Total Posts:49|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

An-Cap Property dispute? 2

Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2011 2:27:38 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
I am still trying to get someone to supply an answer to my question, that does not involve simply handwaving away obvious problems, denying human nature, or resorting to the state.

Imagine there is a an-cap society.

Bill and Ben are neighbours, their property adjoins each other. Their title deeds both claim a section of the others land. There is therefore an overlapping land claim. Bill and Ben both very strongly believe that they own the disputed land.

Bill starts taking the down the hedge in the disputed area. Ben is furious and phones, not the police obviously, but his private sector security firm. We will call this Security firm 1.

Security firm 1 is paid by Ben to provide services for him that would otherwise be provided by state police service. He phones them and complains that Bill is committing criminal damage against him.

A man from security firm 1 turns up and demands that Bill stop.

Now this is where it gets tricky...

Bill is unreasonable. It is his hedge, his land, his right to take down the hedge. He may be unreasonable because of any number of reasons, but people naturally are unreasonable.

Bill phones his security firm. We will call this security firm 2. Security firm 2 is paid by Bill to provide services for him that would otherwise be provided by state police service. He phones them and complains that he is being intimidated on his property and prevented from going about his lawful business.

A man from Security firm 2 turns up. Bill resumes his hedge attack.

Ben demands that the man from Security firm 1 prevents this criminal damage. Bill demands that the man from Security firm 2 protects him as he takes down his hedge.

If either security man backs down, they have broken their contract with the customer. The customer would sensible find a different company. The security man in question might lose his job.

It is clear that what we have here is an aggressive adversarial system. Which is what capitalism is meant to be. There is no value in either security rep attempting to be 'objective'. There is either victory, or loss.

How is conflict averted, and how is this superior to the state?

In addition if both Bill and Ben happen to pay out to the same company how does that not comprise a form of state in of itself?
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
LaissezFaire
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2011 2:41:03 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
1. If these people didn't want to settle this matter peacefully, why would they call the police in a statist system, rather than just shoot each other? Violent disputes happen all the time, despite state police. And if they do want to settle it peacefully, then they can and violent conflict is avoided.

2. Let's assume the worst, and say that every single time such a situation arose, every single person involved got into a shootout and died. Still far, far less total violence and death than is caused by state wars and genocides. There's always going to be violence in society, but giving one group of people a legal monopoly over it results in far more death than could happen in a free society. As history has shown, the type of people that want to control such monopolies are the worst, most violent sort of people. Such sociopaths will cause violence and death in any society, but they can't cause nearly as much in a free society as they can in a statist society.

3. If any group of people at all resembled the insanely stubborn people in your example, surely it would be the pioneers of the American West during the 19th century. Highly individualistic, and often criminals and others that are not the sort of person that can live in civilized society. How did these people settle disputes in the anarchist West? http://mises.org...
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.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2011 3:06:11 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/6/2011 2:41:03 AM, LaissezFaire wrote:
1. If these people didn't want to settle this matter peacefully, why would they call the police in a statist system, rather than just shoot each other?
Cause even if they win, they'll still get shot by the state for violating jurisdictional property. They figure they've got an approximately 50 percent chance of survival related to that situation in anarchy, and approximately 0 (unless they run and hence lose the property in question anyway) in a non-anarchy.

Unless it's a user fee minarchy and their neighbor isn't a customer, but they'll die soon anyway cause all the criminals know who paid and hence who didn't.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
tvellalott
Posts: 10,864
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2011 4:03:50 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
C_N: I think, from reading the responses to this scenario of yours that I understand, though I am certainly no expert on any of this.

Either Bill or Ben are in the wrong, or the group who originally assigned them their property boundries made a mistake. If that is the case, they must come to compromise, the most obvious of which is to simply divide the disputed land exactly in half, establish the new property boundry and move on with your life.

The security groups are familar with each other; possibly former police officers from the pre-anarchy days. They will explain to their customers what must happen, exactly as I explain above. If either person is completely unreasonable (for example, Bill insists on cutting the hedge before the dispute is resolved) than his security contract is voided and he forfeits his protection, which is clearly not in his best interest to do.
"Caitlyn Jenner is an incredibly brave and stunningly beautiful woman."

