Total Posts:36|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Questions for y'all ancaps.

SuperRobotWars
Posts: 3,906
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2011 11:51:46 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/5/2011 11:36:09 PM, Rockylightning wrote:
1. How are the sick/disabled/elderly cared for?
2. How are criminals dealt with?
3. Why doesnt society descend into chaos?

1) They are simply driven out of town
2) See 1)
3) We all sit on our porches with guns.
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.
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2011 12:23:35 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/5/2011 11:36:09 PM, Rockylightning wrote:
1. How are the sick/disabled/elderly cared for?
2. How are criminals dealt with?
3. Why doesnt society descend into chaos?

1. It depends on the culture.
2. It depends on the culture.
3. Society has never ascended out of chaos.
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
tvellalott
Posts: 10,864
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2011 12:31:44 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/5/2011 11:36:09 PM, Rockylightning wrote:

Well, I probably can't answer these as well as some of my more informed and well-read AnCap brethren, but...
1. How are the sick/disabled/elderly cared for?
Assuming that their family doesn't care for them, they don't have insurance, they don't have money saved and they can't get help from a charity?
They aren't. They can die in the street...
Much like some people do now....

2. How are criminals dealt with?
By the law... ?
No State doesn't equal No Law.

3. Why doesnt society descend into chaos?
Because the people who want chaos are a massive minority. Plus, we there is a system of law.
"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...
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2011 12:40:09 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Anyone who knows what they are talking about will realize that my post = /thread.
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
tvellalott
Posts: 10,864
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2011 12:43:55 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/6/2011 12:40:09 AM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
Anyone who knows what they are talking about will realize that my post = /thread.

Quiet you.
"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...
tvellalott
Posts: 10,864
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2011 1:06:27 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/6/2011 12:45:23 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 7/6/2011 12:40:09 AM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
Anyone who knows what they are talking about will realize that my post = /thread.

/thread

Gah.
"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...
Rockylightning
Posts: 2,862
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2011 1:07:40 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/6/2011 12:31:44 AM, tvellalott wrote:
At 7/5/2011 11:36:09 PM, Rockylightning wrote:

Well, I probably can't answer these as well as some of my more informed and well-read AnCap brethren, but...
1. How are the sick/disabled/elderly cared for?
Assuming that their family doesn't care for them, they don't have insurance, they don't have money saved and they can't get help from a charity?
They aren't. They can die in the street...
Much like some people do now....

With the horrors of modern insurance agencies I find it hard to believe that people would be insured.

2. How are criminals dealt with?
By the law... ?
No State doesn't equal No Law.


What enforces the law?

3. Why doesnt society descend into chaos?
Because the people who want chaos are a massive minority. Plus, we there is a system of law.

Isnt anarchism a society of chaos?
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2011 1:13:13 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/6/2011 1:07:40 AM, Rockylightning wrote:
At 7/6/2011 12:31:44 AM, tvellalott wrote:
At 7/5/2011 11:36:09 PM, Rockylightning wrote:

Well, I probably can't answer these as well as some of my more informed and well-read AnCap brethren, but...
1. How are the sick/disabled/elderly cared for?
Assuming that their family doesn't care for them, they don't have insurance, they don't have money saved and they can't get help from a charity?
They aren't. They can die in the street...
Much like some people do now....

With the horrors of modern insurance agencies I find it hard to believe that people would be insured.

Your personal incredulity isn't an argument.

2. How are criminals dealt with?
By the law... ?
No State doesn't equal No Law.


What enforces the law?

Enforcement is decentralized. Government = monopoly, market = multiple companies

3. Why doesnt society descend into chaos?
Because the people who want chaos are a massive minority. Plus, we there is a system of law.

Isnt anarchism a society of chaos?

Isn't statism a society of complete totalitarianism?

Oh, wait. Was that a serious question, or are we just trolling each others' ideologies?
tvellalott
Posts: 10,864
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2011 1:16:09 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/6/2011 1:07:40 AM, Rockylightning wrote:
At 7/6/2011 12:31:44 AM, tvellalott wrote:
At 7/5/2011 11:36:09 PM, Rockylightning wrote:

Well, I probably can't answer these as well as some of my more informed and well-read AnCap brethren, but...
1. How are the sick/disabled/elderly cared for?
Assuming that their family doesn't care for them, they don't have insurance, they don't have money saved and they can't get help from a charity?
They aren't. They can die in the street...
Much like some people do now....

With the horrors of modern insurance agencies I find it hard to believe that people would be insured.
What you believe is irrelevant. Insurance companies who do not pay out, will quickly collapse. Insurance companies which work fairly will flourish.

2. How are criminals dealt with?
By the law... ?
No State doesn't equal No Law.


What enforces the law?
Private security forces, private courts, private judges, private prisons...

3. Why doesnt society descend into chaos?
Because the people who want chaos are a massive minority. Plus, we there is a system of law.

Isnt anarchism a society of chaos?

