Total Posts:50|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Question for An-Caps

Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2011 8:20:57 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
In an an-cap society, there would be private police, courts and the like. You would hire a firm to protect you and uphold your rights or whatever.

So suppose John and I live in Sunnyside. I rob his house, and he wanted to hire a firm to get his stuff back and punish me or take me to court. He calls Rob's Police Agency to help him out, and Rob sends a few of his guys to my house to arrest me and get John's stuff back. My question is - what right do these people have to do such a thing? Those guys are just 2 employees from Rob's Police Agency. They could be crooked scumbags for all I know. Why should they be allowed to touch me, go in my house, punish me in any way, etc? In other words what association with them would I have to give them the authority (so to speak) to have any say in my livelihood?

This is a genuine question; please don't crucify me for my ignorance.
President of DDO
J.Kenyon
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2011 8:30:09 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
The problem isn't unique to anarcho-capitalism, the government hired police could be -- and often are -- crooked scumbags. I think the issue is just a pragmatic one: which system, anarchy or statism, is more likely to produce an effective, honest, police force.
LaissezFaire
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2011 8:42:37 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/15/2011 8:20:57 PM, theLwerd wrote:
In an an-cap society, there would be private police, courts and the like. You would hire a firm to protect you and uphold your rights or whatever.

So suppose John and I live in Sunnyside. I rob his house, and he wanted to hire a firm to get his stuff back and punish me or take me to court. He calls Rob's Police Agency to help him out, and Rob sends a few of his guys to my house to arrest me and get John's stuff back. My question is - what right do these people have to do such a thing? Those guys are just 2 employees from Rob's Police Agency. They could be crooked scumbags for all I know. Why should they be allowed to touch me, go in my house, punish me in any way, etc? In other words what association with them would I have to give them the authority (so to speak) to have any say in my livelihood?

This is a genuine question; please don't crucify me for my ignorance.

Moral right? The idea is that you lose your rights to the extent that you violate someone else's (inb4 Ragnar shooting shoplifters). The idea is expanded on in depth here (http://mises.org...), but, basically, this is because you can't coherently argue against a proportionate punishment. For example, if you murdered someone, you can't argue that killing you would be wrong without contradicting yourself.

Of course, that assumes that the police know that you're guilty of this crime. In the real world, even if they did have such knowledge, people wouldn't just take their word for it. That's where courts come in. Your police agency and John's would agree on an impartial arbiter, and if you were found guilty, you'd be punished. Of course, it would be morally permissible for John's police to punish you without a trial (assuming that you are, in fact, guilty). But, in a libertarian society, such action would rarely happen, because then your protection agency could charge John's police as criminals, and those police would have to prove that they were punishing a guilty person--if they couldn't, they'd be punished as any other criminals. It makes much more sense to have a trial first to avoid punishing potentially innocent people.

So, the moral right arises because of the fact that you violated John's rights, but the legal right to do that wouldn't exist without a trial and conviction.
Should we subsidize education?
http://www.debate.org...

http://mises.org...

http://lewrockwell.com...

http://antiwar.com...

: At 6/22/2011 6:57:23 PM, el-badgero wrote:
: i didn't like [Obama]. he was the only black dude in moneygall yet he claimed to be home. obvious liar is obvious liar. i bet him and bin laden are bumfvcking right now.
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2011 8:55:37 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/15/2011 8:20:57 PM, theLwerd wrote:
In an an-cap society, there would be private police, courts and the like. You would hire a firm to protect you and uphold your rights or whatever.

Not necessarily. Markets are just one game we can play with negative rights. We can also play social games like democracy or ostracism.

See here for a short list of many different types of legal systems.

http://www.daviddfriedman.com...

Many of them are very interesting.