Muh threads
Using mafia tactics in real-life: http://www.debate.org...
6 years of DDO: http://www.debate.org...
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2011 4:55:46 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/6/2011 2:41:03 AM, LaissezFaire wrote:
1. If these people didn't want to settle this matter peacefully, why would they call the police in a statist system, rather than just shoot each other? Violent disputes happen all the time, despite state police. And if they do want to settle it peacefully, then they can and violent conflict is avoided.

This does not follow, the two people are simply committed to their view of justice. They have outsourced the settlement so it does not matter to them if it is settled violently or not.

2. Let's assume the worst, and say that every single time such a situation arose, every single person involved got into a shootout and died.

No, lets just assume that humans will be as humans normally are. Sometimes reasonable. Often not. The example is not extreme.

Still far, far less total violence and death than is caused by state wars and genocides.

True, but this is just one minor issue I have with An-cap. I'll get onto the others later.

There's always going to be violence in society, but giving one group of people a legal monopoly over it results in far more death than could happen in a free society. As history has shown, the type of people that want to control such monopolies are the worst, most violent sort of people. Such sociopaths will cause violence and death in any society, but they can't cause nearly as much in a free society as they can in a statist society.

I am not really sure how that follows. In a statist society there is a monopoly on violence which means that in the normal course of things there is little state violence. Having a darwinian free market with no checks on violence will obviously lead to an increase.

3. If any group of people at all resembled the insanely stubborn people in your example,

Strawman.

surely it would be the pioneers of the American West during the 19th century. Highly individualistic, and often criminals and others that are not the sort of person that can live in civilized society. How did these people settle disputes in the anarchist West? http://mises.org...

I'll read that when I have time, but as the wild west was dominated by private and state sector violence I really doubt it will support you.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2011 4:59:25 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/6/2011 4:03:50 AM, tvellalott wrote:
C_N: I think, from reading the responses to this scenario of yours that I understand, though I am certainly no expert on any of this.

Either Bill or Ben are in the wrong, or the group who originally assigned them their property boundries made a mistake. If that is the case, they must come to compromise, the most obvious of which is to simply divide the disputed land exactly in half, establish the new property boundry and move on with your life.

That would be a fair compromise, but what if they don't reach that conclusion? People are not always fair and reasonable.


The security groups are familar with each other; possibly former police officers from the pre-anarchy days. They will explain to their customers what must happen, exactly as I explain above. If either person is completely unreasonable (for example, Bill insists on cutting the hedge before the dispute is resolved) than his security contract is voided and he forfeits his protection, which is clearly not in his best interest to do.

Why?
Who the hell would then take up contracts with Bill's company? Wouldn't it be wiser to sign a contract with a more aggressive and loyal corporation, or spend the money on guns?
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
annhasle
Posts: 6,657
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2011 11:10:48 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/6/2011 2:27:38 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
How is conflict averted, and how is this superior to the state?

Even though Bill and Ben each paid a security agency, the two agency men would most likely collaborate and decide their course of action. Although Ben and Bill might be violent people and want a violent end to their conflict, it will be the agency which hopes for a peaceful resolution. Both agencies would decide on a solution which has mutual benefit (whatever that is) to keep peaceful relations between the agencies. While also being aware of the fact that they were hired and need to do the best for their client. It might take time, but both agencies would be conscious of what Bill/Ben is doing and order them to so _______ or not do ________ to keep the peace. This is in Ben/Bill's benefit, of course.

In addition if both Bill and Ben happen to pay out to the same company how does that not comprise a form of state in of itself?

Companies decide customers based on location. The lower rates will come from the agencies closest to you. If they both went to the same agency, the agency would be careful to still come to a mutual beneficial resolution. Why? Because if Ben or Bill felt that they were being unfairly represented, they could go to another agency. And the former agency would lose out on profit while also having to deal with negotiations between another agency and themselves which is time consuming.

I fail to see how that is like the state.
I'm not back. This idiot just upset me which made me stop lurking.
Rob1_Billion
Posts: 1,300
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2011 1:42:07 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
C_N is giving you ancaps way too much leeway. He is allowing you to assume that Bill and Ben were able to come to an agreement over their property boundaries in the first place. Before we get into the absolutely horrible ridiculousness of bringing blackwater-type institutions into our neighborhoods to police us we have to address how people would set this up in the first place. It's easy to take our society exactly the way it is and then bring in the blackwaters to enforce what our police have set up already. But this is, again, giving the ancaps an easy out. In AnCom I am not exempt in these details, so I would like to know how AnCaps handle it.