No. That's a common misconception. From wikipedia:
"Most often, the term "anarchy" describes the simple absence of publicly recognized government or enforced political authority."
"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...
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2011 1:16:35 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/6/2011 12:45:23 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 7/6/2011 12:40:09 AM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
Anyone who knows what they are talking about will realize that my post = /thread.

/thread

Naw, lets not /thread. Lets start a good pointless political argument. We need more of that now.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
tvellalott
Posts: 10,864
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2011 1:17:46 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/6/2011 1:16:35 AM, FREEDO wrote:
At 7/6/2011 12:45:23 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 7/6/2011 12:40:09 AM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
Anyone who knows what they are talking about will realize that my post = /thread.

/thread

Naw, lets not /thread. Lets start a good pointless political argument. We need more of that now.

Can't tell if serious...
"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...
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2011 1:17:46 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/6/2011 1:16:35 AM, FREEDO wrote:
At 7/6/2011 12:45:23 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 7/6/2011 12:40:09 AM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
Anyone who knows what they are talking about will realize that my post = /thread.

/thread

Naw, lets not /thread. Lets start a good pointless political argument. We need more of that now.

Okay. Your ideology is stupid. (Your turn)
tvellalott
Posts: 10,864
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2011 1:21:05 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/6/2011 1:17:46 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 7/6/2011 1:16:35 AM, FREEDO wrote:
At 7/6/2011 12:45:23 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 7/6/2011 12:40:09 AM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
Anyone who knows what they are talking about will realize that my post = /thread.

/thread

Naw, lets not /thread. Lets start a good pointless political argument. We need more of that now.

Okay. Your ideology is stupid. (Your turn)

No u
"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...
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2011 1:23:42 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/6/2011 1:21:05 AM, tvellalott wrote:
At 7/6/2011 1:17:46 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 7/6/2011 1:16:35 AM, FREEDO wrote:
At 7/6/2011 12:45:23 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 7/6/2011 12:40:09 AM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
Anyone who knows what they are talking about will realize that my post = /thread.

/thread

Naw, lets not /thread. Lets start a good pointless political argument. We need more of that now.

Okay. Your ideology is stupid. (Your turn)

No u

http://evilloop.com...
tvellalott
Posts: 10,864
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2011 1:27:25 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/6/2011 1:23:42 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
http://evilloop.com...

I've got to hand it to you, that picture speaks volumes to me.
"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
7/6/2011 6:00:05 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/5/2011 11:36:09 PM, Rockylightning wrote:
1. How are the sick/disabled/elderly cared for?
2. How are criminals dealt with?
3. Why doesnt society descend into chaos?

But you are placing demands on anarcho-capitalism that no other system could possibly hope to meet! It is utterly unreasonable to query how even the most basic of human concerns could possibly be resolved! Everyone in an ancap society would be a passive philosopher-king! Waaaah waaaah!

Unlike the an-caps I will now attempt a sensible reply.

1. How are the sick/disabled/elderly cared for?

Insurance schemes, private pensions, private care plans etc etc... in essence you pay. If you can not, then you have to turn to charity.

2: How are criminals dealt with?

In an academic sense there will be no such thing as crime, in a practical sense if you find someone's behaviour offensive you can either inflict punishment on them, or hire private mercenaries to do so. The victim, or members of his estate are also free to do as such. Should you be wealthy enough to afford sufficiently robust security you are effectively free of prosecution (well you can always be assassinated I guess).

3. Why doesnt society descend into chaos?

Well it may or may not descend into chaos, such a society would certainly be either very Darwinian with competing private armies... and/or oppressive as private security firms form neo-feudal cantonments or simply a single armed dictatorship. Even if in the former case, equilibrium of power will eventually kick in, meaning that though society would be a lot more violent on a day to day basis you probably wont be in a gun fight every day.
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.
tvellalott
Posts: 10,864
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2011 6:36:22 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/6/2011 6:00:05 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 7/5/2011 11:36:09 PM, Rockylightning wrote:
1. How are the sick/disabled/elderly cared for?
2. How are criminals dealt with?
3. Why doesnt society descend into chaos?

But you are placing demands on anarcho-capitalism that no other system could possibly hope to meet! It is utterly unreasonable to query how even the most basic of human concerns could possibly be resolved! Everyone in an ancap society would be a passive philosopher-king! Waaaah waaaah!

Unlike the an-caps I will now attempt a sensible reply.

1. How are the sick/disabled/elderly cared for?

Insurance schemes, private pensions, private care plans etc etc... in essence you pay. If you can not, then you have to turn to charity.

2: How are criminals dealt with?

In an academic sense there will be no such thing as crime, in a practical sense if you find someone's behaviour offensive you can either inflict punishment on them, or hire private mercenaries to do so. The victim, or members of his estate are also free to do as such. Should you be wealthy enough to afford sufficiently robust security you are effectively free of prosecution (well you can always be assassinated I guess).

3. Why doesnt society descend into chaos?

Well it may or may not descend into chaos, such a society would certainly be either very Darwinian with competing private armies... and/or oppressive as private security firms form neo-feudal cantonments or simply a single armed dictatorship. Even if in the former case, equilibrium of power will eventually kick in, meaning that though society would be a lot more violent on a day to day basis you probably wont be in a gun fight every day.

