Total Posts:134|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Question for Ancaps

FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2011 2:43:28 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Have you ever thought of this and what is your opinion on it?

I know you see the creation and sustainment of private defense agencies as being possible, as do I, though I don't see it as desirable. However, the thought just occurred to me of the existence of private theft agencies. It seems to be that, by free-market logic, all ways to make a profit are open-game. Sure, they would be competition with the defense agencies but competition is good, right? Keep in mind, I'm not pointing out a flaw in Anarcho-Capitalism, I think it actually sounds like a good thing. It very well may be the Capitalist solution to wealth-inequality. Investing in theft-stock could be a wise thing to do for a poor man. Then again, maybe it could go the other way entirely and show again how screwed up the whole idea is, by giving perfect conditions for mafia to flourish.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2011 3:17:19 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/22/2011 2:43:28 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Have you ever thought of this and what is your opinion on it?

I know you see the creation and sustainment of private defense agencies as being possible, as do I, though I don't see it as desirable. However, the thought just occurred to me of the existence of private theft agencies.

They'll probably exist no matter the Political landscape.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2011 4:47:56 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Whether or not stealing is profitable depends on engineering and opportunity costs. Neither can be known a priori. Neither is specific to anarchism.

Their profitability and damage in anarchism will always be less than under statism however, because we have *economic* property rights, not $500bn of misc spending.
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
Rob1_Billion
Posts: 1,300
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2011 5:03:05 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Ancap could then employ private companies to rap and murder your enemies as well, perhaps? Maybe it would be like tha movie" Hostel"
kfc
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2011 5:46:23 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/22/2011 4:47:56 PM, Sieben wrote:
Whether or not stealing is profitable depends on engineering and opportunity costs. Neither can be known a priori. Neither is specific to anarchism.

Their profitability and damage in anarchism will always be less than under statism however, because we have *economic* property rights, not $500bn of misc spending.

How can you say that the profitable of stealing is unknown, yet you assume it is less than the state? Your main defense is that the state will always steal more through taxes. However, the state will rarely rape or kill its own civilians (perhaps in a dictatorship, but not in Europe or America). Yet, a raping and murdering industry can exist in anarchy.

Although, all these exist in the state anyhow, so that pretty much destroys the entire argument.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2011 5:54:36 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/22/2011 5:46:23 PM, darkkermit wrote:

How can you say that the profitable of stealing is unknown, yet you assume it is less than the state?

I didn't say there would be less stealing. I said its profitability and damage would be less.

Your main defense is that the state will always steal more through taxes.

I did not make this argument. This is a specific case of the argument I made.

However, the state will rarely rape or kill its own civilians (perhaps in a dictatorship, but not in Europe or America).
Why are you allowed to single out successful states?

Yet, a raping and murdering industry can exist in anarchy.

Although, all these exist in the state anyhow, so that pretty much destroys the entire argument.

Again, their profitability depends on engineering and opportunity costs. If a machine is invented that kills 1000 people, is unstoppable, and costs on 25 cents to make, society will crumble no matter what.

However if there are much more economic alternatives to say, stealing, no one will bother. As evidence I offer the observation that truly violent criminals are poor. If crime paid $100,000/yr I think a lot more people would do it.
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
tvellalott
Posts: 10,864
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2011 8:52:07 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Stealing, raping and murdering is bound to break at least one of the many contracts you'd have to sign to be an accepted part of an AnCap society.
"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...
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2011 8:59:23 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/22/2011 5:54:36 PM, Sieben wrote:
At 5/22/2011 5:46:23 PM, darkkermit wrote:

How can you say that the profitable of stealing is unknown, yet you assume it is less than the state?

I didn't say there would be less stealing. I said its profitability and damage would be less.

Again, why? Strong centralized states have historically had less stealing and crime.


Your main defense is that the state will always steal more through taxes.

I did not make this argument. This is a specific case of the argument I made.

However, the state will rarely rape or kill its own civilians (perhaps in a dictatorship, but not in Europe or America).
Why are you allowed to single out successful states?