So we set up a neighborhood for Bill and Ben to live in. Who gets the water-side property and who gets the house with the highway running through the backyard? Who do they pay for this distinction? You cannot pay mother nature, and you cannot divvy it out with a government. Setting up property lines seems like an impossible task. Sure, it's also hard to believe how Bill and Ben will manage their property afterwards with the hedge argument, but the only way they'd get there in the first place is to be magically placed there as if it was this societyand then simply changing the rules to AnCap for the example.
kfc
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2011 2:14:56 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
If you're inheriting a situation from a previous government, then property rights are already established.

Otherwise, Bill and Ben will discuss the highway and water slide things as they are built. It would obviously depend on who is building such things.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2011 2:32:36 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/6/2011 11:10:48 AM, annhasle wrote:
At 3/6/2011 2:27:38 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
How is conflict averted, and how is this superior to the state?

Even though Bill and Ben each paid a security agency, the two agency men would most likely collaborate and decide their course of action.

Why?
Surely the most successful companies will be the ones that defend their clients interests? What is the value in this enlightened and objective diplomacy?


In addition if both Bill and Ben happen to pay out to the same company how does that not comprise a form of state in of itself?

Companies decide customers based on location. The lower rates will come from the agencies closest to you. If they both went to the same agency, the agency would be careful to still come to a mutual beneficial resolution. Why? Because if Ben or Bill felt that they were being unfairly represented, they could go to another agency. And the former agency would lose out on profit while also having to deal with negotiations between another agency and themselves which is time consuming.

I fail to see how that is like the state.

Because it is the security firm resolving the inter-personal dispute, much in the same way that a Feudal Lord would settle a dispute between his serfs.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
annhasle
Posts: 6,657
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2011 2:36:27 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/6/2011 2:32:36 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 3/6/2011 11:10:48 AM, annhasle wrote:
At 3/6/2011 2:27:38 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
How is conflict averted, and how is this superior to the state?

Even though Bill and Ben each paid a security agency, the two agency men would most likely collaborate and decide their course of action.

Why?
Surely the most successful companies will be the ones that defend their clients interests? What is the value in this enlightened and objective diplomacy?

You'd want to keep the relations between the agencies peaceful. If Security Agency A had a grudge against Security Agency F, then the chance of beneficial collaboration (and doing your job efficiently) is lessened along with the chances of retribution -- violent retribution -- being heightened. There is value in being trustful and diplomatic when you are at the whims of the people and market.


In addition if both Bill and Ben happen to pay out to the same company how does that not comprise a form of state in of itself?

Companies decide customers based on location. The lower rates will come from the agencies closest to you. If they both went to the same agency, the agency would be careful to still come to a mutual beneficial resolution. Why? Because if Ben or Bill felt that they were being unfairly represented, they could go to another agency. And the former agency would lose out on profit while also having to deal with negotiations between another agency and themselves which is time consuming.

I fail to see how that is like the state.

Because it is the security firm resolving the inter-personal dispute, much in the same way that a Feudal Lord would settle a dispute between his serfs.

Except the individual agencies have accountability -- something the state lacks.
I'm not back. This idiot just upset me which made me stop lurking.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2011 2:38:39 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/6/2011 1:42:07 PM, Rob1_Billion wrote:
C_N is giving you ancaps way too much leeway.

I am trying to be nice and instead of setting up an extreme situation or a strawman I am presenting a fairly mundane and simple scenario. I have other more complex questions but as I am yet to get a decent reply to this we may never get that far.

It seems strange on a site with so many an-caps that no one can defend it.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
annhasle
Posts: 6,657
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2011 2:40:00 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/6/2011 2:38:39 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 3/6/2011 1:42:07 PM, Rob1_Billion wrote:
C_N is giving you ancaps way too much leeway.

It seems strange on a site with so many an-caps that no one can defend it.

The ancaps spent at least 150 posts defending their ideology. :/
I'm not back. This idiot just upset me which made me stop lurking.
LaissezFaire
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2011 2:44:50 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/6/2011 4:55:46 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
surely it would be the pioneers of the American West during the 19th century. Highly individualistic, and often criminals and others that are not the sort of person that can live in civilized society. How did these people settle disputes in the anarchist West? http://mises.org...