So suppose John and I live in Sunnyside. I rob his house, and he wanted to hire a firm to get his stuff back and punish me or take me to court. He calls Rob's Police Agency to help him out, and Rob sends a few of his guys to my house to arrest me and get John's stuff back. My question is - what right do these people have to do such a thing? Those guys are just 2 employees from Rob's Police Agency. They could be crooked scumbags for all I know. Why should they be allowed to touch me, go in my house, punish me in any way, etc? In other words what association with them would I have to give them the authority (so to speak) to have any say in my livelihood?


The orthodox answer is that since security firms can anticipate these kinds of situations, they will work out some sort of way to work out conflicts in advance. So maybe security firms A and B would have pre-selected some arbiter to resolve disputes between them.

My answer is that it doesn't matter. If this legal paradigm doesn't work we have about 1000 more options before we have to go back to an aggressive monopoly on arbitration.

I'd actually accuse mainstream ancaps (lol) of "policy fixing" when they talk about this kind of stuff... although they usually have asterisks everywhere saying that they don't actually know how it would work out.

My *guess* is that dispute resolution is totally overemphasized. The philosophy of justice is stuck in this anglo-saxon jury/oath bullsh*t, while serious businesses turn around and resolve disputes in the blink of an eye. Almost literally. A cool example is Visa which provides many services, including dispute resolution between member banks in the case of financial fraud. You didn't even know it did that because its so efficient it doesn't cost anything or have any hiccups.

This is a genuine question; please don't crucify me for my ignorance.

Truce :)
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2011 10:23:31 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/15/2011 8:55:37 PM, Sieben wrote:
mainstream ancaps

I think they err on a few points as well.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
belle
Posts: 4,113
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2011 1:47:26 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/15/2011 8:42:37 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 2/15/2011 8:20:57 PM, theLwerd wrote:
In an an-cap society, there would be private police, courts and the like. You would hire a firm to protect you and uphold your rights or whatever.

So suppose John and I live in Sunnyside. I rob his house, and he wanted to hire a firm to get his stuff back and punish me or take me to court. He calls Rob's Police Agency to help him out, and Rob sends a few of his guys to my house to arrest me and get John's stuff back. My question is - what right do these people have to do such a thing? Those guys are just 2 employees from Rob's Police Agency. They could be crooked scumbags for all I know. Why should they be allowed to touch me, go in my house, punish me in any way, etc? In other words what association with them would I have to give them the authority (so to speak) to have any say in my livelihood?

This is a genuine question; please don't crucify me for my ignorance.

Moral right? The idea is that you lose your rights to the extent that you violate someone else's (inb4 Ragnar shooting shoplifters). The idea is expanded on in depth here (http://mises.org...), but, basically, this is because you can't coherently argue against a proportionate punishment. For example, if you murdered someone, you can't argue that killing you would be wrong without contradicting yourself.

Of course, that assumes that the police know that you're guilty of this crime. In the real world, even if they did have such knowledge, people wouldn't just take their word for it. That's where courts come in. Your police agency and John's would agree on an impartial arbiter, and if you were found guilty, you'd be punished. Of course, it would be morally permissible for John's police to punish you without a trial (assuming that you are, in fact, guilty). But, in a libertarian society, such action would rarely happen, because then your protection agency could charge John's police as criminals, and those police would have to prove that they were punishing a guilty person--if they couldn't, they'd be punished as any other criminals. It makes much more sense to have a trial first to avoid punishing potentially innocent people.

So, the moral right arises because of the fact that you violated John's rights, but the legal right to do that wouldn't exist without a trial and conviction.

doesn't this place selective pressure on security firms that can broker good deals in court for their clients rather than deal honestly (in much the same way elections select for people good at being elected rather than being good at running the country).

in a country with a state, theres an ultimate place where people say "the buck stops here". theres a monopoly on force. the same laws apply to everyone, so theres a point where you can declare a case effectively closed. in an ancap society, no such thing. so if agency x starts cheating to get its clients good deals, even if agencies a b and c all convict x of wrong doing and attempt to punish x, in turn x can contend that their punishment was illegitimate and attempt to extract compensation from a b and c. it could go back and forth forever, devolving into a battle of the strongest. granted it could be argued that the state only exists because they already won such a battle, but the fact remains that once established, it is more efficient in handling disputes.