Successful states are superior to anarchy. Perhaps many people would be better off without government in Africa, but that doesn't mean there isn't good government.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
J.Kenyon
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2011 9:06:11 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/22/2011 8:59:23 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 5/22/2011 5:54:36 PM, Sieben wrote:
At 5/22/2011 5:46:23 PM, darkkermit wrote:

How can you say that the profitable of stealing is unknown, yet you assume it is less than the state?

I didn't say there would be less stealing. I said its profitability and damage would be less.

Again, why? Strong centralized states have historically had less stealing and crime.

Strong, centralized states tend to overproduce security beyond what is efficacious and in demand. Additionally, it tends to be administered inefficiently. A market society balances the demand for security against the opportunity cost of producing it, that's why crime would be less damaging, though not necessarily less prolific.

Your main defense is that the state will always steal more through taxes.

I did not make this argument. This is a specific case of the argument I made.

However, the state will rarely rape or kill its own civilians (perhaps in a dictatorship, but not in Europe or America).
Why are you allowed to single out successful states?

Successful states are superior to anarchy. Perhaps many people would be better off without government in Africa, but that doesn't mean there isn't good government.

So what? Successful anarchy is as good as successful states; failed anarchy is as bad as failed states. The question is, which system is more likely to succeed?
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2011 9:17:38 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/22/2011 9:06:11 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
At 5/22/2011 8:59:23 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 5/22/2011 5:54:36 PM, Sieben wrote:
At 5/22/2011 5:46:23 PM, darkkermit wrote:

How can you say that the profitable of stealing is unknown, yet you assume it is less than the state?

I didn't say there would be less stealing. I said its profitability and damage would be less.

Again, why? Strong centralized states have historically had less stealing and crime.

Strong, centralized states tend to overproduce security beyond what is efficacious and in demand. Additionally, it tends to be administered inefficiently. A market society balances the demand for security against the opportunity cost of producing it, that's why crime would be less damaging, though not necessarily less prolific.

Sorry, don't really understand what you mean. Who is producing the security?

Your main defense is that the state will always steal more through taxes.

I did not make this argument. This is a specific case of the argument I made.

However, the state will rarely rape or kill its own civilians (perhaps in a dictatorship, but not in Europe or America).
Why are you allowed to single out successful states?

Successful states are superior to anarchy. Perhaps many people would be better off without government in Africa, but that doesn't mean there isn't good government.

So what? Successful anarchy is as good as successful states; failed anarchy is as bad as failed states. The question is, which system is more likely to succeed?

So why do you believe that there can be successful anarchy when it has histrorically had a worse track record then governments. Furthermore, since markets would occur spontaneous in anarchy, how come none of the prediction of anarcho-capitalism come true?
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
SuperRobotWars
Posts: 3,906
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2011 9:21:43 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/22/2011 5:46:23 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 5/22/2011 4:47:56 PM, Sieben wrote:
Whether or not stealing is profitable depends on engineering and opportunity costs. Neither can be known a priori. Neither is specific to anarchism.

Their profitability and damage in anarchism will always be less than under statism however, because we have *economic* property rights, not $500bn of misc spending.

How can you say that the profitable of stealing is unknown, yet you assume it is less than the state? Your main defense is that the state will always steal more through taxes. However, the state will rarely rape or kill its own civilians (perhaps in a dictatorship, but not in Europe or America). Yet, a raping and murdering industry can exist in anarchy.

Although, all these exist in the state anyhow, so that pretty much destroys the entire argument.

This.
Minister Of Trolling
: At 12/6/2011 2:21:41 PM, badger wrote:
: ugly people should beat beautiful people ugly. simple! you'd be killing two birds with the one stone... women like violent men and you're making yourself more attractive, relatively. i met a blonde dude who was prettier than me not so long ago. he's not so pretty now! ha!
:
: ...and well, he wasn't really prettier than me. he just had nice hair.
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2011 9:42:28 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/22/2011 8:59:23 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 5/22/2011 5:54:36 PM, Sieben wrote:
At 5/22/2011 5:46:23 PM, darkkermit wrote:

How can you say that the profitable of stealing is unknown, yet you assume it is less than the state?