I'll read that when I have time, but as the wild west was dominated by private and state sector violence I really doubt it will support you.
It really wasn't--that's the point of the paper. At least with private violence. idk about state violence--this paper deals only with dispute resolution under anarchism in the West, not the West after states had been established.
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.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2011 2:45:38 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/6/2011 2:36:27 PM, annhasle wrote:
At 3/6/2011 2:32:36 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 3/6/2011 11:10:48 AM, annhasle wrote:
At 3/6/2011 2:27:38 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
How is conflict averted, and how is this superior to the state?

Even though Bill and Ben each paid a security agency, the two agency men would most likely collaborate and decide their course of action.

Why?
Surely the most successful companies will be the ones that defend their clients interests? What is the value in this enlightened and objective diplomacy?

You'd want to keep the relations between the agencies peaceful. If Security Agency A had a grudge against Security Agency F, then the chance of beneficial collaboration (and doing your job efficiently) is lessened along with the chances of retribution -- violent retribution -- being heightened. There is value in being trustful and diplomatic when you are at the whims of the people and market.

But the security companies will generate profit as much from conflict avoidance as from winning conflicts. I'd go with the company most likely to defend me and not bargain my rights away. So would the consumer. The market would favour aggressive companies.



In addition if both Bill and Ben happen to pay out to the same company how does that not comprise a form of state in of itself?

Companies decide customers based on location. The lower rates will come from the agencies closest to you. If they both went to the same agency, the agency would be careful to still come to a mutual beneficial resolution. Why? Because if Ben or Bill felt that they were being unfairly represented, they could go to another agency. And the former agency would lose out on profit while also having to deal with negotiations between another agency and themselves which is time consuming.

I fail to see how that is like the state.

Because it is the security firm resolving the inter-personal dispute, much in the same way that a Feudal Lord would settle a dispute between his serfs.

Except the individual agencies have accountability -- something the state lacks.

Okay lets assume Bill and Ben live in a neighbourhood which all pays out to security firm 1. An entire city block. Security Firm 1 decides in Bill's favour. Is Ben going to cancel his contract and go to a different security firm? That will take some balls. If Security Firm 1 decides to take reprisals then it's possible that they can't really be stopped. In this case is Security Firm 1 accountable?

And the state is accountable through elections and erm... okay ignore that last line.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2011 2:49:33 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/6/2011 2:40:00 PM, annhasle wrote:
At 3/6/2011 2:38:39 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 3/6/2011 1:42:07 PM, Rob1_Billion wrote:
C_N is giving you ancaps way too much leeway.

It seems strange on a site with so many an-caps that no one can defend it.

The ancaps spent at least 150 posts defending their ideology. :/

Generally patching up the problems by recourse to the goodness of human nature state solutions. I just don't buy it.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
annhasle
Posts: 6,657
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2011 2:53:54 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/6/2011 2:45:38 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 3/6/2011 2:36:27 PM, annhasle wrote:
At 3/6/2011 2:32:36 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 3/6/2011 11:10:48 AM, annhasle wrote:
At 3/6/2011 2:27:38 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
You'd want to keep the relations between the agencies peaceful. If Security Agency A had a grudge against Security Agency F, then the chance of beneficial collaboration (and doing your job efficiently) is lessened along with the chances of retribution -- violent retribution -- being heightened. There is value in being trustful and diplomatic when you are at the whims of the people and market.

But the security companies will generate profit as much from conflict avoidance as from winning conflicts. I'd go with the company most likely to defend me and not bargain my rights away. So would the consumer. The market would favour aggressive companies.

No they wouldn't. The firms acquire funds from the people and taking on their cases. However, I wouldn't trust a firm that squandered resources for violent conflict. That means they have less money and resources once it is done since violent retribution is so expensive. Those who settle cases peacefully will have the most profit at the end of the day, and they will have the most resources to help me out if I need help.

Because it is the security firm resolving the inter-personal dispute, much in the same way that a Feudal Lord would settle a dispute between his serfs.

Except the individual agencies have accountability -- something the state lacks.

