capital to expand a project, hence a socialist commune cannot grow). I merely question whether agression would be permissable against my body. I haven't studied free market justice extensively at all and I feel like an idiot trying to critique it but my main concerns are that it would only work in favour of the customer with the biggest wallet.
There are issues with laissez-faire capitalism that I explored when I was a socialist. For instance, I wrote a blog post on environmentalism ( http://syndicalistlibertarianism.blogspot.com/2011/02/private-property-and-environmentalism.html ), critiquing the stance that private property helps preserve natural resources and the concerns I raised I have not found a sufficient answer to. There are other problems like externalities distorting the price mechanism and so forth. Yes, I have since loosened up my stance and I actually lean towars a market based economy but I think it is perfectly rational for me to seriously question these beliefs.
You think that NAP-adhering market anarchists are trying to impose anarchy on you, foricbly?
No, I don't at all. They want to find a way to undermine the state and find a way to roll it back somehow whether through counter-economics (agorism) or political activity (ancap). (I personally think agorism is a far more effective tactic). Rolling back state activity by its very nature cannot be forcibly imposed on me personally. But I seriously question what the outcome would be if they were successful; I question whether it is ethical for them to try and undermine the state in such a fashion if the state is necessary for economic and social betterment.
And again, I repeat, nothing which has never been tried should ever be tried? This seems to be the position you echo throughout your replies.
No, I believe in experimentation; i.e. small-scale experimentation. I know that ancap is about replacing the state with the voluntary/private sector through peaceful non co-operation, etc. but the change would, ultimately be radical.
You can say that I oppose radical change, not so much the idea of anarchy itself.
I don't subscribe to the mentality of "the devil you know over the devil you don't." I prefer no devils, and I'd prefer a situation where I have a greater potential for no or at least fewer devils. Today, I'm subjected to the criminal element of society and the vast criminal element of state. Absent the vast criminal element of state, I would stand a greater chance at a life with less aggression. It's by no means a guarantee of less aggression, and I don't know anyone who thinks it would be.
EvilSocialistFellow:Yeah, when I started posting on this thread I was being fairly reasonable but some of the other posters kind of irritated me (I am an insanely violent, coercive and mentally derranged individual because I prefer a reduced state over anarchism, apparently) and that got deferred onto you, sorry (mainly because I was on the defensive) :(
EvilSocialistFellow:Also the issue of child abuse is something that gets you fired up and I find some of the stances people are taking on this subject, well, odd.
I am interested in which positions the libertarians at LvMI have taken that have you concerned.
EvilSocialistFellow:I'm not going to answer most of your post because certain points are being duplicated and my main question is 'why risk it' which is not something I feel anyone has really answered yet. We don't know whether or not a pure free market system would be sufficiently better. If you were talking about a gradual (non-radical) rolling back of the state through established procedures, I suppose I could understand where you are coming from.
EvilSocialistFellow:I'm not just talking about me personally but other people. It just seems like a huge risk to take, no?
EvilSocialistFellow:Nothing guarantees me security. However, life is good now; I have a lot of security and so do a lot of other British people. I don't know that life will necessarily be good under free market anarchy. Anarchy, really and truely, is something that works on paper rather nicely but there is no real way of knowing what it will be like in the real world.
But really, what sort of investment do you think would be required of a free-market advocate who didn't advocate immediate and violent destruction of the state? I mean... Realistically, that's not what we're talking about here. I think most of us are smart enough, or at least experienced enough to recognize that removing the state all at once would result in some pretty painful and violent times... and such an abrupt change would almost certainly result in a reformation of the state... since the majority of people would be accustomed to that state of affairs.
EvilSocialistFellow:As far as 'statist' society goes (in the western world), we know that its not perfect. But living standards have improved enormously and things ain't too bad.
EvilSocialistFellow:The mixed economy has the various technological developments and economic/social progress made throughout the 20th Century to back up this statement.
EvilSocialistFellow:Also, AnCaps have a tendency to demonise people like me as statists but we hardly live under a fascistic dictatorship and I personally have always had mistrust for government. I just can't see any viable alternative. Life is tough but it ain't getting any better any time soon.
You like the life you live now. That's fine. I don't think anyone on LvMI is suggesting you should have to abandon or disrupt that life unless you choose to do so.