...isn't it?
evidently i only come to ddo to avoid doing homework...
LaissezFaire
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2011 2:12:03 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/16/2011 1:47:26 AM, belle wrote:
At 2/15/2011 8:42:37 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 2/15/2011 8:20:57 PM, theLwerd wrote:
In an an-cap society, there would be private police, courts and the like. You would hire a firm to protect you and uphold your rights or whatever.

So suppose John and I live in Sunnyside. I rob his house, and he wanted to hire a firm to get his stuff back and punish me or take me to court. He calls Rob's Police Agency to help him out, and Rob sends a few of his guys to my house to arrest me and get John's stuff back. My question is - what right do these people have to do such a thing? Those guys are just 2 employees from Rob's Police Agency. They could be crooked scumbags for all I know. Why should they be allowed to touch me, go in my house, punish me in any way, etc? In other words what association with them would I have to give them the authority (so to speak) to have any say in my livelihood?

This is a genuine question; please don't crucify me for my ignorance.

Moral right? The idea is that you lose your rights to the extent that you violate someone else's (inb4 Ragnar shooting shoplifters). The idea is expanded on in depth here (http://mises.org...), but, basically, this is because you can't coherently argue against a proportionate punishment. For example, if you murdered someone, you can't argue that killing you would be wrong without contradicting yourself.

Of course, that assumes that the police know that you're guilty of this crime. In the real world, even if they did have such knowledge, people wouldn't just take their word for it. That's where courts come in. Your police agency and John's would agree on an impartial arbiter, and if you were found guilty, you'd be punished. Of course, it would be morally permissible for John's police to punish you without a trial (assuming that you are, in fact, guilty). But, in a libertarian society, such action would rarely happen, because then your protection agency could charge John's police as criminals, and those police would have to prove that they were punishing a guilty person--if they couldn't, they'd be punished as any other criminals. It makes much more sense to have a trial first to avoid punishing potentially innocent people.

So, the moral right arises because of the fact that you violated John's rights, but the legal right to do that wouldn't exist without a trial and conviction.

doesn't this place selective pressure on security firms that can broker good deals in court for their clients rather than deal honestly (in much the same way elections select for people good at being elected rather than being good at running the country).
Of course a protection firm will do the best it can to help its clients. But both sides of a conflict have a protection firm looking out for their interests. The best thing to do in that situation, from the firm's point of view, is to settle on a fair trial, rather than fight it out, wasting valuable resources, employees, and PR.

If a firm is is representing someone on the receiving end of a suit, that person is either innocent or guilty. If the person is innocent, of course the firm would want a fair trial. And if he's guilty, they don't have a contractual obligation to protect him any more, so why would they care if he's punished?

in a country with a state, theres an ultimate place where people say "the buck stops here". theres a monopoly on force. the same laws apply to everyone, so theres a point where you can declare a case effectively closed. in an ancap society, no such thing. so if agency x starts cheating to get its clients good deals, even if agencies a b and c all convict x of wrong doing and attempt to punish x, in turn x can contend that their punishment was illegitimate and attempt to extract compensation from a b and c. it could go back and forth forever, devolving into a battle of the strongest. granted it could be argued that the state only exists because they already won such a battle, but the fact remains that once established, it is more efficient in handling disputes.

...isn't it?