*draws from the hip and blasts C_N*
"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
7/6/2011 7:02:45 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/6/2011 6:36:22 AM, tvellalott wrote:
At 7/6/2011 6:00:05 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 7/5/2011 11:36:09 PM, Rockylightning wrote:
1. How are the sick/disabled/elderly cared for?
2. How are criminals dealt with?
3. Why doesnt society descend into chaos?

But you are placing demands on anarcho-capitalism that no other system could possibly hope to meet! It is utterly unreasonable to query how even the most basic of human concerns could possibly be resolved! Everyone in an ancap society would be a passive philosopher-king! Waaaah waaaah!

Unlike the an-caps I will now attempt a sensible reply.

1. How are the sick/disabled/elderly cared for?

Insurance schemes, private pensions, private care plans etc etc... in essence you pay. If you can not, then you have to turn to charity.

2: How are criminals dealt with?

In an academic sense there will be no such thing as crime, in a practical sense if you find someone's behaviour offensive you can either inflict punishment on them, or hire private mercenaries to do so. The victim, or members of his estate are also free to do as such. Should you be wealthy enough to afford sufficiently robust security you are effectively free of prosecution (well you can always be assassinated I guess).

3. Why doesnt society descend into chaos?

Well it may or may not descend into chaos, such a society would certainly be either very Darwinian with competing private armies... and/or oppressive as private security firms form neo-feudal cantonments or simply a single armed dictatorship. Even if in the former case, equilibrium of power will eventually kick in, meaning that though society would be a lot more violent on a day to day basis you probably wont be in a gun fight every day.

*draws from the hip and blasts C_N*

Having not paid my protection money, sorry private security fees, I am a pretty fair target.
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.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2011 8:55:49 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/6/2011 6:00:05 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 7/5/2011 11:36:09 PM, Rockylightning wrote:
1. How are the sick/disabled/elderly cared for?
2. How are criminals dealt with?
3. Why doesnt society descend into chaos?

But you are placing demands on anarcho-capitalism that no other system could possibly hope to meet! It is utterly unreasonable to query how even the most basic of human concerns could possibly be resolved! Everyone in an ancap society would be a passive philosopher-king! Waaaah waaaah!

Oh, troll harder. It's like asking "how does X happen in a statist society?" You can propose ways in which it would likely occur, but you can't guarantee anything because societies aren't homogeneous. It's like asking how we get rid of government: how that occurs in the United States will probably be much different from how it occurs in China or North Korea.

The whole point of anarchism is that the social structure is unplanned. Asking someone to provide a plan for an unplanned society is incoherent.

Unlike the an-caps I will now attempt a sensible reply.

1. How are the sick/disabled/elderly cared for?

Insurance schemes, private pensions, private care plans etc etc... in essence you pay. If you can not, then you have to turn to charity.

I have no problem with this at face value.

2: How are criminals dealt with?

In an academic sense there will be no such thing as crime, in a practical sense if you find someone's behaviour offensive you can either inflict punishment on them, or hire private mercenaries to do so.

Don't pretend like every act of aggression ends in a Mexican Standoff. Just because there isn't a monopoly on arbitration doesn't mean that arbitration doesn't exist. Plenty of private firms already have ways of arbitrating disputes to avoid really costly litigation (see: credit card companies), and the absence of a legal monopoly incentivizes innovation in that field since it's basically an untapped market anyway. Hell, if you want to look at the "insurance scheme" bit, then it could just be a matter of getting some amount of payment from the aggressor's insurance company pending a third-party arbitrator's judgment of damages owed.

I imagine the next response will probably be something about corruption and bribery, at which point all I really need to say is that the arbitrator has really big reputation concerns to worry about (which is a potent disincentive), not to mention that, for every incentive problem you name with private companies, it's basically multiplied many times over for states, which still makes the market the optimal arrangement And, even if an individual is "acquitted" (or whatever relevant term), it's not as if they're going to get off totally untouched. Merely being accused of a crime and brought before an arbitrator is likely to harm the individual's reputation and drive up insurance premiums (given that the insurance company is the intermediary which has to pay out in the case of transgressions, incentivizing it to scale premiums based on client behavior and background and such.

You may object with violent criminals--say, a crazy serial killing rapist pedophile, to be charitable to your argument. Maybe he doesn't care about premiums, has no insurance, disregards the incentives, and just runs around shooting people and raping little kids. He flips arbitrators the bird and owns assault rifles, scaring into silence most of the people he encounters. In a market society, wat do?

At that point, I have no problem saying it's plausible that one of the defense agencies will probably send out some guys to try and arrest the guy, so they can shackle him up, try him quickly, and send him to a privately-owned prison. But maybe the guy is really smart. And really narcissistic. As such, he has no intention of going quietly. So he decides to sit in his house and wait, an AK-47 in each hand. Eventually, he engages Security Co., they get into a firefight, a couple of Security Co.'s boys go down, and this intelligent narcissistic serial-killing rapist pedophile commando gets filled full of holes. Whatever assets he has left are liquidated and used to try and cover the damages as much as possible (along with the news of this kid-boning predator's demise), and it's case closed.