@EvilSocialistFellow:
Correlation does not equal causation. You have a single data point (recent history) in which there was socialization and growth. From that you can not logically extrapolate that it was the socialism that caused this growth rather than anything else. Personally, I believe we would have advanced a lot more in the last 50 years without all of the socialization and the overall quality of life would be much higher.
I would love to have an ancap island I could move to. However, the powers that be (US, EU, etc.) do not allow countries to run themselves. People such as yourself see "unchecked" pedophelia and feel that it is their moral duty to "liberate" the country. There have been many attempts at tax havens (low/no tax countries) but every time they start to get known the US and EU both limits trade to these nations and/or criminalizens them through propaganda. If most of the world was ancap this would not happen. You and anyone else interested in a lawful society would be welcome to move to an island together and still freely trade and interact with the rest of the world (if you wanted). In fact, in an ancap society you could do it in the middle of any country. You wouldn't have to travel half way around the globe to an island to do it.
As for the child prostitution inquiry, you are correct, this would be the extreme of voluntaryism. If the child was being abused the child has a right to seek out a PDA and demand reparations from the abuser. The child also has the right to leave his family and seek out another means of survival (such as another family, foster care, etc.). My guess is that you believe (and rightly so) that a child is too easily manipulated by adults (such as it's parents) and will therefore not leave. However, a third party could, if they wanted, use similar verbal manipulation techniques to try and coerce (non-aggressively) the child into leaving his/her family and/or seeking reparations. If you are against child abuse then you are fully within your "rights" to encourage abused children to seek out a better situation. The same goes for the elderly and disabled. If they can't get a better situation on their own you are able to assist them with it, as long as you don't initiate force on anyone you can do whatever you want.
EvilSocialistFellow:Self-interest? I dunno.
EvilSocialistFellow:I merely question whether agression would be permissable against my body.
EvilSocialistFellow:I haven't studied free market justice extensively at all and I feel like an idiot trying to critique it but my main concerns are that it would only work in favour of the customer with the biggest wallet.
EvilSocialistFellow:There are issues with laissez-faire capitalism that I explored when I was a socialist. For instance, I wrote a blog post on environmentalism ( http://syndicalistlibertarianism.blogspot.com/2011/02/private-property-and-environmentalism.html ), critiquing the stance that private property helps preserve natural resources and the concerns I raised I have not found a sufficient answer to. There are other problems like externalities distorting the price mechanism and so forth. Yes, I have since loosened up my stance and I actually lean towars a market based economy but I think it is perfectly rational for me to seriously question these beliefs.
With regard to the state being necessary for social and economic "betterment," I'm going to have to ask you to explain to me what you mean by this and then explain to me why the state is "necessary" for these things. I don't make such an assumption, so I'm not sure how you came to this conclusion.
EvilSocialistFellow:You can say that I oppose radical change, not so much the idea of anarchy itself.
EvilSocialistFellow:Yes, a lot of the state's activity is unethical. But this can be changed (I hope). I merely argue against radical reformation that could potentially leave a lot of people behind.
I'm also curious who you think would be left behind in a gradual dismantling of the state.
Regarding the child abuse thing:
If a group of people (such as yourself) feels strongly enough about child abuse they could choose to break some "laws" in order to stop the child abuse, as long as they are ready to pay reparations for their actions. For example, you could break into someone's house, plant cameras/bugs in it, and then wait for the abuse to begin. Once you have proof that initianion of aggression is occuring (e.g.: if the child says no/stop but the adult continues) you can act on behalf of the child and respond to the aggression with aggression. Chances are the reparation costs associated with breaking in and planting bugs will be outweighed by the reparation costs owned to the child by the parent so you probably wouldn't be out of pocket anything in the end.
I would hypothesize that in an ancap society you will see many advocate groups who are willing to pay a PDA to do things such as this. The PDAs will likely charge their normal rate plus whatever potential risks they may be taking on (cost fo breaking "laws").
ladyphoenix:To be more accurate, the issue of child abuse may get you fired-up. :) It doesn't necessarily follow that it gets me fired up.
I said 'you' meaning people in general.