Well, if X contends that a punishment was illegitimate, even after he's been convicted, he could appeal if he wanted to. But B and C could just punish him anyway after the initial conviction. They wouldn't have to wait for appeals any more than we do now. If someone is convicted of a crime, they can appeal it, but we don't wait until after he's done to punish him. If the appeal was legitimate, B and C would be criminals, and X could seek compensation for his punishment later, but if that's very unlikely, then they'd just punish X anyway, rather than just let X go on appealing forever. X could try to fight B and C, but there's no reason he would. Society in general will recognize the judgments of fair courts, so it will be X against the world, the end result of which would undoubtedly be worse than whatever punishment he was going to get. X wouldn't bother trying to physically fight a conviction.
Should we subsidize education?
http://www.debate.org...

http://mises.org...

http://lewrockwell.com...

http://antiwar.com...

: At 6/22/2011 6:57:23 PM, el-badgero wrote:
: i didn't like [Obama]. he was the only black dude in moneygall yet he claimed to be home. obvious liar is obvious liar. i bet him and bin laden are bumfvcking right now.
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2011 5:19:00 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
An-Cap comes across as patently retarded to me, ain't going to lie.

It certainly isn't a stable way of running things, and it is the type of system where states could easily rise up. It comes across as an utterly useless system concocted by people driven mostly by a poor grasp of the obvious.

It is a rather stupid ideal that isn't in the least bit practical, and there is no way to enforce it.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
J.Kenyon
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2011 5:45:03 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/16/2011 5:19:00 AM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
Anarcho capitalism wouldn't work because I said so.

Nice argument. Troll harder.
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2011 6:41:19 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/16/2011 5:19:00 AM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
An-Cap comes across as patently retarded to me, ain't going to lie.

It certainly isn't a stable way of running things, and it is the type of system where states could easily rise up. It comes across as an utterly useless system concocted by people driven mostly by a poor grasp of the obvious.

It is a rather stupid ideal that isn't in the least bit practical, and there is no way to enforce it.

What about minarchist libertarianism? Do you think that would fail too?
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2011 7:32:40 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Lol. CA thinks anarcho-capitalism is a set "plan", like syndicalism, and therefore he can predict that it won't work.
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2011 8:41:50 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/16/2011 7:32:40 AM, Sieben wrote:
Lol. CA thinks anarcho-capitalism is a set "plan", like syndicalism, and therefore he can predict that it won't work.

Not having a "plan" IS problematic, because when asked certain tough questions the an-cap answer is usually "I don't know" (and you've admitted that yourself) or "We'll see when we get to it..." etc. Those do usually not suffice. Admittedly I predicted the answer I was going to get (I just wanted to make sure). I'm personally not satisfied with it, but I'm still a-thinkin :)
President of DDO
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2011 8:57:11 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/16/2011 8:41:50 AM, theLwerd wrote:
At 2/16/2011 7:32:40 AM, Sieben wrote:
Lol. CA thinks anarcho-capitalism is a set "plan", like syndicalism, and therefore he can predict that it won't work.

Not having a "plan" IS problematic, because when asked certain tough questions the an-cap answer is usually "I don't know" (and you've admitted that yourself) or "We'll see when we get to it..." etc. Those do usually not suffice. Admittedly I predicted the answer I was going to get (I just wanted to make sure). I'm personally not satisfied with it, but I'm still a-thinkin :)

The idea is that instead of focusing on exactly how much clothing, cars, security etc, will be produced, you instead focus on the incentives people face under anarchy.
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
juvanya
Posts: 613
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2011 9:03:35 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/16/2011 5:19:00 AM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
It certainly isn't a stable way of running things, and it is the type of system where states could easily rise up.
Because that completely follows logic...

We should prevent the rise of states by having a state already. Right.

(I actually used to make the same argument and now I realize its logical styrofoam)
juvanya
Posts: 613
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2011 9:08:43 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/15/2011 8:20:57 PM, theLwerd wrote:
In an an-cap society, there would be private police, courts and the like. You would hire a firm to protect you and uphold your rights or whatever.