We may not like it, but those are the heroes we need, if not the ones we deserve. They're silent guardians. Watchful protectors. Dark Knights.

Oh, guess we weren't done.

The victim, or members of his estate are also free to do as such. Should you be wealthy enough to afford sufficiently robust security you are effectively free of prosecution (well you can always be assassinated I guess).

Your argument is seriously "rich people will buy private armies and do whatever they want"? When it's put plainly like that, it sounds much more ridiculous. :P

Seriously, though. One of the richest men on the planet, Bill Gates, is worth about $56 billion. This is net worth, mind you, which means that we're not talking about $56 billion in pure cash. Now, conservative estimates on the costs of the war in Iraq put it at about $2 billion a week. For the sake of convenience, we'll say that Gates won't be going to full-scale war all the time, and that his campaigns are fairly geographically limited. But, to be charitable to your argument (which is that basically every conflict comes down to private agencies fighting each other), we'll say it's a fair-sized war. So, I'll cut those costs significantly (again, for charity). About $750 million per week to keep up these conflicts, since we're not talking against insurgents. We're talking about fighting other organized security agencies. And, let's say that each conflict goes on for about 6 weeks at a time (since Gates' private army is trying to monopolize, and is therefore committed to destroying all competition). That's $4.5 billion per war, which is approximately 8% of his net worth, on average, per war (of which there will very likely be more than one). Despite the fact that basically no billionaire is that stupid (nor that seemingly malevolent, though I could be wrong), any billionaire that IS that stupid and malevolent will basically bankrupt himself trying to take over. For people who aren't billionaires, the costs are basically equivalent to blending your life savings into a fine powder, mixing it with water, drinking it, and then pissing it away.

And all of this, of course, assumes that private companies will go to war against other agencies for a single customer (or that the incentive to go is somehow stronger than the massive projected costs of such a venture, especially since it will likely occur on a repeat basis).

3. Why doesnt society descend into chaos?

Well it may or may not descend into chaos, such a society would certainly be either very Darwinian with competing private armies... and/or oppressive as private security firms form neo-feudal cantonments or simply a single armed dictatorship. Even if in the former case, equilibrium of power will eventually kick in, meaning that though society would be a lot more violent on a day to day basis you probably wont be in a gun fight every day.

Because anarchy is like Risk, and statism is like a civilized tea party.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2011 9:21:08 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/6/2011 8:55:49 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 7/6/2011 6:00:05 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 7/5/2011 11:36:09 PM, Rockylightning wrote:
1. How are the sick/disabled/elderly cared for?
2. How are criminals dealt with?
3. Why doesnt society descend into chaos?

But you are placing demands on anarcho-capitalism that no other system could possibly hope to meet! It is utterly unreasonable to query how even the most basic of human concerns could possibly be resolved! Everyone in an ancap society would be a passive philosopher-king! Waaaah waaaah!

Oh, troll harder.

No, I consider that I have trolled to a sufficient degree.

It's like asking "how does X happen in a statist society?" You can propose ways in which it would likely occur, but you can't guarantee anything because societies aren't homogeneous. It's like asking how we get rid of government: how that occurs in the United States will probably be much different from how it occurs in China or North Korea.

Yea... but when you an-caps have NOTHING to say about the most BASIC functions of society... not even any half credible speculation... well quite frankly I am going to take the proverbial out of you. Especially considering how self-righteous and serious you lot are!

The whole point of anarchism is that the social structure is unplanned. Asking someone to provide a plan for an unplanned society is incoherent.

And absent, though it seems that has been forgotten.


Unlike the an-caps I will now attempt a sensible reply.

1. How are the sick/disabled/elderly cared for?

Insurance schemes, private pensions, private care plans etc etc... in essence you pay. If you can not, then you have to turn to charity.

I have no problem with this at face value.

Neither do I, as such.


2: How are criminals dealt with?

In an academic sense there will be no such thing as crime, in a practical sense if you find someone's behaviour offensive you can either inflict punishment on them, or hire private mercenaries to do so.

Don't pretend like every act of aggression ends in a Mexican Standoff. Just because there isn't a monopoly on arbitration doesn't mean that arbitration doesn't exist.

Sure, there will be arbitration, but recourse to violence will be a lot more common.

I imagine the next response will probably be something about corruption and bribery,

No, because that can be taken as read. If you are an an-cap you don't care about corruption and bribery. Money and force is the law.

You may object with violent criminals--say, a crazy serial killing rapist pedophile, to be charitable to your argument. Maybe he doesn't care about premiums, has no insurance, disregards the incentives, and just runs around shooting people and raping little kids. He flips arbitrators the bird and owns assault rifles, scaring into silence most of the people he encounters. In a market society, wat do?

Shoot him... its not a problem.