This:
'This is where the power of ostracization can play a strong roll in deterring household abuse and violence. It also seems likely to me that child advocacy organizations would form which offer asylum from abusive households.
Ofcoarse this becomes problamatic if the child is say 5, but what if another adult could speak on behalf of the child? If the adult can present a case that the child's life is at risk and this judgement is agreed with by whatever local magistrate or private court, then the offending family will have to deal with the consequences. Ostracization. Perhaps your insurance agency or security agency raises your rates or drops your protection all together. Perhaps the water company, sympathetic to children, has a no child abuse policy and decides to turn off your pipes. The possibilities extend as far as human compassion does.'
Am I to believe that in a contractarian property based society, the only thing prevent paedophilia would be the potential threat that cruelty to children would result in the water company turning off your pipes and the fact that 'society would stop co-operating with you'? This, 'send the crook to Coventry, that'll teach him!'
This is the kind of stance that turns me off libertarianism, to be honest.
Also, the kind of stance that, 'potential rapists and murderers would not want to rape or murder because insurance rates would go up and they would get a bad reputation in the market - people would kick them off their land and refuse to do business with them'. I realise that not all libertarians take this stance but you have to admit, a lot of them seem to romanticise the world around them and I have heard a lot recommend precisely the above.
I don't recall ever seeing anyone on LvMI advocate radical, violent overthrow of state... This would be generally a contradiction to the Non-Aggression Principle to which most of them (myself included) adhere.
By 'radical', I don't mean violent. I just mean changes to society that happen too quickly without people having the chance to assess, critically analyse and adapt to these changes.
Nothing, even the continued existence of the state in which you live is a guarantee. I don't know that life will necessarily be good, or even better, under a free-market. ...If life is truly "good" for you now, then I don't know what amount of my reasoning is going to convince you that advocating or moving toward a free-market (i.e. stateless) society would be "worth" your time.
That is true. But there is a social net; a minimum standard of living, if you will. Even Hayek supported a bare minimum standard of living, as do I. This is guaranteed. This isn't exactly socialist (I suppose you can say it is socialist-like) and I personally do feel that it harms the economy but it provides people with a certain degree of security. You could have the most fantastic boom and a ridiculously fantastic free market system but there is the potential some people might get left behind. With what I am suggesting, you are always guaranteed *something* (even if it is just bread, water and having to sleep in an overcrowded youth hostel). This way, there is still profit incentive to improve your circumstances (hence the economy does not completely suffer) and taxes can still be minimised. But there is that safety net to fall on, just in case.You can't say that about AnCap; at the best all we can do is *hope* that charity would provide..
The changes proposed by most anarchists (although they are better than the commies, in my mind) are still too radical and sudden for my liking, especially when it is counter economics we are talking about - the most effective strategy in my opinion, but also the most dangerous.
By whose rubric? Certainly not mine. I think my living standards would be improved greatly by the removal of state, even if that means I end up doing wihout some of the luxuries I have today. You may or may not agree with this... the point is that such valuations are "in the eye of the beholder" as it were.
Compared to the Victorian Era which, interestingly enough, had very minimal state intervention (not that I am using that as an argument against laissez-faire but I would be interested to hear the counter-points)...
Assuming techonological advancements and social progress are some sort of "ultimate good" as opposed to, say, "freedom from aggression." We've had a significant increase of aggression against individuals by the state to fund these "advancments." I would consider that a step backwards.
I think this is a question of whether or not the end justifies the means in some cases.
No, but who knows, under anarchy, I and many other people could suffer and be forced to leave that life behind. And this takes me back to my original point, namely 'how big is the risk'?
No, reparations is where the "punishment" is. In fact, if you believed a child was being abused *you* could buy abuse insurance on him and inform the abuser about the policy. If the abuser didn't stop all you would have to do is be able to prove that abuse is occuring and who is doing it then the insurance agency will pay you whatever the policy covered and utilize a PDA to extract the money from the abuser. If you buy a big enough policy this could easily result in the abuser having to not only sell everything they own but also potentially serving time in a repayment facility (if they couldn't get a loan for the money). You could then use that money to support the abused child and place him in a better situation.
Herodotus:Finally, for those who are arguing for the existence of non-coercive forms of education, I suppose I will never be able to disprove the existence of such a thing, because it is only an abstract principle.