So suppose John and I live in Sunnyside. I rob his house, and he wanted to hire a firm to get his stuff back and punish me or take me to court. He calls Rob's Police Agency to help him out, and Rob sends a few of his guys to my house to arrest me and get John's stuff back. My question is - what right do these people have to do such a thing? Those guys are just 2 employees from Rob's Police Agency. They could be crooked scumbags for all I know. Why should they be allowed to touch me, go in my house, punish me in any way, etc? In other words what association with them would I have to give them the authority (so to speak) to have any say in my livelihood?

This is a genuine question; please don't crucify me for my ignorance.

Mises dealt with this exact scenario already.
http://mises.org...

Basically, John would sue you and provide a list of arbitrators/judges he trusts. You will agree to one of them. That judge then hears both sides and make a verdict. If either side doesnt like it, they can appeal to another judge. A consensus will arrive naturally and frivolous appeals will be laughed at. The community will passively support the implementation of the verdict.

Now what if you refuse to go to court? John can go to a judge and make the case. Because you didnt contest it and Johns evidence is solid, he will get community support to repossess his property. If you fail to provide enough evidence and try to repossess without support from a judge, the community will frown upon you and John might even send his own repo men... :P
juvanya
Posts: 613
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2011 9:09:33 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/16/2011 8:41:50 AM, theLwerd wrote:
Not having a "plan" IS problematic, because when asked certain tough questions the an-cap answer is usually "I don't know"
Really? Try me. (This is partially to test my own ability to respond)
Caramel
Posts: 855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2011 9:15:08 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
You guys are forgetting one pretty big point. Who decides what rules these guys play by? Think about the diversity of belief about law. There are those that think abortion is murder, and those who think it is little more than squashing a bug. It's easy to just say "we'll only defend property rights" but to pro-lifers there's no difference between murder and abortion so how do you resolve that without a state?

There is no way to create standards without a state (my system needs no standards because there are no laws for which to base them). If you think we can create standards with independant private agencies then think again; we have found out in practice that this is impossible. The impossibility of news-reporting without bias is one example. Another is the problems we encounter with independant review of firms in a market; one would expect and rely on some private agency to tell us what we need to know about other private agencies that are obviously poised to decieve us for their own profits. But these independant agencies are also poised to decieve us for the same reasons. In the end, it's one giant sh*t storm, similar to election-year ads, where each firm is striving to be the true unbiased source but the consumer has no way to tell who to believe. In the environmental field we are already sufffering from this; people want to buy 'green' but some of the least green companies have the most convincing packaging and PR to make you think they are. If you think there are theoretical problems with AnCap, the practical ones are far more troubling.
no comment
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2011 9:18:14 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/16/2011 9:08:43 AM, juvanya wrote:
Mises dealt with this exact scenario already.

I don't go on Mises. If Mises is so great then why did everyone from there come here ;)

Basically, John would sue you and provide a list of arbitrators/judges he trusts. You will agree to one of them. That judge then hears both sides and make a verdict. If either side doesnt like it, they can appeal to another judge. A consensus will arrive naturally and frivolous appeals will be laughed at. The community will passively support the implementation of the verdict.

This is the most comprehensive answer I've seen; thank you.
President of DDO
Caramel
Posts: 855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2011 9:18:16 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/16/2011 9:03:35 AM, juvanya wrote:
At 2/16/2011 5:19:00 AM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
It certainly isn't a stable way of running things, and it is the type of system where states could easily rise up.
Because that completely follows logic...

We should prevent the rise of states by having a state already. Right.

(I actually used to make the same argument and now I realize its logical styrofoam)

If you don't let me rape you then you see that guy over there? He's going to come over and rape you instead. So bend over and take this d*ck like a good American citizen.
no comment
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2011 9:19:16 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
It is impossible to prevent the state.

I don't need to prove my point at all, a simple knowledge of history and human nature will tell you that it won't work.

This is coming from someone who is an anarchist at heart. I'm just not naive enough to think it is practical in the slightest.