At that point, I have no problem saying it's plausible that one of the defense agencies will probably send out some guys to try and arrest the guy, so they can shackle him up, try him quickly, and send him to a privately-owned prison. But maybe the guy is really smart. And really narcissistic. As such, he has no intention of going quietly. So he decides to sit in his house and wait, an AK-47 in each hand. Eventually, he engages Security Co., they get into a firefight, a couple of Security Co.'s boys go down, and this intelligent narcissistic serial-killing rapist pedophile commando gets filled full of holes. Whatever assets he has left are liquidated and used to try and cover the damages as much as possible (along with the news of this kid-boning predator's demise), and it's case closed.

I am struggling to find some sort of rebuttal.

Your argument is seriously "rich people will buy private armies and do whatever they want"? When it's put plainly like that, it sounds much more ridiculous. :P

I am trying to cut through the an-cap bs. The problem is the ideology is childishly simply. You decide that Government is bad... okay fine, therefore you strip away every single aspect, but somehow decide that the all good bits that you like about Governmen and law will survive. You privatised all force... and yet presume that force won't simply become part of the money.

So lets not employ euphemisms like... private security firms, and cut to the chase... mercenaries.

Seriously, though. One of the richest men on the planet, Bill Gates, is worth about $56 billion. This is net worth, mind you, which means that we're not talking about $56 billion in pure cash. Now, conservative estimates on the costs of the war in Iraq put it at about $2 billion a week. For the sake of convenience, we'll say that Gates won't be going to full-scale war all the time, and that his campaigns are fairly geographically limited. But, to be charitable to your argument (which is that basically every conflict comes down to private agencies fighting each other), we'll say it's a fair-sized war. So, I'll cut those costs significantly (again, for charity). About $750 million per week to keep up these conflicts, since we're not talking against insurgents. We're talking about fighting other organized security agencies. And, let's say that each conflict goes on for about 6 weeks at a time (since Gates' private army is trying to monopolize, and is therefore committed to destroying all competition). That's $4.5 billion per war, which is approximately 8% of his net worth, on average, per war (of which there will very likely be more than one). Despite the fact that basically no billionaire is that stupid (nor that seemingly malevolent, though I could be wrong), any billionaire that IS that stupid and malevolent will basically bankrupt himself trying to take over. For people who aren't billionaires, the costs are basically equivalent to blending your life savings into a fine powder, mixing it with water, drinking it, and then pissing it away.

This really is not a rebuttal, I am saying that the wealthy will be free to employ violence mitigated only by their self-interest. Not that every Bill Gates will engage in full scale wars. The simple fact is that someone like Bill Gates is otherwise immune to prosecution unless some of equal or greater wealth decides it is in their interest to prosecute.

Security agencies will go to war, the scope of that war will be relevant to the circumstances. You are strawmanning.


3. Why doesnt society descend into chaos?

Well it may or may not descend into chaos, such a society would certainly be either very Darwinian with competing private armies... and/or oppressive as private security firms form neo-feudal cantonments or simply a single armed dictatorship. Even if in the former case, equilibrium of power will eventually kick in, meaning that though society would be a lot more violent on a day to day basis you probably wont be in a gun fight every day.

Because anarchy is like Risk, and statism is like a civilized tea party.

Humans are not nice fluffy bunnies, human interaction is based on force. Laws conveniently do much to create a veneer over the essential violence of man. You seek to do away with them... I am just reminding you of the logical consequences that you are too dishonest to face up to.
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.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2011 10:16:55 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/6/2011 9:21:08 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 7/6/2011 8:55:49 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 7/6/2011 6:00:05 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 7/5/2011 11:36:09 PM, Rockylightning wrote:
1. How are the sick/disabled/elderly cared for?
2. How are criminals dealt with?
3. Why doesnt society descend into chaos?

But you are placing demands on anarcho-capitalism that no other system could possibly hope to meet! It is utterly unreasonable to query how even the most basic of human concerns could possibly be resolved! Everyone in an ancap society would be a passive philosopher-king! Waaaah waaaah!

Oh, troll harder.

No, I consider that I have trolled to a sufficient degree.

It's like asking "how does X happen in a statist society?" You can propose ways in which it would likely occur, but you can't guarantee anything because societies aren't homogeneous. It's like asking how we get rid of government: how that occurs in the United States will probably be much different from how it occurs in China or North Korea.

Yea... but when you an-caps have NOTHING to say about the most BASIC functions of society... not even any half credible speculation... well quite frankly I am going to take the proverbial out of you. Especially considering how self-righteous and serious you lot are!

We do have things to say. We've just decided, rather than answering the same questions again, and again, and again (look at any AnCap thread, and you'll notice a pattern), to point out that people are asking the wrong questions. Mad "How?" Disease is very prevalent among people asking about anarchism.

The whole point of anarchism is that the social structure is unplanned. Asking someone to provide a plan for an unplanned society is incoherent.

And absent, though it seems that has been forgotten.

Asking people for possible plans is also wrong. I don't control all industries, nor do I like to pretend I do.


2: How are criminals dealt with?

In an academic sense there will be no such thing as crime, in a practical sense if you find someone's behaviour offensive you can either inflict punishment on them, or hire private mercenaries to do so.