Okay lets assume Bill and Ben live in a neighbourhood which all pays out to security firm 1. An entire city block. Security Firm 1 decides in Bill's favour. Is Ben going to cancel his contract and go to a different security firm? That will take some balls. If Security Firm 1 decides to take reprisals then it's possible that they can't really be stopped. In this case is Security Firm 1 accountable?

Ben can always go to a competing agency -- the agencies have no authority over who chooses what. However, that will cost even more for Ben since he'd have paid Security agency 1 and now he has to pay the next one which has even higher rates. And the chances of Security 1 retaliating is extremely low -- they've already lost a customer. Why would they want to deplete their resources even more?

And the state is accountable through elections and erm... okay ignore that last line.

Lol.
I'm not back. This idiot just upset me which made me stop lurking.
annhasle
Posts: 6,657
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2011 2:54:56 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/6/2011 2:49:33 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 3/6/2011 2:40:00 PM, annhasle wrote:
At 3/6/2011 2:38:39 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 3/6/2011 1:42:07 PM, Rob1_Billion wrote:
C_N is giving you ancaps way too much leeway.

It seems strange on a site with so many an-caps that no one can defend it.

The ancaps spent at least 150 posts defending their ideology. :/

Generally patching up the problems by recourse to the goodness of human nature state solutions. I just don't buy it.

When have I ever said the system is dependent on human nature let alone "goodness"? Do you really think that I would support a ideology like that??
I'm not back. This idiot just upset me which made me stop lurking.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2011 2:57:52 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/6/2011 2:54:56 PM, annhasle wrote:
At 3/6/2011 2:49:33 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 3/6/2011 2:40:00 PM, annhasle wrote:
At 3/6/2011 2:38:39 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 3/6/2011 1:42:07 PM, Rob1_Billion wrote:
C_N is giving you ancaps way too much leeway.

It seems strange on a site with so many an-caps that no one can defend it.

The ancaps spent at least 150 posts defending their ideology. :/

Generally patching up the problems by recourse to the goodness of human nature state solutions. I just don't buy it.

When have I ever said the system is dependent on human nature let alone "goodness"? Do you really think that I would support a ideology like that??

I am generalising, many of the replies I received were founded on the assumption that all citizens of this an-cap society will be calm, reasonable and rational beings at all times. You have too much sense for that, but the same is not true of your fellow an-capians.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
annhasle
Posts: 6,657
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2011 2:59:53 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/6/2011 2:57:52 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 3/6/2011 2:54:56 PM, annhasle wrote:
At 3/6/2011 2:49:33 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 3/6/2011 2:40:00 PM, annhasle wrote:
At 3/6/2011 2:38:39 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 3/6/2011 1:42:07 PM, Rob1_Billion wrote:
C_N is giving you ancaps way too much leeway.

It seems strange on a site with so many an-caps that no one can defend it.

The ancaps spent at least 150 posts defending their ideology. :/

Generally patching up the problems by recourse to the goodness of human nature state solutions. I just don't buy it.

When have I ever said the system is dependent on human nature let alone "goodness"? Do you really think that I would support a ideology like that??

I am generalising, many of the replies I received were founded on the assumption that all citizens of this an-cap society will be calm, reasonable and rational beings at all times. You have too much sense for that, but the same is not true of your fellow an-capians.

I've talked with my fellow ancaps a good amount -- and that doesn't sound like them at all. The true rationality would not fall on the citizens but really the agencies. If a citizen wants violence -- it is up to the agency to find an alternative but still beneficial way to solve the problem. Since the customer is paying, they'll be more inclined to listen to them than the state but they still have to act within reason.
I'm not back. This idiot just upset me which made me stop lurking.
Rob1_Billion
Posts: 1,300
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2011 3:05:10 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/6/2011 2:14:56 PM, mongeese wrote:
If you're inheriting a situation from a previous government, then property rights are already established.

Wow. So the system needs no robustness, no versatiility, and no sustainability? People will never branch out into new areas?

Otherwise, Bill and Ben will discuss the highway and water slide things as they are built. It would obviously depend on who is building such things.

So any company has the right to build whereever and whenever they like as long as the area isn't already developed? That sounds grrrrrrreat. I'll choose immediately to build tree-houses in every spot that isn't developed.
kfc
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2011 3:43:44 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/6/2011 3:05:10 PM, Rob1_Billion wrote:
At 3/6/2011 2:14:56 PM, mongeese wrote:
If you're inheriting a situation from a previous government, then property rights are already established.