Herodotus:So far, I can see no evidence of it having been practiced, only approximations, which nevertheless violate the fundamental principle of voluntarism: no coercion (LS's alternative definition notwithstanding).
Voluntaryism, or voluntarism,[1] is a philosophy according to which all forms of human association should be voluntary as far as possible. Consequently, voluntaryism opposes the initiation of aggressive force or coercion. (This consequence is formalized in the non-aggression principle.) The word 'initiation' is used here to make clear that voluntaryism does not oppose self-defense.
I am left to understand that "coercion" isn't expressly incompatible with voluntarism, which is the position I believe LS has expressed at least twice. They approve of self-defense, which is the protection of their lives and presumably their property from "aggression." Coercion can be employed as a "defensive" tool. Coercion is not inherently wrong from what I'm reading. If your understanding is different, can you show me where that understanding came from?
Herodotus:At the end of the day, when it comes to actually dealing with children, we engage in coercion, and write it off as a "necessary good", but that is what most of the dastardly "statists" do, too.
Herodotus:Maybe the only difference between statists and voluntarists at the end of the day is the amount of enthusiasm they have in perpetuating the statist order, but no quantifiable or qualifiable differences beyond that.
Also, the kind of stance that, 'potential rapists and murderers would not want to rape or murder because insurance rates would go up and they would get a bad reputation in the market - people would kick them off their land and refuse to do business with them'.
As above, reparations are how the system works. If I have rape insurance and someone rapes me, the insurance company will compensate me whatever my policy covers (say, $500,000) and then the insurance agency will go about extracting that money from the rapist. If the rapist can't be found/located I still get the $500,000 and that is the cost of business for the insurance company (just like a hit and run insurance claim). However, it's in the insurance companies best interest to locate the rapist and extract the $500,000 from him so they don't lose on the deal.
Because violent crimes are so hard to prove, insurance companies would likely offer reduced rates for people that employ means of protecting themselves and/or utilize personal surveilance techniques, supported by the insurance company. For example, my insurance company may provide me with a "rape whistle" free of charge and reduce my rates as long as I keep it on me. Or perhaps they will provide me with mace, or self defense training free of charge and even for reduced rates. Maybe for a big discount in rates my insurance company will provide me with a GPS tracking bracelet and a panic button so they can at least catch the criminal in the act.
EvilSocialistFellow:I said 'you' meaning people in general.
EvilSocialistFellow:This: 'This is where the power of ostracization can play a strong roll in deterring household abuse and violence. It also seems likely to me that child advocacy organizations would form which offer asylum from abusive households. Ofcoarse this becomes problamatic if the child is say 5, but what if another adult could speak on behalf of the child? If the adult can present a case that the child's life is at risk and this judgement is agreed with by whatever local magistrate or private court, then the offending family will have to deal with the consequences. Ostracization. Perhaps your insurance agency or security agency raises your rates or drops your protection all together. Perhaps the water company, sympathetic to children, has a no child abuse policy and decides to turn off your pipes. The possibilities extend as far as human compassion does.' Am I to believe that in a contractarian property based society, the only thing prevent paedophilia would be the potential threat that cruelty to children would result in the water company turning off your pipes and the fact that 'society would stop co-operating with you'? This, 'send the crook to Coventry, that'll teach him!'
EvilSocialistFellow:This is the kind of stance that turns me off libertarianism, to be honest.
EvilSocialistFellow:Also, the kind of stance that, 'potential rapists and murderers would not want to rape or murder because insurance rates would go up and they would get a bad reputation in the market - people would kick them off their land and refuse to do business with them'. I realise that not all libertarians take this stance but you have to admit, a lot of them seem to romanticise the world around them and I have heard a lot recommend precisely the above.
EvilSocialistFellow:By 'radical', I don't mean violent. I just mean changes to society that happen too quickly without people having the chance to assess, critically analyse and adapt to these changes.
EvilSocialistFellow:That is true. But there is a social net; a minimum standard of living, if you will. Even Hayek supported a bare minimum standard of living, as do I. This is guaranteed.
EvilSocialistFellow:The changes proposed by most anarchists (although they are better than the commies, in my mind) are still too radical and sudden for my liking, especially when it is counter economics we are talking about - the most effective strategy in my opinion, but also the most dangerous.