Don't pretend like every act of aggression ends in a Mexican Standoff. Just because there isn't a monopoly on arbitration doesn't mean that arbitration doesn't exist.

Sure, there will be arbitration, but recourse to violence will be a lot more common.

That's your conclusion, which is what we're arguing.

I imagine the next response will probably be something about corruption and bribery,

No, because that can be taken as read. If you are an an-cap you don't care about corruption and bribery. Money and force is the law.

That is a straw man.

You may object with violent criminals--say, a crazy serial killing rapist pedophile, to be charitable to your argument. Maybe he doesn't care about premiums, has no insurance, disregards the incentives, and just runs around shooting people and raping little kids. He flips arbitrators the bird and owns assault rifles, scaring into silence most of the people he encounters. In a market society, wat do?

Shoot him... its not a problem.

Since all property is private property, and he basically kills anyone who even looks at him funny, he can't complain if and when men with guns arrive to remove him.

At that point, I have no problem saying it's plausible that one of the defense agencies will probably send out some guys to try and arrest the guy, so they can shackle him up, try him quickly, and send him to a privately-owned prison. But maybe the guy is really smart. And really narcissistic. As such, he has no intention of going quietly. So he decides to sit in his house and wait, an AK-47 in each hand. Eventually, he engages Security Co., they get into a firefight, a couple of Security Co.'s boys go down, and this intelligent narcissistic serial-killing rapist pedophile commando gets filled full of holes. Whatever assets he has left are liquidated and used to try and cover the damages as much as possible (along with the news of this kid-boning predator's demise), and it's case closed.

I am struggling to find some sort of rebuttal.

Your argument is seriously "rich people will buy private armies and do whatever they want"? When it's put plainly like that, it sounds much more ridiculous. :P

I am trying to cut through the an-cap bs. The problem is the ideology is childishly simply. You decide that Government is bad... okay fine, therefore you strip away every single aspect, but somehow decide that the all good bits that you like about Government and law will survive.

We don't arbitrarily decide that government is bad. We're just tired of everybody subscribing to the Magic Wand Theory of the State, where people pretend that they get to control government because they're statists--where they say "government should implement policy X", regardless of numerous reasons why politicians and bureaucrats wouldn't do X, why the incentive structures aren't conducive to X, and why the government doesn't act the way people want it to simply because those people want something to be done. Their arguments basically boil down to "good government is good, but bad government is bad. I only want good government." This is why the AnCaps protest even trying to plan a society--we prefer to focus on the fundamental social theory, rather than the specific mechanisms like how mail gets delivered, or how private defense works, or how all poverty is eliminated.

You privatised all force... and yet presume that force won't simply become part of the money.

It's more that I don't buy into the Caveman Theory of Incentives (i.e. "ooga ooga, me want profit. Me smash.")

So lets not employ euphemisms like... private security firms, and cut to the chase... mercenaries.

Replacing neutral phrases with negatively-connotative phrases is a clever strategy, but I'm not biting.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2011 10:16:58 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/6/2011 9:21:08 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 7/6/2011 8:55:49 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
Seriously, though. One of the richest men on the planet, Bill Gates, is worth about $56 billion. This is net worth, mind you, which means that we're not talking about $56 billion in pure cash. Now, conservative estimates on the costs of the war in Iraq put it at about $2 billion a week. For the sake of convenience, we'll say that Gates won't be going to full-scale war all the time, and that his campaigns are fairly geographically limited. But, to be charitable to your argument (which is that basically every conflict comes down to private agencies fighting each other), we'll say it's a fair-sized war. So, I'll cut those costs significantly (again, for charity). About $750 million per week to keep up these conflicts, since we're not talking against insurgents. We're talking about fighting other organized security agencies. And, let's say that each conflict goes on for about 6 weeks at a time (since Gates' private army is trying to monopolize, and is therefore committed to destroying all competition). That's $4.5 billion per war, which is approximately 8% of his net worth, on average, per war (of which there will very likely be more than one). Despite the fact that basically no billionaire is that stupid (nor that seemingly malevolent, though I could be wrong), any billionaire that IS that stupid and malevolent will basically bankrupt himself trying to take over. For people who aren't billionaires, the costs are basically equivalent to blending your life savings into a fine powder, mixing it with water, drinking it, and then pissing it away.

This really is not a rebuttal, I am saying that the wealthy will be free to employ violence mitigated only by their self-interest.

Because all companies are going to enter into an unpredictable civil war at the behest of a billionaire tyrant? Well, not all companies. It would have to be a really big, powerful company with a lot of preexisting assets for it to even think of trying to wage an aggressive war.

Not that every Bill Gates will engage in full scale wars. The simple fact is that someone like Bill Gates is otherwise immune to prosecution unless some of equal or greater wealth decides it is in their interest to prosecute.

Or somebody offs him because he's funneling money into an aggressive military group (and offs the head of the military group to be safe). That's the resolution according to your theory, anyway. :P

Security agencies will go to war, the scope of that war will be relevant to the circumstances. You are strawmanning.