I didn't say there would be less stealing. I said its profitability and damage would be less.

Again, why?

Because law enforcement is now economic. People would be willing to spend up to $100 to avoid having $100 stolen from them. Since the state has no price mechanism, it is very likely that they will either pay only up to something like $50 or pay $150 to prevent crime. Obviously the frequency of crime would increase/decrease respectively, but its DAMAGE would be greater under either regime.

Strong centralized states have historically had less stealing and crime.

Red herring. I am not measuring the frequency of criminal incidents.

However, the state will rarely rape or kill its own civilians (perhaps in a dictatorship, but not in Europe or America).
Why are you allowed to single out successful states?

Successful states are superior to anarchy.Perhaps many people would be better off without government in Africa, but that doesn't mean there isn't good government.

First - that's not what I asked. I asked why you're allowed to single out successful states to defend statism. Why don't bad states count? Why do I have to apologise for bad-anarchy but you don't have to apologise for bad states?

But to address your red herring. I'm flabbergasted. The only time we have an apples to apples comparison - somalia vs other countries with similar historic/cultural backgrounds - you still want to make an apples to space oranges comparison. Do I have to list the historical, cultural, geographic, ethnic, etc differences between Somalia and Norway and explain why they might make Somalia a worse place to live?
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2011 10:14:49 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/22/2011 9:42:28 PM, Sieben wrote:
At 5/22/2011 8:59:23 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 5/22/2011 5:54:36 PM, Sieben wrote:
At 5/22/2011 5:46:23 PM, darkkermit wrote:

How can you say that the profitable of stealing is unknown, yet you assume it is less than the state?

I didn't say there would be less stealing. I said its profitability and damage would be less.

Again, why?

Because law enforcement is now economic. People would be willing to spend up to $100 to avoid having $100 stolen from them. Since the state has no price mechanism, it is very likely that they will either pay only up to something like $50 or pay $150 to prevent crime. Obviously the frequency of crime would increase/decrease respectively, but its DAMAGE would be greater under either regime.

However, law enforcement is a positive externaliity. Let's say I am a criminal. I am uncertain whether a person has coverage or not. The more probable the person has coverage, the less likely I am to attack this person. This creates a moral hazard, since the likelihood of a person getting jumped decreases, whether he or she has coverage or not.

However, the state will rarely rape or kill its own civilians (perhaps in a dictatorship, but not in Europe or America).
Why are you allowed to single out successful states?

Successful states are superior to anarchy.Perhaps many people would be better off without government in Africa, but that doesn't mean there isn't good government.

First - that's not what I asked. I asked why you're allowed to single out successful states to defend statism. Why don't bad states count? Why do I have to apologise for bad-anarchy but you don't have to apologise for bad states?

But to address your red herring. I'm flabbergasted. The only time we have an apples to apples comparison - somalia vs other countries with similar historic/cultural backgrounds - you still want to make an apples to space oranges comparison. Do I have to list the historical, cultural, geographic, ethnic, etc differences between Somalia and Norway and explain why they might make Somalia a worse place to live?

Please describe some examples of where anarchy has been successful?
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2011 10:52:55 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/22/2011 10:14:49 PM, darkkermit wrote:

However, law enforcement is a positive externaliity. Let's say I am a criminal. I am uncertain whether a person has coverage or not. The more probable the person has coverage, the less likely I am to attack this person. This creates a moral hazard, since the likelihood of a person getting jumped decreases, whether he or she has coverage or not.

So you're saying that as long as I solve for positive externalities, my analysis of anarchism is correct?

What about my analysis of statism - that should be correct regardless of externalities.

First - that's not what I asked. I asked why you're allowed to single out successful states to defend statism. Why don't bad states count? Why do I have to apologise for bad-anarchy but you don't have to apologise for bad states?

But to address your red herring. I'm flabbergasted. The only time we have an apples to apples comparison - somalia vs other countries with similar historic/cultural backgrounds - you still want to make an apples to space oranges comparison. Do I have to list the historical, cultural, geographic, ethnic, etc differences between Somalia and Norway and explain why they might make Somalia a worse place to live?

Please describe some examples of where anarchy has been successful?

No.

Please answer the theoretical points I have made. You will see why I don't have to provide examples of successful anarchy.

But let me throw the burden back at you - It is the mid 1400's. Can you point to any successful state societies like the ones you advocate? No. Does this nullify your political philosophy?
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2011 11:08:40 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/22/2011 10:52:55 PM, Sieben wrote:
At 5/22/2011 10:14:49 PM, darkkermit wrote:

However, law enforcement is a positive externaliity. Let's say I am a criminal. I am uncertain whether a person has coverage or not. The more probable the person has coverage, the less likely I am to attack this person. This creates a moral hazard, since the likelihood of a person getting jumped decreases, whether he or she has coverage or not.

So you're saying that as long as I solve for positive externalities, my analysis of anarchism is correct?

What about my analysis of statism - that should be correct regardless of externalities.

Yes, although my problems with anarchy are not just the one I just described. I basically take the view of government as Thomas Hoppe did in Leviathan. I also think there are also problems with government. However, government is the lesser of two evils.

However, how would you correct for the externalities?

First - that's not what I asked. I asked why you're allowed to single out successful states to defend statism. Why don't bad states count? Why do I have to apologise for bad-anarchy but you don't have to apologise for bad states?

But to address your red herring. I'm flabbergasted. The only time we have an apples to apples comparison - somalia vs other countries with similar historic/cultural backgrounds - you still want to make an apples to space oranges comparison. Do I have to list the historical, cultural, geographic, ethnic, etc differences between Somalia and Norway and explain why they might make Somalia a worse place to live?

Please describe some examples of where anarchy has been successful?

No.

Please answer the theoretical points I have made. You will see why I don't have to provide examples of successful anarchy.

But let me throw the burden back at you - It is the mid 1400's. Can you point to any successful state societies like the ones you advocate? No. Does this nullify your political philosophy?

One can look back into Roman times to see a model of statism that worked. Even still, I would say that states in 1400s were better than an anarchy society.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2011 11:44:57 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/22/2011 11:08:40 PM, darkkermit wrote:

Yes, although my problems with anarchy are not just the one I just described. I basically take the view of government as Thomas Hoppe did in Leviathan. I also think there are also problems with government. However, government is the lesser of two evils.

Of course you do. But for now, we will focus on externalities.

However, how would you correct for the externalities?

Your exploitation of the externalities problem stems from the happenstance physics of rights violations. For example, if every human could teleport or bring up a defensive force shield, we would not be having this conversation.

So your complaint is not an objection against anarcho capitalist theory, it is an objection against implementation of anarcho capitalism in a particular physical distribution of property rights/interactions/potentialities.

3 is a lucky number!

1) So the first solution is that you just change the distribution of property rights until the spillover effects of protection are contained within the interests of distinct economic bodies.

The complaint of your argument is that it would be uneconomic for people to have *certain kinds* of property rights because they can't take advantage of public goods. But economic waste brings about a profit opportunity to solve the problem. So you get title transfer until the benefit of internalizing the externality doesn't outweigh whatever mitigating opportunity costs.

Ex: Homeowners associations, pre-planned housing districts, apartments, corporate headquarters, etc.

2) Secondly, depending on the physics involved, certain activities have more/less exposure to crime. If externalities are really bad in crime-fighting, people can also reduce their risk by changing their behavior.

Ex: Not going out after dark. Going in pairs/groups.

3) Lastly, individuals can mitigate crime by changing exploiting the physics of criminal activity. They are bringing physical force against you, so there's nothing that says you can't find a counter/neutralizer to said force.

Ex: Pepper spray, personal firearm...

Can you prove that a combination of these mechanisms wouldn't be effective "enough" at fighting crime? What is your brightline for how much crime we need to stop?

Please describe some examples of where anarchy has been successful?

No.

Please answer the theoretical points I have made. You will see why I don't have to provide examples of successful anarchy.

WOW. You didn't address any of these. Why are you not addressing them? Are you wasting my time?

One can look back into Roman times to see a model of statism that worked. Even still, I would say that states in 1400s were better than an anarchy society.

You're missing the point. It's that relying on empirical justification is necessarily totally dependent on the time period you are in. You do not advocate monarchic feudalism right? So how would you argue your version of statism to them with no contemporary examples?
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2011 12:10:52 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/22/2011 11:44:57 PM, Sieben wrote:
At 5/22/2011 11:08:40 PM, darkkermit wrote:

Yes, although my problems with anarchy are not just the one I just described. I basically take the view of government as Thomas Hoppe did in Leviathan. I also think there are also problems with government. However, government is the lesser of two evils.

Of course you do. But for now, we will focus on externalities.

However, how would you correct for the externalities?

Your exploitation of the externalities problem stems from the happenstance physics of rights violations. For example, if every human could teleport or bring up a defensive force shield, we would not be having this conversation.

So your complaint is not an objection against anarcho capitalist theory, it is an objection against implementation of anarcho capitalism in a particular physical distribution of property rights/interactions/potentialities.

3 is a lucky number!

1) So the first solution is that you just change the distribution of property rights until the spillover effects of protection are contained within the interests of distinct economic bodies.

The complaint of your argument is that it would be uneconomic for people to have *certain kinds* of property rights because they can't take advantage of public goods. But economic waste brings about a profit opportunity to solve the problem. So you get title transfer until the benefit of internalizing the externality doesn't outweigh whatever mitigating opportunity costs.

Ex: Homeowners associations, pre-planned housing districts, apartments, corporate headquarters, etc.

2) Secondly, depending on the physics involved, certain activities have more/less exposure to crime. If externalities are really bad in crime-fighting, people can also reduce their risk by changing their behavior.

Ex: Not going out after dark. Going in pairs/groups.

3) Lastly, individuals can mitigate crime by changing exploiting the physics of criminal activity. They are bringing physical force against you, so there's nothing that says you can't find a counter/neutralizer to said force.

Ex: Pepper spray, personal firearm...

Can you prove that a combination of these mechanisms wouldn't be effective "enough" at fighting crime? What is your brightline for how much crime we need to stop?


Fair enough. I concede this argument.

Please describe some examples of where anarchy has been successful?

No.

Please answer the theoretical points I have made. You will see why I don't have to provide examples of successful anarchy.

WOW. You didn't address any of these. Why are you not addressing them? Are you wasting my time?

What points?

One can look back into Roman times to see a model of statism that worked. Even still, I would say that states in 1400s were better than an anarchy society.

You're missing the point. It's that relying on empirical justification is necessarily totally dependent on the time period you are in. You do not advocate monarchic feudalism right? So how would you argue your version of statism to them with no contemporary examples?

I'm half undecided whether returning to monarchy is a good idea or not. Many monarchies tend to be better off then democracies. Perhaps a constitutional monarchy :p.

Of course, the problem in the social sciences is that there are so many variables for emperical evidence to prove anything. However, after so many failures one must wonder whether anarcho-capitalism can work in practice. After all, socialism failed miserably, yet many socialists would say that their plan was implemented wrong. However, socialism cannot work due to the economic calculation theory.

There are already a bunch of theories that show the necessary of government, namely social contract theory. Thomas Hobbes and John Locke wrote extensively about the necessity of the state.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
badger
Posts: 11,793
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2011 7:35:00 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/22/2011 2:43:28 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Have you ever thought of this and what is your opinion on it?

I know you see the creation and sustainment of private defense agencies as being possible, as do I, though I don't see it as desirable. However, the thought just occurred to me of the existence of private theft agencies. It seems to be that, by free-market logic, all ways to make a profit are open-game. Sure, they would be competition with the defense agencies but competition is good, right? Keep in mind, I'm not pointing out a flaw in Anarcho-Capitalism, I think it actually sounds like a good thing. It very well may be the Capitalist solution to wealth-inequality. Investing in theft-stock could be a wise thing to do for a poor man. Then again, maybe it could go the other way entirely and show again how screwed up the whole idea is, by giving perfect conditions for mafia to flourish.

you definitely robbed this from my thoughts! :P i'm thinking the mafia would flourish. Only they'd not even be as cool as the mafia, just lucky rich wankers.
signature
badger
Posts: 11,793
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2011 8:14:30 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
i suppose it could be fairly well argued that the lucky rich wankers are flourishing as it is, but i'd put that down to too few people to bribe!
signature
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2011 8:22:46 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/23/2011 7:35:00 AM, badger wrote:
At 5/22/2011 2:43:28 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Have you ever thought of this and what is your opinion on it?

I know you see the creation and sustainment of private defense agencies as being possible, as do I, though I don't see it as desirable. However, the thought just occurred to me of the existence of private theft agencies. It seems to be that, by free-market logic, all ways to make a profit are open-game. Sure, they would be competition with the defense agencies but competition is good, right? Keep in mind, I'm not pointing out a flaw in Anarcho-Capitalism, I think it actually sounds like a good thing. It very well may be the Capitalist solution to wealth-inequality. Investing in theft-stock could be a wise thing to do for a poor man. Then again, maybe it could go the other way entirely and show again how screwed up the whole idea is, by giving perfect conditions for mafia to flourish.

you definitely robbed this from my thoughts! :P i'm thinking the mafia would flourish. Only they'd not even be as cool as the mafia, just lucky rich wankers.

I mentioned this before, and Danielle disagreed. There would be a large vacuum that would be taken up by those with sole self interest, and few restrictions to restrain them - Enter Mafia.
badger
Posts: 11,793
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2011 8:29:17 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/23/2011 8:22:46 AM, innomen wrote:
At 5/23/2011 7:35:00 AM, badger wrote:
At 5/22/2011 2:43:28 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Have you ever thought of this and what is your opinion on it?

I know you see the creation and sustainment of private defense agencies as being possible, as do I, though I don't see it as desirable. However, the thought just occurred to me of the existence of private theft agencies. It seems to be that, by free-market logic, all ways to make a profit are open-game. Sure, they would be competition with the defense agencies but competition is good, right? Keep in mind, I'm not pointing out a flaw in Anarcho-Capitalism, I think it actually sounds like a good thing. It very well may be the Capitalist solution to wealth-inequality. Investing in theft-stock could be a wise thing to do for a poor man. Then again, maybe it could go the other way entirely and show again how screwed up the whole idea is, by giving perfect conditions for mafia to flourish.

you definitely robbed this from my thoughts! :P i'm thinking the mafia would flourish. Only they'd not even be as cool as the mafia, just lucky rich wankers.

I mentioned this before, and Danielle disagreed. There would be a large vacuum that would be taken up by those with sole self interest, and few restrictions to restrain them - Enter Mafia.

i think the same. though they've done wonders with government too...
signature
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2011 8:38:29 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
The biggest problem i see with an Ancap society is most people wouldn't want it if implemented. A few might, but the vast bulk would reject it because it doesn't encorporate or understand the totality of the human condition. People will always opt toward security over risk, security over most anything. An Ancap society doesn't guarantee anything.
badger
Posts: 11,793
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2011 8:45:09 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/23/2011 8:38:29 AM, innomen wrote:
The biggest problem i see with an Ancap society is most people wouldn't want it if implemented. A few might, but the vast bulk would reject it because it doesn't encorporate or understand the totality of the human condition. People will always opt toward security over risk, security over most anything. An Ancap society doesn't guarantee anything.

beautiful.
signature
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2011 9:00:54 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/23/2011 12:10:52 AM, darkkermit wrote:

Fair enough. I concede this argument.

So what next?

WOW. You didn't address any of these. Why are you not addressing them? Are you wasting my time?

What points?

K.

"Why don't bad states count? "

"The only time we have an apples to apples comparison - somalia vs other countries with similar historic/cultural backgrounds - you still want to make an apples to space oranges comparison."

You're missing the point. It's that relying on empirical justification is necessarily totally dependent on the time period you are in. You do not advocate monarchic feudalism right? So how would you argue your version of statism to them with no contemporary examples?

I'm half undecided whether returning to monarchy is a good idea or not. Many monarchies tend to be better off then democracies. Perhaps a constitutional monarchy :p.

Okay. I agree. But monarchic feudalism is not what you advocate. How would you argue your version of statism to them with no contemporary examples?

Of course, the problem in the social sciences is that there are so many variables for emperical evidence to prove anything. However, after so many failures one must wonder whether anarcho-capitalism can work in practice. After all, socialism failed miserably, yet many socialists would say that their plan was implemented wrong. However, socialism cannot work due to the economic calculation theory.

Anarchism has failed to produce the kind of yuppie universal healthcare society SO FAR. The centuries of evidence against anarchism only prove that agricultural societies are vulnerable to statism. So what?

There are already a bunch of theories that show the necessary of government, namely social contract theory. Thomas Hobbes and John Locke wrote extensively about the necessity of the state.

Anarchy is Hobbesian - http://mises.org... It's an interesting quick speech.

John Locke is an anarcho capitalist because he thinks just government is derived from consent.

There are also a bunch of theories that explain the repeat and devastating failures of government. What about those?
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2011 9:05:02 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/23/2011 8:38:29 AM, innomen wrote:
The biggest problem i see with an Ancap society is most people wouldn't want it if implemented. A few might, but the vast bulk would reject it because it doesn't encorporate or understand the totality of the human condition. People will always opt toward security over risk, security over most anything. An Ancap society doesn't guarantee anything.

A state society doesn't guarantee anything either. People just think it does because statist philosophy is built around some rosey document that promises good things and then assumes the state apparatus will automatically follow the document.

But the state judges its own case, so it can break/make laws to serve its own ends. It is the rule of man disguised as the rule of law. But there is only ever the rule of man. Anarchist legal theory is an attempt to deal with this.
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
badger
Posts: 11,793
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2011 9:29:31 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/23/2011 9:05:02 AM, Sieben wrote:
At 5/23/2011 8:38:29 AM, innomen wrote:
The biggest problem i see with an Ancap society is most people wouldn't want it if implemented. A few might, but the vast bulk would reject it because it doesn't encorporate or understand the totality of the human condition. People will always opt toward security over risk, security over most anything. An Ancap society doesn't guarantee anything.

A state society doesn't guarantee anything either. People just think it does because statist philosophy is built around some rosey document that promises good things and then assumes the state apparatus will automatically follow the document.

when i think government i think an organisation of the people.. an organisation of the people is obviously gonna help the people's will be done.. we've just allowed a lot of room for corruption.. better government!? ancap guarantees nothing..

But the state judges its own case, so it can break/make laws to serve its own ends. It is the rule of man disguised as the rule of law. But there is only ever the rule of man. Anarchist legal theory is an attempt to deal with this.

making government less corrupt would be a better idea?
signature
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2011 11:21:53 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/23/2011 9:05:02 AM, Sieben wrote:
At 5/23/2011 8:38:29 AM, innomen wrote:
The biggest problem i see with an Ancap society is most people wouldn't want it if implemented. A few might, but the vast bulk would reject it because it doesn't encorporate or understand the totality of the human condition. People will always opt toward security over risk, security over most anything. An Ancap society doesn't guarantee anything.

A state society doesn't guarantee anything either. People just think it does because statist philosophy is built around some rosey document that promises good things and then assumes the state apparatus will automatically follow the document.

Nah, it does follow through on much, at least enough to keep it preferred over ancap by a very large majority.

But the state judges its own case, so it can break/make laws to serve its own ends. It is the rule of man disguised as the rule of law. But there is only ever the rule of man. Anarchist legal theory is an attempt to deal with this.
Nice rhetoric.
Cliff.Stamp
Posts: 2,169
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2011 11:28:04 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/22/2011 9:06:11 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:

A market society balances the demand for security against the opportunity cost of producing it, that's why crime would be less damaging, though not necessarily less prolific.

Kenyon, what is the mindset in an anarcho-capitalist society. In particular, is it advocated that profit=right.