EvilSocialistFellow:Compared to the Victorian Era which, interestingly enough, had very minimal state intervention (not that I am using that as an argument against laissez-faire but I would be interested to hear the counter-points)...
EvilSocialistFellow:No, but who knows, under anarchy, I and many other people could suffer and be forced to leave that life behind. And this takes me back to my original point, namely 'how big is the risk'?
I wonder if you guys could tighten up your critique's and arugments between each other to improve discussion legibility. It's becoming difficult and time consuming to follow. There are several un-reletated topics going off in different directions.
Micah71381:As above, reparations are how the system works. If I have rape insurance and someone rapes me, the insurance company will compensate me whatever my policy covers (say, $500,000) and then the insurance agency will go about extracting that money from the rapist. If the rapist can't be found/located I still get the $500,000 and that is the cost of business for the insurance company (just like a hit and run insurance claim). However, it's in the insurance companies best interest to locate the rapist and extract the $500,000 from him so they don't lose on the deal. Because violent crimes are so hard to prove, insurance companies would likely offer reduced rates for people that employ means of protecting themselves and/or utilize personal surveilance techniques, supported by the insurance company. For example, my insurance company may provide me with a "rape whistle" free of charge and reduce my rates as long as I keep it on me. Or perhaps they will provide me with mace, or self defense training free of charge and even for reduced rates. Maybe for a big discount in rates my insurance company will provide me with a GPS tracking bracelet and a panic button so they can at least catch the criminal in the act.
Micah, I don't mean to be antagonistic towards you or anything (I think you are a nice person and all) but these are exactly the sort of 'mechanisms' that I think are utopian and unrealistic: rape insurance, rape whistles, self defence training, provision of mace, etc.
If you had just said that private arbiters would prosecute the rapist, I would have been far more convinced, to be honest.
EvilSocialistFellow:Micah, I don't mean to be antagonistic towards you or anything (I think you are a nice person and all) but these are exactly the sort of 'mechanisms' that I think are utopian and unrealistic: rape insurance, rape whistles, self defence training, provision of mace, etc.
Add to that, insurance companies don't pay out if you kill yourself, or if you leave your keys in your car and/or your car unlocked and it gets stolen, or if you sustain injuries in an accident that are exacerbated by the fact that you weren't wearing a seatbelt.
These are just a few examples of this sort of thing happening today. Why is this so "unrealistic?"
EvilSocialistFellow:Not exactly. I am actually quite attracted by the idea of anarcho-capitalism and am sort of playing the Devil's Advocate a little
What an enormous waste of our time to talk to you then.
EvilSocialistFellow:I think there is a tendency on this site to romanticise it and that puts me off the idea. Some would say AnCap is the 'Marxism of the Right'.
I think you have displayed a very shallow and misguided understanding of Ancap, so the notion that it is romanticized seems ...
If you cannot understand why positive rights are incompatible with liberty (assuming that is ignorance and not trolling), then you are miles away from having anything intelligent to say about Ancap in my opinion.
Herodotus:LS, you are giving either me or yourself too much credit. I will try to outline why I think so, and then you can tell me which one it is.
Way too long for me to read. Is there a short version?
liberty student:What an enormous waste of our time to talk to you then. I think you have displayed a very shallow and misguided understanding of Ancap, so the notion that it is romanticized seems ... If you cannot understand why positive rights are incompatible with liberty (assuming that is ignorance and not trolling), then you are miles away from having anything intelligent to say about Ancap in my opinion.
Hey, I am quite open about the fact I know so little on AnCap. I'm just trying to learn more about it. I don't know if you've noticed but I have already changed my ideology; I am already leaning towards market based systems.
If you don't like my posts, don't read 'em.
That would be misrepresenting my point of view. I am not interested in convincing you of something I don't believe in. I am interested in convincing you of something I do believe in or you convincing me of something I previously didn't believe in.
The means of prosecution isn't what is being discussed (though we can if you like), it's the means of 'punishment' that we are talking about. You suggested that in an anarchist society people would be ostracized as punishment and I was stating that reparations is how punishment is doled out. The way to calculate reparation costs on a free market is through insurance.