Wow. So the system needs no robustness, no versatiility, and no sustainability? People will never branch out into new areas?

They will, but that would be creating new situations, handled in the next paragraph.

Otherwise, Bill and Ben will discuss the highway and water slide things as they are built. It would obviously depend on who is building such things.

So any company has the right to build whereever and whenever they like as long as the area isn't already developed? That sounds grrrrrrreat. I'll choose immediately to build tree-houses in every spot that isn't developed.

Good luck with that.
Rob1_Billion
Posts: 1,300
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2011 5:11:51 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/6/2011 3:43:44 PM, mongeese wrote:
At 3/6/2011 3:05:10 PM, Rob1_Billion wrote:
At 3/6/2011 2:14:56 PM, mongeese wrote:
If you're inheriting a situation from a previous government, then property rights are already established.

Wow. So the system needs no robustness, no versatiility, and no sustainability? People will never branch out into new areas?

They will, but that would be creating new situations, handled in the next paragraph.

Otherwise, Bill and Ben will discuss the highway and water slide things as they are built. It would obviously depend on who is building such things.

So any company has the right to build whereever and whenever they like as long as the area isn't already developed? That sounds grrrrrrreat. I'll choose immediately to build tree-houses in every spot that isn't developed.

Good luck with that.

So do tell me how the AnCaps work out who gets to develop virgin land? I am going to be reeeeeeally paying attention to how this question is responded to.

Competing interests:

a) Random people with hammers and nails building treehouses in place just to be able to claim the land underneath.

b) Rich, security-firm weilding entrepreneurial types of the conservative sort driving their fords and chevys out to build vacation spots for themselves.

c) Industry seeking natural resources

d) Businesses seeking storefronts, production plants, warehouses, etc.

e) Citizens like me who value land for its pristine, untouched qualities. Keep in mind I may be poor/unemployed and not have purchasing power. Otherwise, include "recreational" in this category. Also travelers who aren't interested in patronizing establishments. Do they have a right to pass through undisturbed without being constantly bombarded with landowners' security forces?

f) Security and military forces competing for strategic land

g) Scientific studies not linked to profits. Also preservational interests like riparian corridors (Riparian zones deserve a category of their own. These areas are extremely desirable to property owners as well as preservationists) and wetlands restoration, as well as aiding endangered species (there are going to be lots of them soon).

h) Current property owners who are trying to defend their antiquated interests, particularly in areas (New Orleans is a good example) where sensitive ecological interests are already being compromised.

i) interests in infrastructure (which don't make sense in the first place but oh well) who are trying to build roads, dams, and other otherwise public-sector interests.

j) Native tribes laying claim to the land. In WI this is a big deal, as preservations pepper our state.

k) Formerly protected public areas like national parks.

l) Marine ports and border stations if applicable.

m) Neglected areas (restoration) that no one wants and the prevous owners are dead and/or broke. Include polluted areas.

n) Waste sites.

So how exactly do these competing interests decide who gets to develop/own where? Are you saying the free market is going to guide these parties, through economic rationality, into a scheme that is superior to other methods including the status quo? Security firms are going to be able to navigate all these interests rationally and somehow produce results that are ideal?
kfc
annhasle
Posts: 6,657
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2011 8:04:48 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/6/2011 2:53:54 PM, annhasle wrote:
At 3/6/2011 2:45:38 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 3/6/2011 2:36:27 PM, annhasle wrote:
At 3/6/2011 2:32:36 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 3/6/2011 11:10:48 AM, annhasle wrote:
At 3/6/2011 2:27:38 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
You'd want to keep the relations between the agencies peaceful. If Security Agency A had a grudge against Security Agency F, then the chance of beneficial collaboration (and doing your job efficiently) is lessened along with the chances of retribution -- violent retribution -- being heightened. There is value in being trustful and diplomatic when you are at the whims of the people and market.

But the security companies will generate profit as much from conflict avoidance as from winning conflicts. I'd go with the company most likely to defend me and not bargain my rights away. So would the consumer. The market would favour aggressive companies.