I'm pretty sure the straw man is going from "private law" to "warlords".


3. Why doesnt society descend into chaos?

Well it may or may not descend into chaos, such a society would certainly be either very Darwinian with competing private armies... and/or oppressive as private security firms form neo-feudal cantonments or simply a single armed dictatorship. Even if in the former case, equilibrium of power will eventually kick in, meaning that though society would be a lot more violent on a day to day basis you probably wont be in a gun fight every day.

Because anarchy is like Risk, and statism is like a civilized tea party.

Humans are not nice fluffy bunnies, human interaction is based on force.

I disagree. People can be pretty calm and reasonable. You can make arguments about the constant underlying threat of force, but that's just a liability claim about what people can expect if they engage in aggression.

For people to argue or communicate, they have to make certain presuppositions. They're presuming free agency, self-ownership, and nonaggression. These are rights granted through the act of discourse which cease whenever violence strikes (since that's the affirmation of force, rather than reason, as the primary means of interacting).

Laws conveniently do much to create a veneer over the essential violence of man. You seek to do away with them...

Not really--I just seek to do away with a monopoly on law. Ironic how people complain about monopolies on a free market, and then insist on controlling them with a combined monopoly on force, law, and arbitration.

I am just reminding you of the logical consequences that you are too dishonest to face up to.

I'm not being dishonest--I'm pointing out that your whole assumption about human nature is misguided. You share with OreEle this fiated view of humanity as a bunch of savage animals needing to be controlled (by benevolent bureaucrats with monopolistic legal power). There's not really any obvious basis for that kind of belief other than some kind of deep-seated hatred for humanity, from what I've been able to discern.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2011 10:48:44 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/6/2011 10:16:55 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 7/6/2011 9:21:08 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 7/6/2011 8:55:49 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 7/6/2011 6:00:05 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 7/5/2011 11:36:09 PM, Rockylightning wrote:
1. How are the sick/disabled/elderly cared for?
2. How are criminals dealt with?
3. Why doesnt society descend into chaos?

But you are placing demands on anarcho-capitalism that no other system could possibly hope to meet! It is utterly unreasonable to query how even the most basic of human concerns could possibly be resolved! Everyone in an ancap society would be a passive philosopher-king! Waaaah waaaah!

Oh, troll harder.

No, I consider that I have trolled to a sufficient degree.

It's like asking "how does X happen in a statist society?" You can propose ways in which it would likely occur, but you can't guarantee anything because societies aren't homogeneous. It's like asking how we get rid of government: how that occurs in the United States will probably be much different from how it occurs in China or North Korea.

Yea... but when you an-caps have NOTHING to say about the most BASIC functions of society... not even any half credible speculation... well quite frankly I am going to take the proverbial out of you. Especially considering how self-righteous and serious you lot are!

We do have things to say. We've just decided, rather than answering the same questions again, and again, and again (look at any AnCap thread, and you'll notice a pattern), to point out that people are asking the wrong questions. Mad "How?" Disease is very prevalent among people asking about anarchism.


I've asked valid questions about an-cap that have been evaded. Remember my ongoing fence questions?

The whole point of anarchism is that the social structure is unplanned. Asking someone to provide a plan for an unplanned society is incoherent.

And absent, though it seems that has been forgotten.

Asking people for possible plans is also wrong. I don't control all industries, nor do I like to pretend I do.

General likelihoods would be nice.



2: How are criminals dealt with?

In an academic sense there will be no such thing as crime, in a practical sense if you find someone's behaviour offensive you can either inflict punishment on them, or hire private mercenaries to do so.

Don't pretend like every act of aggression ends in a Mexican Standoff. Just because there isn't a monopoly on arbitration doesn't mean that arbitration doesn't exist.

Sure, there will be arbitration, but recourse to violence will be a lot more common.

That's your conclusion, which is what we're arguing.


On don't see a counter-argument yet.

I imagine the next response will probably be something about corruption and bribery,

No, because that can be taken as read. If you are an an-cap you don't care about corruption and bribery. Money and force is the law.

That is a straw man.

How so?
In a statist society there is (often) a theoretical set of 'objective' rules to follow, in an an-cap society there is only the consideration of profit vs. risk and any personal moral qualms you may have. Why wouldn't corruption be rampant, as an an-cap you either don't care, or see it as a virtue.


You may object with violent criminals--say, a crazy serial killing rapist pedophile, to be charitable to your argument. Maybe he doesn't care about premiums, has no insurance, disregards the incentives, and just runs around shooting people and raping little kids. He flips arbitrators the bird and owns assault rifles, scaring into silence most of the people he encounters. In a market society, wat do?

Shoot him... its not a problem.

Since all property is private property, and he basically kills anyone who even looks at him funny, he can't complain if and when men with guns arrive to remove him.

Exactly.
My whole argument is that people in an-cap society will behave like normal humans are wont to do.

I am trying to cut through the an-cap bs. The problem is the ideology is childishly simply. You decide that Government is bad... okay fine, therefore you strip away every single aspect, but somehow decide that the all good bits that you like about Government and law will survive.