Be nice. Didn't you just give someone a two week ban for this sort of behavior?
Micah71381: What an enormous waste of our time to talk to you then. Be nice. Didn't you just give someone a two week ban for this sort of behavior?
First of all, I don't hand out bans. Second of all, he's basically admitting he's making arguments of positions he doesn't endorse, which is in my opinion, an enormous waste of our time. If I wanted to role play, I would call a sex line, not chat on Mises.org. YMMV.
EvilSocialistFellow:Hey, I am quite open about the fact I know so little on AnCap. I'm just trying to learn more about it.
Try reading or listening. There is a treasure trove of data here. Arguing positions you haven't taken any time to understand and misstating them isn't doing you or anyone else any favors.
liberty student:Try reading or listening. There is a treasure trove of data here. Arguing positions you haven't taken any time to understand and misstating them isn't doing you or anyone else any favors.
Actually I am presently reading Man, Economy and State. But it is a long read and I don't have time to also read about positive rights and those crucial positions I am lacking on.
Anyway, this is the Newbie forum, therefore I should be allowed to say dumb things in here, so leave me alone you bully :P.
Also, I am not convinced on AnCap by any stretch of the imagination; I merely said I was attracted to the idea. I have (centre) right leanings, that is all.
This thread doesn't belong in the newbie forum, and the arguments being made aren't newbie arguments.
I don't have a problem with people saying dumb things or asking dumb questions. The dumbest path is to not ask a question.
That said, I don't like when people argue positions they don't support. We all put a lot of thought and energy into discussions here, arguing a BS position is irritating to say the least.
If you have any interest in logic and morality, you will find Ancap appealing. If you're comfortable with cognitive dissonance, more mainstream positions may fit the bill.
liberty student:This thread doesn't belong in the newbie forum, and the arguments being made aren't newbie arguments.
The thread is in Forums > Misc > Newbies > Education and Voluntarism
(?)
Also, I'm sorry that my newbie questions do not match up to the arguments being made *cries*.
I don't have a problem with people saying dumb things or asking dumb questions. The dumbest path is to not ask a question. That said, I don't like when people argue positions they don't support. We all put a lot of thought and energy into discussions here, arguing a BS position is irritating to say the least.
I do support the positions I argue; I am a minarchist, not an AnCap. I find the idea appealing, my brain is just refusing to let me go to the extreme. If you had just stopped being a communist would the first thing you do be to jump to the opposite extreme?
If you're comfortable with cognitive dissonance, more mainstream positions may fit the bill.
Warning: Off topic!
I disagree. I find that having someone who tries their hardest to poke holes in theories to be the moste effective way of improving the theory. Whether or not they agree with their stance is of no consequence since the end result is the same, either a stronger original theory or proof that the original theory is invalid.
Micah71381:I disagree. I find that having someone who tries their hardest to poke holes in theories to be the moste effective way of improving the theory.
There is nothing wrong with the theory. This individual can't articulate what he is criticizing or challenging.
Micah71381:Whether or not they agree with their stance is of no consequence since the end result is the same, either a stronger original theory or proof that the original theory is invalid.
You miss the point, see above.
EvilSocialistFellow:I do support the positions I argue
Then why did you say you were playing Devil's advocate?
My statement had nothing to do with this individual or the theory being discussed. My statement was in response to your statement, "I don't like when people argue positions they don't support."
According to Wikipedia (which aligns with my usage of the word), "...the individual taking on the devil's advocate role seeks to engage others in an argumentative discussion process. The purpose of such process is typically to test the quality of the original argument and identify weaknesses in its structure, and to use such information to either improve or abandon the original, opposing position."
Did I misinterpret your statement, "I don't like when people argue positions they don't support.", as being limited to this individual and not to the more general "people"?
Micah71381:My statement had nothing to do with this individual or the theory being discussed. My statement was in response to your statement, "I don't like when people argue positions they don't support."
So basically, you just wanted to share your opinion about my opinion. Ok.
EvilSocialistFellow: The thread is in Forums > Misc > Newbies > Education and Voluntarism (?)
I've been here for over a year now(2?), and I didn't even know there was a newbie forum. Many of us just look at the most recent posts that float to the top, we may not spend time paying attention to whatever category they get posted in. Not trying to make an excuse, just saying....
:)
"I wonder if you guys could tighten up your critique's and arugments between each other to improve discussion legibility. It's becoming difficult and time consuming to follow. There are several un-reletated topics going off in different directions."
Coercion is necessary for the survival, education, and maturation of the immature, especially children. Second, it is necessary for the survival and prosperity of family, without which human life cannot exist. A society without "mass" education--via family, mythical rites, church, public schools, home schooling, private schools, whatever; "education" broadly defined--would soon revert back to painting itself blue, howling at the moon, and eating its neighbor for lunch. Therefore, voluntarism is no more than an abstract theory that no one can, does, or will ever practice in a world inhabited by humans.
More concretely, some voluntarists can talk about permitting a five year old "of his own free will" deciding to move into the pedophilic neighbor's house, except when it is your own five year old.
liberty student: Way too long for me to read. Is there a short version?
A fine display of the need for coercive education.
^^^
Why are people on the forum so nasty all of the sudden? And to moderators no less?
Herodotus:Coercion is necessary for the survival, education, and maturation of the immature, especially children. Second, it is necessary for the survival and prosperity of family, without which human life cannot exist. A society without "mass" education--via family, mythical rites, church, public schools, home schooling, private schools, whatever; "education" broadly defined--would soon revert back to painting itself blue, howling at the moon, and eating its neighbor for lunch. Therefore, voluntarism is no more than an abstract theory that no one can, does, or will ever practice in a world inhabited by humans.
You claim that "family" is necessary for "human life." I don't know this to be true. You claim that absent institutions, surely canibalism will occur. I don't know this to be true. Neither of these things, unless I assume them to be true out of the gate (which I won't), support the conclusion that voluntaryism is incompatible with reality.
I also think that you are conflating, still, "coercion" and "aggression." "Coecion" is not necessarily "aggressive." If you're coming at me with a knife and I pull out a gun, that's me coercing you to stop your current behavior. Is it aggressive? Not hardly. The aggression is you coming at me with a knife. If I understand LS and Wikipedia correctly, it's not the "coercion" that's decried in this instance, but the "aggression."
Herodotus:A fine display of the need for coercive education.
Herodotus:Coercion is necessary for the survival, education, and maturation of the immature, especially children.
Can you please substantiate this assertion? That is, can you please support it? What makes "coercion" (any/all coercion?) necessary for these things?
Herodotus:Second, it is necessary for the survival and prosperity of family, without which human life cannot exist.
Same thing as above. Also, can you please support the claim that human life cannot exist without the survival/prosperity of the family? It would seem you have it backwards - as families consist of humans, it would seem that "family life" cannot exist without human life already existing.
Herodotus:A society without "mass" education--via family, mythical rites, church, public schools, home schooling, private schools, whatever; "education" broadly defined--would soon revert back to painting itself blue, howling at the moon, and eating its neighbor for lunch.
Once again, I see a completely unsupported claim. Furthermore, you seem to discount any notion of an innate desire to learn things. My understanding is that all human beings are born with such an innate desire - but they may not want to learn the things others want them to learn when those others want them to learn them. Finally, I think the definition used for "education" is the crux of the issue here, as it can mean many different things to many different people.
Herodotus:Therefore, voluntarism is no more than an abstract theory that no one can, does, or will ever practice in a world inhabited by humans.
This seems to me like an unsubstantiated conclusion, since the "support" you offer for it is itself unsubstantiated.
Herodotus:More concretely, some voluntarists can talk about permitting a five year old "of his own free will" deciding to move into the pedophilic neighbor's house, except when it is your own five year old.
In this rhetorical scenario, does the five-year-old know/understand that the neighbor is a pedophile?
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Voluntaryism Forum
ladyphoenix:I also think that you are conflating, still, "coercion" and "aggression." "Coecion" is not necessarily "aggressive." If you're coming at me with a knife and I pull out a gun, that's me coercing you to stop your current behavior. Is it aggressive? Not hardly. The aggression is you coming at me with a knife. If I understand LS and Wikipedia correctly, it's not the "coercion" that's decried in this instance, but the "aggression."
Agreed. Coercion is considered aggression when it's considered unjustified. So the real question is: under what circumstances is coercion considered justified?