No they wouldn't. The firms acquire funds from the people and taking on their cases. However, I wouldn't trust a firm that squandered resources for violent conflict. That means they have less money and resources once it is done since violent retribution is so expensive. Those who settle cases peacefully will have the most profit at the end of the day, and they will have the most resources to help me out if I need help.

Because it is the security firm resolving the inter-personal dispute, much in the same way that a Feudal Lord would settle a dispute between his serfs.

Except the individual agencies have accountability -- something the state lacks.

Okay lets assume Bill and Ben live in a neighbourhood which all pays out to security firm 1. An entire city block. Security Firm 1 decides in Bill's favour. Is Ben going to cancel his contract and go to a different security firm? That will take some balls. If Security Firm 1 decides to take reprisals then it's possible that they can't really be stopped. In this case is Security Firm 1 accountable?

Ben can always go to a competing agency -- the agencies have no authority over who chooses what. However, that will cost even more for Ben since he'd have paid Security agency 1 and now he has to pay the next one which has even higher rates. And the chances of Security 1 retaliating is extremely low -- they've already lost a customer. Why would they want to deplete their resources even more?

And the state is accountable through elections and erm... okay ignore that last line.

Lol.

You complain that ancaps are evading you but you never answered this...
I'm not back. This idiot just upset me which made me stop lurking.
Cliff.Stamp
Posts: 2,169
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2011 8:09:10 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/6/2011 2:59:53 PM, annhasle wrote:

The true rationality would not fall on the citizens but really the agencies.

Ann, I don't understand this argument, the agencies are citizens, they are going to have irrational CEO's. You can not defend anarcho-capitalism by postulating that the free-agencies are all going to be rational. The defense has to be that the successful ones are. The question then becomes, lets assume you have an agency that actually takes a contract to enforce an extremely trivial problem for which it gains capital X (the payment from the irrational individual) and in order to enforce this claim it has to risk capital 1000*X. Can such an agency sustain itself on the market? It can only do so if the risk of expense (direct and future) is less than 1/1000 (the break even point). Now the true question is can you be successful just by bluffing, make a huge risk on the assumption your bluff will never be called and in so doing generate a large revenue by taking lot of small contracts to defend insensible positions. The answer is obviously no, if you can not understand why (I am sure that you can personally Ann) then spend sometime in business and see if you can make a claim for X which has a generative power of 1000X and see if you will not get challenges to take your claim for < 1000X (or even more of it to prevent your growth and spread of influence).
annhasle
Posts: 6,657
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2011 8:15:07 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/6/2011 8:09:10 PM, Cliff.Stamp wrote:
At 3/6/2011 2:59:53 PM, annhasle wrote:


The true rationality would not fall on the citizens but really the agencies.

Ann, I don't understand this argument, the agencies are citizens, they are going to have irrational CEO's. You can not defend anarcho-capitalism by postulating that the free-agencies are all going to be rational. The defense has to be that the successful ones are. The question then becomes, lets assume you have an agency that actually takes a contract to enforce an extremely trivial problem for which it gains capital X (the payment from the irrational individual) and in order to enforce this claim it has to risk capital 1000*X. Can such an agency sustain itself on the market? It can only do so if the risk of expense (direct and future) is less than 1/1000 (the break even point). Now the true question is can you be successful just by bluffing, make a huge risk on the assumption your bluff will never be called and in so doing generate a large revenue by taking lot of small contracts to defend insensible positions. The answer is obviously no, if you can not understand why (I am sure that you can personally Ann) then spend sometime in business and see if you can make a claim for X which has a generative power of 1000X and see if you will not get challenges to take your claim for < 1000X (or even more of it to prevent your growth and spread of influence).

I stated that since C_N is under the false impression that the citizens of an ancap society would have to rely on the goodness of human nature. His main criticism of that is "humans are not always rational". Well, no sh!t. But even though the citizens won't be entirely rational 100% of the time -- especially if they are angered into reporting _____ for doing X, Y and Z -- it would be up to the agencies to decide "what is the best alternative?". Even if Ben or Bill want a violent end to their conflict, it would come down to the agency warning against such action and then they would move forward into more peaceful resolutions. In theory, I cannot see an agency willingly going into war over a hedge. It would have to be a pretty damn big transgression to start a war amongst the agencies -- and the only time that is supported is if another agency is acting outside of their jurisdiction or authority.
I'm not back. This idiot just upset me which made me stop lurking.