We don't arbitrarily decide that government is bad. We're just tired of everybody subscribing to the Magic Wand Theory of the State, where people pretend that they get to control government because they're statists--where they say "government should implement policy X", regardless of numerous reasons why politicians and bureaucrats wouldn't do X, why the incentive structures aren't conducive to X, and why the government doesn't act the way people want it to simply because those people want something to be done. Their arguments basically boil down to "good government is good, but bad government is bad. I only want good government." This is why the AnCaps protest even trying to plan a society--we prefer to focus on the fundamental social theory, rather than the specific mechanisms like how mail gets delivered, or how private defense works, or how all poverty is eliminated.

The an-caps avoid all social theory, that is my point. You have nothing but an ideology and have no concern as to how it could be implemented or its consequences!


You privatised all force... and yet presume that force won't simply become part of the money.

It's more that I don't buy into the Caveman Theory of Incentives (i.e. "ooga ooga, me want profit. Me smash.")

That sounds like a strawman!


So lets not employ euphemisms like... private security firms, and cut to the chase... mercenaries.

Replacing neutral phrases with negatively-connotative phrases is a clever strategy, but I'm not biting.

Its not much of a perjorative term, its an accurate one.
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
7/6/2011 11:01:19 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/6/2011 10:16:58 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
Because all companies are going to enter into an unpredictable civil war at the behest of a billionaire tyrant? Well, not all companies. It would have to be a really big, powerful company with a lot of preexisting assets for it to even think of trying to wage an aggressive war.

Why wouldn't Plutocrats and Mega-corporations behave much the same way as countries, entering into war when they saw some form of profit or advantage?

In any case, neighbourhood guns fights =/= third world war.

Not that every Bill Gates will engage in full scale wars. The simple fact is that someone like Bill Gates is otherwise immune to prosecution unless some of equal or greater wealth decides it is in their interest to prosecute.

Or somebody offs him because he's funneling money into an aggressive military group (and offs the head of the military group to be safe). That's the resolution according to your theory, anyway. :P

Yep.


Security agencies will go to war, the scope of that war will be relevant to the circumstances. You are strawmanning.

I'm pretty sure the straw man is going from "private law" to "warlords".

You can't see how a complete privatisation of all law, army and police services might possibly lead to the rise of warlords?



3. Why doesnt society descend into chaos?

Well it may or may not descend into chaos, such a society would certainly be either very Darwinian with competing private armies... and/or oppressive as private security firms form neo-feudal cantonments or simply a single armed dictatorship. Even if in the former case, equilibrium of power will eventually kick in, meaning that though society would be a lot more violent on a day to day basis you probably wont be in a gun fight every day.

Because anarchy is like Risk, and statism is like a civilized tea party.

Humans are not nice fluffy bunnies, human interaction is based on force.

I disagree. People can be pretty calm and reasonable. You can make arguments about the constant underlying threat of force, but that's just a liability claim about what people can expect if they engage in aggression.

I am using force in the widest sense of the term, you can use force whilst being calm and reasonable. Your boss setting a deadline is an example of force for instance.


For people to argue or communicate, they have to make certain presuppositions. They're presuming free agency, self-ownership, and nonaggression.

No... that is very naive.

These are rights granted through the act of discourse which cease whenever violence strikes (since that's the affirmation of force, rather than reason, as the primary means of interacting).

So somehow your an-cap society will be free of force? How?


Laws conveniently do much to create a veneer over the essential violence of man. You seek to do away with them...

Not really--I just seek to do away with a monopoly on law. Ironic how people complain about monopolies on a free market, and then insist on controlling them with a combined monopoly on force, law, and arbitration.

Possibly because those are totally different situations.


I am just reminding you of the logical consequences that you are too dishonest to face up to.

I'm not being dishonest--I'm pointing out that your whole assumption about human nature is misguided. You share with OreEle this fiated view of humanity as a bunch of savage animals needing to be controlled (by benevolent bureaucrats with monopolistic legal power).

Thats almost a strawman, or at least an oversimplification.

There's not really any obvious basis for that kind of belief other than some kind of deep-seated hatred for humanity, from what I've been able to discern.

Seriously? Have you never met humans?

Maybe you could give a few glib examples of how normal everyday disputes could be resolved in an an-cap society?
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.
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2011 11:06:56 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Humans are terrible, man.

I don't even hate humanity, and it's pretty obvious.
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
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2011 11:10:10 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/6/2011 11:06:56 AM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
Humans are terrible, man.

I don't even hate humanity, and it's pretty obvious.

I love humans, but I don't understand how someone educated and intelligent can be so blind to their nature!
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.
Tim_Spin
Posts: 446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2011 11:35:34 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/5/2011 11:36:09 PM, Rockylightning wrote:
1. How are the sick/disabled/elderly cared for?

Charity(not forced), family, friends, exc.

2. How are criminals dealt with?

Private defense agencies

3. Why doesnt society descend into chaos?

Explain the question.
Astonished, the talent agent asks the man what him and his family call their act.The man responds, "The Aristocrats!"