Whatever the state of the world is in at the time is probably the closest you are ever going to get to anarchy.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2011 9:20:51 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/16/2011 9:09:33 AM, juvanya wrote:
Really? Try me. (This is partially to test my own ability to respond)

K this is just another random question. Suppose someone killed my mom and I wanted to hire CSI-like people to come investigate and figure out who killed her. The problem is that I don't have a lot or enough money to hire them. Does the killer just get away with it? Before you respond by saying the community might pitch in and help because they don't want a killer on the loose, what about in a place like the ghetto where people get shot all the time and yet it never makes the news (unlike when it happens in suburbia) because people are just so used to it and it's commonplace...?
President of DDO
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2011 9:21:33 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/16/2011 9:19:16 AM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
It is impossible to prevent the state.

It's impossible to prevent government, but not the State.
President of DDO
Caramel
Posts: 855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2011 9:29:29 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/16/2011 9:08:43 AM, juvanya wrote:
At 2/15/2011 8:20:57 PM, theLwerd wrote:
In an an-cap society, there would be private police, courts and the like. You would hire a firm to protect you and uphold your rights or whatever.

So suppose John and I live in Sunnyside. I rob his house, and he wanted to hire a firm to get his stuff back and punish me or take me to court. He calls Rob's Police Agency to help him out, and Rob sends a few of his guys to my house to arrest me and get John's stuff back. My question is - what right do these people have to do such a thing? Those guys are just 2 employees from Rob's Police Agency. They could be crooked scumbags for all I know. Why should they be allowed to touch me, go in my house, punish me in any way, etc? In other words what association with them would I have to give them the authority (so to speak) to have any say in my livelihood?

This is a genuine question; please don't crucify me for my ignorance.

Mises dealt with this exact scenario already.
http://mises.org...

Basically, John would sue you and provide a list of arbitrators/judges he trusts.

And these arbiters have competed for his money which means they have manipulated and decieved him like a used car salesman.

You will agree to one of them.

Sure she will.

That judge then hears both sides and make a verdict. If either side doesnt like it, they can appeal to another judge.

That sounds endless. How many appeals? Is your ability to appeal based on the amount of money you have to spend as it is now?

A consensus will arrive naturally

That directly contradicts all logic surrounding dispute resolution. Consensus is not arrived at naturally, it is fought out tooth and nail until one side uses legal tactics to suffocate the other party. One side is sure to not be happy with the ruling and it is often both sides.

and frivolous appeals will be laughed at. The community will passively support the implementation of the verdict.

Based on who's idea of what's right? What happens if large amounts of the community disagree? What if the profiteers involved in arbitration are found to have not conducted themselves properly? How are the foxes not in control of the henhouses when profiteers are ruling on property disputes?

Now what if you refuse to go to court? John can go to a judge and make the case. Because you didnt contest it and Johns evidence is solid, he will get community support to repossess his property. If you fail to provide enough evidence and try to repossess without support from a judge, the community will frown upon you and John might even send his own repo men... :P

Why not send his own repo men before the trial instead? That's what I would do...
no comment
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2011 9:30:03 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/16/2011 9:15:08 AM, Caramel wrote:
but to pro-lifers there's no difference between murder and abortion so how do you resolve that without a state?

This is a good point and one I was thinking about too. My first thought was that they'd say there's no fetus to show up in court and complain that their rights have been violated. However as you said, pro-lifers equate it to murder so that's neither here nor there. What would your system do in this situation that an-caps could not?

But these independent agencies are also poised to deceive us for the same reasons. In the end, it's one giant sh*t storm, similar to election-year ads, where each firm is striving to be the true unbiased source but the consumer has no way to tell who to believe.

Yeah, this is why I was pro-FDA back in the day. I've revisited my position but it's a legitimate concern.

If you think there are theoretical problems with AnCap, the practical ones are far more troubling.

I haven't been able to find a system in which I do not find theoretical and/or practical problems, obviously. In that case you have to go with the least evil, I presume.
President of DDO
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2011 9:30:04 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
There are always going to be those who have a monopoly on violence.. And there are always going to be people that attempt to take over for the sake of resources.

There are a lot of problems that need to be fixed first before anarcho-capitalism becomes practical.

If something like that were to happen now, I can only really see it being a repeat of history.

I personally don't think it will be practical until the coming of Techno Allah. XD
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2011 9:32:47 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Anarchy, that is.. If you could call it anarchy.

I can't wrap my head around anarchy, it seems so absurd to me.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
LaissezFaire
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2011 9:34:24 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/16/2011 9:30:04 AM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
There will always be a state. There will always be a state.

Anarchy is impractical.

Anarchy is impractical.

Anarchy is impractical.

OK.
Should we subsidize education?
http://www.debate.org...

http://mises.org...

http://lewrockwell.com...

http://antiwar.com...

: At 6/22/2011 6:57:23 PM, el-badgero wrote:
: i didn't like [Obama]. he was the only black dude in moneygall yet he claimed to be home. obvious liar is obvious liar. i bet him and bin laden are bumfvcking right now.
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2011 9:35:18 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/16/2011 9:29:29 AM, Caramel wrote:
And these arbiters have competed for his money which means they have manipulated and decieved him like a used car salesman.

The whole idea is that they'd have John's money, but the rest of the community would see how bad they were and not use them so they'd go out of business.

(Of course this always makes me wonder what would prevent a firm from "monopolizing justice" and taking over if they had a lot of rich clients... and with competing firms, who decides who wins?)

That sounds endless. How many appeals? Is your ability to appeal based on the amount of money you have to spend as it is now?

Lol another good point. Without money to appeal and pay for the services of the courts, then how can you even have an appeal? Appeals are limited to those who can afford them? Eh, that makes the "justice" in the justice system a bit problematic. Also, I'm again wondering what happens when a bunch of firms are competing and the population is split so that nobody knows which ruling to adhere to...

That directly contradicts all logic surrounding dispute resolution. Consensus is not arrived at naturally, it is fought out tooth and nail until one side uses legal tactics to suffocate the other party. One side is sure to not be happy with the ruling and it is often both sides.

Yup. Pretty much you just said out loud what I was thinking, which I summed up as merely not being satisfied with the answers :P
President of DDO
Caramel
Posts: 855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2011 9:39:48 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/16/2011 9:19:16 AM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
It is impossible to prevent the state.

I don't need to prove my point at all, a simple knowledge of history and human nature will tell you that it won't work.


This is coming from someone who is an anarchist at heart. I'm just not naive enough to think it is practical in the slightest.

Whatever the state of the world is in at the time is probably the closest you are ever going to get to anarchy.

You are not really giving us a chance to improve. I find it hard to believe that forty centuries from now we're still going to be stuck with our choice of big-state capitalism or big-state communism/socialism. Someone is going to either think their way out of this or else (much more likely) our inability to cooperate is going too cause mass destruction. How many centuries will the Koreas and Irans of the world hold onto nuclear arms peacefully? How many countries in the 21st century will gain nuclear arms? Competition is a clock with invisible hands. We can hear the ticking but we don't know when disaster will fall.
no comment
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2011 9:40:47 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/16/2011 9:34:24 AM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 2/16/2011 9:30:04 AM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
There will always be a state. There will always be a state.

Anarchy is impractical.

Anarchy is impractical.

Anarchy is impractical.

OK.

Yet anarchists also fail to realize how bloody easy it would be to turn me to the side of anarchy if they could only provide reasoning as to how it would work.

I only keep poking you guys because I want to be convinced. Obviously, you don't see how my points are legitimate.

This only hurts your case, and further supports my belief that not only is anarcho-capitalism obviously impractical, but the people who support it are brain dead.

You know, most people who believe in something are eager to convince.

Maybe in another topic. I don't mean to hijack this one.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp