Happy Atheist Forum

Amended to add Intro to clear up some problems.

Let me just say one more thing before I retire for the night, because I think it may be a common misconception many are having, and are likely effecting the effectiveness I'm communicating.

***My proposal is simply for a society based around these principles, but not a society that would simply replace you're current state. To do so would just be the restructuring of a major power. All I want, is for a government, to either sell some of their territory to us and allow us our social experiment. Not be governed by their laws, but ones based on our principles. I have heard of guy attempting to buy a third world country, but with no success. His plan was to then sell all it's resources and distribute it equally amongst the residents.

I was approaching the argument incorrectly. Although, I argue it could work on a large scale, that is not what would be the ideal situation. Like anything it needs to be proven, as it stands it's only a theory. I just want land acquired legally, that other governments respect the sovereignty of, in order to have this social experiment. ***


This thread is being created at the request of another member. I will attempt to explain the principles of Anarcho-Capitalism and provide links for more information.

What does an Anarcho-Capitalist believe?

1. The non-aggression principle.
Most people, regardless of their political lean, live their lives by this principle already, even if they don't realize it. As children,  most of us are taught not to start fights, that "no means no," not to steal, and other basic principles that are necessary to a civil society.

We simply apply the same principle we think individuals should follow and apply it to organizations and government, as well. Taxation is not justified because it violates this fundamental principle most people believe every other individual should live by. I think I can safely say, all governments both past and present, have violated this simple principle. The way people rationalize taxation while condemning an individual who thieves baffles me.

2. Private Property Rights.
When I first started looking for alternative political theories, I looked a bit into traditional anarchism, but had major problems with the philosophy. I couldn't fully articulate it until I started reading up on Anarcho-Capitalism.

The reasoning is addmitadly weak and it is simply a right I accept on faith. It isn't ideal, but it is a difficult position to defend, sometimes impossible, since their is no proven inherent right of property. However, I accept this principle on faith due to my conclusion that a society without property rights would be worse than one with out. A belief in property rights is protection and justification of the first axiom of non-aggression.

The two essentially support each other, which is not exactly a strong argument, but it also can't be discredited. I view it similar to the debate about god; I don't think anyone can fully prove their premise on this issue. A support for the state requires a similar hurdle though in it's premise, when in regards to how the state derives it's power and authority.

3. View of government
Government and structure are an important aspect of any society and as an anarcho-capitalist I don't hate government in theory, but I do disagree with coercive governments that don't have the consent of the governed.

Within an anarcho-capitalist society, voluntary governments, socialist communes, even voluntary kingdoms would be allowed to function within the borders of an anarcho-capitalist society. My problem is not with government, but with the governing of individuals with out their consent. Along with the agression and force the state utilizes against individuals to enforce it's ideals.

4. Abortion
The view on abortion is split between the anarcho-capitalist community. I maintain that a woman's right of self ownership trumps the unborn child's rights. That a child developing in a woman's body, without her consent, is an indirect and violation of the non-aggression principle. The idea a woman own's her body, trumps the possibility of the unborn child having rights.

I'm personally unsure if an unborn child should be considered living, but that knowledge is unnecessary from the angle I view this issue.

Others argue the child is not aggressing upon the mother and abortion violates the principle of non-aggression.

5. Economics[/b]
Out of the two schools of economics we agree with the Austrian School. Below is a link to a brief overview of Austrian Economics. The Mises Institute, where the article is hosted, also hosts a lot of papers on anarcho-capitalism, free e-books on the philosophy, lectures, audio recordings, and other information.

http://mises.org/etexts/austrian.asp

6. Rationalization

I rationalize these beliefs by seeing the same problems most other people see. For example, our current system in the U.S. has a problem with both businesses and government abusing it's power, or simply acting like assholes.

The traditional argument is government is needed to keep businesses in line, while I argue that government facilitates businesses behaving badly. Although there are historical examples of government stepping into to curtail the abuses of a business, I maintain the result is overwhelmingly negative on the larger scale. Typically, the government does little to ensure consumers are treated fairly by business, among other failures and negative consequences of our current system. As seen with the ongoing foreclosure problem in the U.S., it's a problem that is a direct result of government mandate. The government thought  everyone should be able to afford a home and required banks to lower their loan requirements. As a result, many families were offered loans greater than what they could reasonably expect to afford. The economic downturn complicated matters further with lay-offs.

The banks were forced into such practices by the government, and later bailed out by the government so they wouldn't go bankrupt. When the government bails out businesses, it eliminates the risk of unsafe investments, loans, etc. The taxpayer simply get's stuck with the bill while the CEO can keep collecting a healthy paycheck. The bailout's of the auto-industry is another example of government facilitating the existence of ineffective businesses.

Business is risky, which is why successful ones naturally make their executives a lot of money. There should be no safety net protecting businesses and entrepreneurs from failing.

Many people support these bailouts because they see the obvious problems that would occur if a big business were to fail, resulting in larger unemployment. However, they fail to recognize the problems with artificially keeping a business alive. Mainly, that they can still survive without effectively adjusting their practices and business model, fail to improve their product, fail to ensure customer satisfaction with their product, and potentially prevent a smaller business from naturally gaining a larger portion of the market by creating a better product or exercising better business ethics.

7. The Broken Window Fallacy
Below, is a popular parable that illustrates a misconception many people have about economics.

Quote
Have you ever witnessed the anger of the good shopkeeper, James B., when his careless son happened to break a square of glass? If you have been present at such a scene, you will most assuredly bear witness to the fact, that every one of the spectators, were there even thirty of them, by common consent apparently, offered the unfortunate owner this invariable consolation: "It is an ill wind that blows nobody good. Everybody must live, and what would become of the glaziers if panes of glass were never broken?"
Now, this form of condolence contains an entire theory, which it will be well to show up in this simple case, seeing that it is precisely the same as that which, unhappily, regulates the greater part of our economical institutions.

Suppose it cost six francs to repair the damage, and you say that the accident brings six francs to the glazier's trade — that it encourages that trade to the amount of six francs — I grant it; I have not a word to say against it; you reason justly. The glazier comes, performs his task, receives his six francs, rubs his hands, and, in his heart, blesses the careless child. All this is that which is seen.

But if, on the other hand, you come to the conclusion, as is too often the case, that it is a good thing to break windows, that it causes money to circulate, and that the encouragement of industry in general will be the result of it, you will oblige me to call out, "Stop there! Your theory is confined to that which is seen; it takes no account of that which is not seen."

It is not seen that as our shopkeeper has spent six francs upon one thing, he cannot spend them upon another. It is not seen that if he had not had a window to replace, he would, perhaps, have replaced his old shoes, or added another book to his library. In short, he would have employed his six francs in some way which this accident has prevented.

Let us take a view of industry in general, as affected by this circumstance. The window being broken, the glazier's trade is encouraged to the amount of six francs: this is that which is seen.
If the window had not been broken, the shoemaker's trade (or some other) would have been encouraged to the amount of six francs: this is that which is not seen.

And if that which is not seen is taken into consideration, because it is a negative fact, as well as that which is seen, because it is a positive fact, it will be understood that neither industry in general, nor the sum total of national labor, is affected, whether windows are broken or not.

Here is a link discussing the parable further.
http://mises.org/daily/5593

8. Unintended Consequences explained further.
We see unintended consequences with statutory law as well. This site does a good job posting links to news articles about police, legal, and other types of abuses that are facilitated by the government.
www.theagitator.com

9. Minimum Wage
Minimum wage is another example of how laws result in unattended consequences. Few people question there effectiveness and maintain they benefit the poor, while preventing companies from abusing their workers.

I argue they are actually detrimental to the lower-class and unskilled workers in particular. Just like with all markets, supply and demand plays it's part in the job market. By requiring companies to provide a minimum wage to their workers, you are effectively limiting the number of employee's a company can afford to employ. Although those who have jobs are sometimes making more than they otherwise would, fewer jobs are created as a result. It has also made it harder for unskilled workers to get entry-level positions in an area they have no experience. Most business owners have to weigh the cost of employing an individual along with the individuals productive value. An unskilled worker often doesn't have a high enough productive value to justify the company hiring him/her at the current mandated price of $7.50 in most of the states. I believe that is the federally mandated minimum wage, but in some states it's higher.

Without forcing a minimum wage, unskilled workers would have a better chance of negotiating with an employer to get the requisite skills and knowledge needed for that particular field. Likely resulting in higher wages in the future.

Another unintended consequence of minimum wage laws is that it inadvertently prevents potential employee's and employer's from making their own educated decisions. Sometimes you will have to work for less than you think you're worth, if you desperately need money to feed you're family. It isn't perfect, but it seems it should be up to the individual to determine what price they are willing to sell their labor at, depending on their need of work. The individual can decide if underselling their skills is more beneficial to them than holding out for a better job.

10. Conclusion
Essentially the philosophy is based around the first two principles which is the basis of my reasoning on all issues, because I like to be consistent. By doing so, it also helps me evaluate the claims and positions the philosophy leads to. I have been faced with several issues I could not immediately rectify, but after some research, I found an article, book, or paper, that makes a compelling argument for either how something would function in an Anarcho-capitalist society, or a reasoned justification for a certain conclusion based upon the first two axioms.

If a conclusion I draw based on that line of reasoning would lead to a more dangerous or more oppressive society, I would be forced to reevaluate the credibility of the entire philosophy, but I have never encountered a situation that would likely lead to a less just, safe, or efficient society.

I have never found a political theory that is completely free of weaknesses. However, after extensive research into Socialism, Marxism, Communism, Traditional Anarchism, Randianism, Democracy, and a few others. Anarcho-capitalism, I find this is the strongest theory I have looked at, and due to the simplicity of it's primary axioms, facilitates a world-view free of contradiction and selective reasoning. I like discussing the topic, because it helps search for areas that could lead to a contradiction in principle or an unjustified belief as a premise.

There is obviously more to the theory, but the information in this post is, I think, does a decent job at providing an overview of the core principles. As well as an attempt to explain the line of reasoning behind some of my minority views.

Quote from: ThinkAnarchy on March 26, 2012, 07:58:31 PM
1. The non-aggression principle.
Most people, regardless of their political lean, live their lives by this principle already, even if they don't realize it. As children,  most of us are taught not to start fights, that "no means no," not to steal, and other basic principles that are necessary to a civil society.

Thanks for posting that, I hope you don't mind that I have some questions, I will start with 1.
The non aggression principle is in direct conflict to the theory of natural law. Natural law recognises that if certain unwritten rules are broken then it is in human nature that people will act out with force. e.g. If a person is being raped then the raped person and other bystanders will be compelled to use force against the rapist. This natural law is greater than legal law, e.g. if the government makes it legal to keep slaves then the slaves and bystanders will be compelled to use force against the government.
So I feel the non aggression principle does not recognise that it is the threat of force that largely dictates our own behaviours, keeps us in line, so to speak. The threat of force I feel is a desired tool to keep society safe, to keep me safe.

I think we get taught by our parents not to steal, not to fight, because it improves our own chances of survival because if we do these things (steal, fight) we know that society will retaliate with use of force against us. Without "use of force" civil society is just an ideal, who has the luxury of caring about ideals above the betterment of the self? e.g. if the self is better off stealing bread to eat than to live up to an ideal, it is likely the stealing of bread will win.

Quote from: ThinkAnarchy on March 26, 2012, 07:58:31 PM
We simply apply the same principle we think individuals should follow and apply it to organizations and government, as well. Taxation is not justified because it violates this fundamental principle most people believe every other individual should live by. I think I can safely say, all governments both past and present, have violated this simple principle. The way people rationalize taxation while condemning an individual who thieves baffles me.

Without taxation how do we support the following:
Roads
Hospitals
Education
Police
Courts
Prisons
Town planning
Waste disposal
Diplomatic relations
International trade
Poor and starving

Quote from: ThinkAnarchy on March 26, 2012, 07:58:31 PM
1. The non-aggression principle.
Most people, regardless of their political lean, live their lives by this principle already, even if they don't realize it. As children,  most of us are taught not to start fights, that "no means no," not to steal, and other basic principles that are necessary to a civil society.

Quote from: Stevil on March 26, 2012, 08:29:27 PM
Thanks for posting that, I hope you don't mind that I have some questions, I will start with 1.
The non aggression principle is in direct conflict to the theory of natural law. Natural law recognises that if certain unwritten rules are broken then it is in human nature that people will act out with force. e.g. If a person is being raped then the raped person and other bystanders will be compelled to use force against the rapist. This natural law is greater than legal law, e.g. if the government makes it legal to keep slaves then the slaves and bystanders will be compelled to use force against the government.
So I feel the non aggression principle does not recognise that it is the threat of force that largely dictates our own behaviours, keeps us in line, so to speak. The threat of force I feel is a desired tool to keep society safe, to keep me safe.

Sorry, I should have gone into more detail. Non-aggression as we view it, is not the same as passivism. I agree the threat of force is a very powerful tool and would still be utilized in an An-Cap society. It simply say's, you can't "initiate" violence against someone or their property. If another individual does initiate violence against you or another, it is acceptable and encouraged to respond with violence.

It would also give the victim the choice of how they would like to punish the individual who aggressed upon them. If the victim happens to be a pacifist, they may prefer financial compensation, instead of a retaliating with violence. The threat of violence being answered with violence would still be there though.

Private courts would be left to determine if the accused is guilty of the initiation of violence and what the judgement and/or punishment should be. However, because they are private, they should also be held liable for mistakes in their rulings, which would help ensure just rulings. If it is discovered they convicted an innocent individual, they should than be found to have violated this basic principle themselves, and pay reparations or some other punishment for their act of unwarranted aggression. 

But violence should be answered with violence. Those who acted violently against the rapist would be justified in responding with violence to stop the violation or punish the violation.

Quote
I think we get taught by our parents not to steal, not to fight, because it improves our own chances of survival because if we do these things (steal, fight) we know that society will retaliate with use of force against us. Without "use of force" civil society is just an ideal, who has the luxury of caring about ideals above the betterment of the self? e.g. if the self is better off stealing bread to eat than to live up to an ideal, it is likely the stealing of bread will win.

I don't view the stealing of bread as equal to the theft of a tv. However, the possibility of violence would still be a threat for stealing bread. A court would likely view the beating of a bread thief to feed his family as an unproportional reaction to the theft however. I'm unsure how it would fully evolve, but the law would more closely resemble common law.

I agree that a threat of force is needed, I simply don't think government should hold that power.

Quote from: ThinkAnarchy on March 26, 2012, 07:58:31 PM
We simply apply the same principle we think individuals should follow and apply it to organizations and government, as well. Taxation is not justified because it violates this fundamental principle most people believe every other individual should live by. I think I can safely say, all governments both past and present, have violated this simple principle. The way people rationalize taxation while condemning an individual who thieves baffles me.

Quote
Without taxation how do we support the following:
Roads

They would be privatized and would most likely be paid for by local businesses who need their customers the ability to use certain roads. Residential roads could be owned by all members of the community, by the development company, or a third party company. The residents of established roads would have homesteaded the right to use those roads.
Dr. Walter Block has a fairly decent book called, The Privatization of Roads and Highways. https://mises.org/store/Product2.aspx?ProductId=581   that theorizes many way's private roads could be effectively and fairly run.

QuoteHospitals

Completely privatized, but there would still be the option of charity. There would also be alternative options for medical care. There would be no regulatory body to prevent less qualified people from practicing. The big hospitals and established medical facilities would still hire highly trained individuals, but the cost of treatment would naturally be higher. If you couldn't afford the best treatment however, you would be able to be treated by a less qualified individual if you decide to do so.

The current state of medical insurance also makes prices unjustifiably high. Hospitals and doctors tend not to worry how much it costs, because insurance companies will pay them what they ask. If the individual were to not have insurance, the provider would likely be willing to negotiate the charges with the patient.

Hospitals would not be required to treat people for free, but I imagine certain doctors would volunteer at free charitable clinics. I hope they would, but I can't justify force being used to make them treat poor people who can't pay.

Quote
Education

Privatized and unregulated. This means that Catholic institutions would be free to teach pseudo-science as fact, and teach inaccuracies regarding other things, but it should be the individuals choice what they or their children are taught. It certainly isn't ideal, but the current system is no better in this regard.

On the positive side, it would allow competition between different curriculums and teaching methods and the free-market would be left to determine the most effective methods. Schools that continuously provide poor results, would likely go out of business, due to customers leaving.

Due to it's unregulated nature, there would be the potential of smaller schools opening up at less cost. A stay-at-home mom who decides to home-school her kids, would be allowed to offer her services to other families, most likely at a lower cost than the bigger more established schools. It would allow more choice in the education sector and allow innovation and theoretical learning methods to be tested.

It's also possible some businesses may open up free, charitable schools. It could be worth the cost of running one to better prepare the workforce for carrying out particular jobs.

QuotePolice

Private and partially regulated. Private police forces and fire departments would likely be hired by businesses to ensure the safety of their merchandise and customers. Owners of private roads would have private enforcers of their driving regulations on the roads they own.

Within neighborhoods, the protection agency would likely be paid for through the home owner's association (when applicable), or a majority of the residents in an immediate area. It would not be required I private force help a non-paying customer, but it's unlikely it would occur often. If person "A" were paying for protection agency "Z" to protect his life and property, he would likely feel less safe, and grow unhappy with their service if agency "Z" allowed a violent crime to be committed against his neighbor.

The presence would inadvertently benefit those who don't pay as well.

Fire departments would have similar reasons for putting out fires to homes that don't pay them. If I pay for fire protection, the company I pay, better put out the fire on a neighboring property because my property is in risk of being burned too. Those who can't afford to pay, or choose not too, would indirectly benefit from these services.

QuotePrisons

There would be less need for prisons because the only crimes would be those that initiate violence against an individual or their property.

They would be privatized as well, and would likely contract with the different courts. The free market would be allowed to experiment with them as well in order to determine if punishment or rehabilitation is the best choice. Lose of freedom, hard labor, or restitution is a legitimate reaction to violence. The standard of evidence should be "Beyond a Reasonable Doubt" though, as it is in our current criminal system.

As I touched on earlier. Courts would be accountable for bad and unjust rulings, unlike they are today. It would most certainly do a better job then the state run system that has little to no accountability.

QuoteTown planning

There would be no town planning has we think of it today. It could be facilitated in some situations through voluntary contract though. If you purchase property that is contractually governed by a homeowners association, they would be free to set building restrictions, etc, if the contract grants them that right.

In other areas, people would be free to develop their land as they see fit, unless their alterations negatively aggress upon another's just property. It is hard to predict how courts would likely rule in situations where person "A" builds something on his property, but as a result, blocks the sun from falling on person "B's" land killing his garden. Since B's garden existed before the tall building, the court would likely make A pay B for damages due to his aggression on B's garden.

QuoteWaste disposal

Privatized and paid for by an H.O.A., individual home owners, individual business owners, and other private entities.

If I owned property, and my neighbor refused to properly despose of his trash, I would want the company I pay for the service to haul his trash as well. It could be I would be required to pay more, or the company would simply due it in exchange for my business and loyalty.

Quote
Diplomatic relations

There would be non on the anarcho-capitalist society. It would be a society of individuals and their would be no forum for diplomatic relations. Milita and mercenaries would have to be relied upon in the event of foreign invasion.

QuoteInternational trade

Trade would be open from our end. Individuals and Companies would be free to trade with whatever nation or individual they choose. That is not a guarantee other countries would openly and fairly trade with the an-cap society though.

Quote
Poor and starving

Charity and indirect benefits from other paid services. This society also would hold the possibility of communism effectively working. For those to poor or uneducated to maintain a comfortable standard of living, a good option might be to move to a small communist town, do you're share of farming, or another task, and receive an equal share of food or profit. It would be a voluntary agreement between the individuals and seems like an effective free-choice solution to poverty.

The land could be purchased and donated by a philanthropist, or unused land could be homesteaded by the group, claiming ownership of the land through their labor.

I'm sorry ThinkAnarchy, but everything you outlined in the post above sounds just awful.  The idea of privatized roads, fire departments, and police forces as well as people going to less qualified health professionals (snake oil salesmen, much?) if they can't afford actual medical care, and schools that teach any manner of nonsense, me potentially paying for my neighbor's waste disposal (or the company just eating it in an attempt to please me) et cetera, none of these sound in the least bit appealing.  Which is why you're unlikely to see an anarcho-capitalist society any time soon.  I think most of us want some measure of organization and feel that some services (such as fire departments, police forces, and education) should be open to all regardless of their ability to pay.  *shudder*  I have no desire to own a road!

Quote from: Ali on March 26, 2012, 10:18:21 PM
I'm sorry ThinkAnarchy, but everything you outlined in the post above sounds just awful.  The idea of privatized roads, fire departments, and police forces as well as people going to less qualified health professionals (snake oil salesmen, much?) if they can't afford actual medical care, and schools that teach any manner of nonsense, me potentially paying for my neighbor's waste disposal (or the company just eating it in an attempt to please me) et cetera, none of these sound in the least bit appealing.  Which is why you're unlikely to see an anarcho-capitalist society any time soon.  I think most of us want some measure of organization and feel that some services (such as fire departments, police forces, and education) should be open to all regardless of their ability to pay.  *shudder*  I have no desire to own a road!

Your entitled to that opinion.  ;) I don't see how people voluntarily paying for services they value is worse than being forced to pay for services and wars you may not want. There would still be organization, and there would still be government, the government that existed within the framework of an an-cap society would differ in that it would be voluntary and it's power supported through contract with it's subjects.

Anyone who is interested, is free to search out the plethora of material on the topic, that is written by individuals more intelligent than myself. Most of which can be found at the Mises site.

Quote from: Ali on March 26, 2012, 10:18:21 PM
I'm sorry ThinkAnarchy, but everything you outlined in the post above sounds just awful.  The idea of privatized roads, fire departments, and police forces as well as people going to less qualified health professionals (snake oil salesmen, much?) if they can't afford actual medical care, and schools that teach any manner of nonsense, me potentially paying for my neighbor's waste disposal (or the company just eating it in an attempt to please me) et cetera, none of these sound in the least bit appealing.  Which is why you're unlikely to see an anarcho-capitalist society any time soon.  I think most of us want some measure of organization and feel that some services (such as fire departments, police forces, and education) should be open to all regardless of their ability to pay.  *shudder*  I have no desire to own a road!

It sounds like pretty scary stuff. ThinkAnarchy, did it scare you when you first heard of this philosophy?

Assuming that your neighbor is paying for waste disposal, policing, roads and fire dept can be quite dangerous.
The rich areas will be well looked after at least.

I cringe with the assumption that a hospital with no legal obligation, will provide service for free to the poor.

And privatised schools will be a tool to ensure the rich kids have a head start. How will a poor kid get opportunity?

Herding poor people into poverty communes and expecting them to choose to pitch in also seems scary, I doubt poor would like this option, how do they get the chance to pull themselves out of poverty?

If my ownership of roads makes me accountable for road deaths then I would choose not to own roads.

Nope, I'm not a fan either.

For one, labour laws go out the window. No minimum wage? Zero rights in the workforce? I don't know about you, but I like having stat holidays and the security of knowing that my boss can't fire me for no reason without notice. This sets up a system where an employer can literally demand anything (60 hour work weeks with no overtime? 16 hour shifts?) and your only recourse is to quit. No thanks.

Edit: Also, using the "free market" to determine education is terrifying to me. It might guarantee the most popular curriculum gets taught, but not necessarily the best ( nor does it guarantee anything that's based on oh, I dunno, reality?). If you live in a part of the world where creationism is popular, sorry, your kid is going to be educated as a creationist!  

In short I really don't believe popular = universally the best for a lot of things in society.

Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on March 26, 2012, 11:12:14 PM
This sets up a system where an employer can literally demand anything (60 hour work weeks with no overtime? 16 hour shifts?) and your only recourse is to quit. No thanks.

Not to mention that your boss could demand the lovely ladies wear low cut tops and short miniskirts.

It does seem open for abuse and also in favour of the already rich,
Businesses end up paying for roads, which makes it even harder to start up a business, which means less employment opportunities.

Quote from: Stevil on March 26, 2012, 11:23:20 PM
Businesses end up paying for roads, which makes it even harder to start up a business, which means less employment opportunities.

Yep, until there are a couple of huge monopolies that control the market on pretty much everything, can do whatever they like, and no one can stop them. If a company knows that I HAVE to buy their product from them, why should they care about keeping me happy? Part of healthy capitalism is competition. I don't know if I missed something, but I didn't see any stipulations for guaranteeing competition in there.

Especially in industries where huge-start up capital is required to make a go of things; monopolies would definitely pop up and take over those areas.  

Yeah, I have to say that this kind of system actually scares the crap out of me.  I think that it places too much faith in the idea that, if left to their own devices, people and organizations will uphold the non-aggression principle.  Call me a cynic, but that's not how the world works.  If left to their own devices, people will generally act self-interestedly, which is why there needs to be oversight and law enforcement.  Do I unquestioning trust my Government?  Of course not, but at the end of the day I think that any Government worth its weight will ensure that reasonable safeguards are in place to prevent the unfair exploitation of the individual or groups of people.  Societies need the kind of macro-scale regulation that only a common Government mandated to protect the people's interests can provide.  The laissez-faire nature of this kind of system will not only perpetuate social and power inequalities, but will make them worse.

I don't have the capacity of going into details at this point, but do you not think abortion should really be a non-issue? Should not a person have the right to do whatever they want with their body as long as such activity does not harm or endanger another individual's life, health or property?

Quote from: Stevil on March 26, 2012, 10:57:12 PM
It sounds like pretty scary stuff. ThinkAnarchy, did it scare you when you first heard of this philosophy?

My initial reaction was identical to Ali's when I first started looking at the philosophy. When I started reading about it, I had already studied Libertarianism and min-archaism, and loosely classified myself as such. My problem with those theories was that I saw no reason why it would produce results different from America's trajectory. The U.S. was founded on many principles Libertarians hold as important, but those principles were lost as the government naturally grew and gained power. I saw no reason why a society based on Libertarianism, with a government that is seen as a controlling body, would not eventually end up with the similar results as most countries throughout history. It would likely die to a war, tyranny, or any number of other factors.

The idea of privatizing everything was also a scary idea for me initially. Although I realized nearly all governments evolve to oppress at least some portion of their society, and that the private sector does a better job at almost everything they compete with the government on, I still impulsively assumed a free-market society would evolve to be oppressed by business instead of the state. I initially thought it would simply the the replacing of an oppressive state, with another another form of tyrant. It wasn't until I realized the potential for more direct governance, that I began to stop seeing the state as a necessary evil.

And began to see natural safeguards that would help protect a small group of people from taking control by force.

I knew I was drawn to the philosophy of liberty, but couldn't see a world that would function without government. Once I started to realize that I had misconceptions about anarchist societies I was able to start considering the philosophy from a more open minded perspective.

Quote
Assuming that your neighbor is paying for waste disposal, policing, roads and fire dept can be quite dangerous.
The rich areas will be well looked after at least.

The rich already get better service when the state provides the services. Many cities have problems with police taking to long to respond, or not responding at all to calls from impoverished areas. But the poor would naturally benefit from the wealthy.

In order to support a coercive solution to solve poverty, crime, or any other serious issue that faces humanity, I would have to justify the initiation of force against some individuals to benefit others'. If I made such an exception I would have no grounds for arguing against the initiation of force for other reasons. The way I saw it, I could I could not support theft by the government while being against theft by the individual, while maintaining a level of fairness and consistency in my reasoning. I saw no way to oppose rape and murder committed by individuals while accepting similar aggressions by groups of individuals that call themselves a government. Although poverty is a serious issue, I can't justify those kinds of actions.

I started to see how I was being logically inconsistent, and perhaps dishonest, in my reasoning by making exceptions to principles I naturally held.

Quote
I cringe with the assumption that a hospital with no legal obligation, will provide service for free to the poor.

Hospitals may not, but some doctor's would. Ron Paul did not turn poor people away who needed medical treatment, and there are other individuals like him. There are also doctors who already donate their time to help individuals who can't afford medical care. The free market does not ignore charity, and I see no reason why philanthropy would cease to exist without the government.

Doctors without Borders seems to be a good example of charitable medical assistance without the need to be forced by the state.

Again though, I could not justify forcing doctors or companies to treat people. If I were to accept that as acceptable, I would have no logical reason to oppose forcing people to do other things against their will, for the benefit of another. I began to think of it from  extreme situations, and realized I could not provide a consistent argument against slavery, if I accepted the initiation of force for the greater good. The rapist benefits by raping, the slaver benefits by enslaving, but the level of the benefits of enslavement are never a justified argument for slavery, from the way I see the issues.

If I accepted the use of force given that some will benefit, how could I honestly counter a clearly flawed argument, like "slavery get's shit done?" Both practices would infringe on the sovereignty of the individual, while benefiting another class, race, or group. The fact they are different kinds of slavery, is not an adequate defense for some lessor forms of slavery, at least not from my view. 

Quote
And privatized schools will be a tool to ensure the rich kids have a head start. How will a poor kid get opportunity?

I don't think this is a great risk given the continuing advances with internet. The charitable nature of charitable individuals would help pick up the slack where government was no longer providing these functions. There are also already free learning resources online for those who choose to learn more on certain issues.

It would be more difficult for poorer individuals to get an education, but not impossible. Online learning would also be more affordable than brick and mortar school houses as it currently is.

Quote
Herding poor people into poverty communes and expecting them to choose to pitch in also seems scary, I doubt poor would like this option, how do they get the chance to pull themselves out of poverty?

Not herding, I obviously don't support some individuals forcing the poor to move into ghetto's. That however, does not mean poor individuals should not be free to try an alternative like communism if they view it as a more effective way to provide for their family.

I'm not a fan of communism, and don't particularly like the philosophy, but that political system, when absent of force, is a valid option for those who would prefer it.

Quote
If my ownership of roads makes me accountable for road deaths then I would choose not to own roads.

Which is why there would have to be natural profit incentive to encourage road ownership, which there would be. The accountability is a positive effect from my view. With roads owned by the government, the driver responsible for the accident is the only liable party. With private owners, there would be incentive to make roads safer, to avoid law suits.

Admittedly, that might prove to be a problem with individuals in a neighborhood owning a road equally. Perhaps those would be homesteaded and no individual would be viewed to own the roads. Repairs and maintenance would have to be negotiated among the neighbors and liability would fall solely to the one who caused harm. Or an HOA may charge a fee for maintenance and upkeep of the roads

Due to the theoretical nature of the philosophy, we can only speculate as to how things would naturally be restructured. The more I looked into it though, I began to see there was little evidence to suggest it would lead to a society that is worse than what we have. With the information I have, I see greater potential in an an-cap society than risk.

Quote from: Asmodean on March 26, 2012, 11:58:11 PM
I don't have the capacity of going into details at this point, but do you not think abortion should really be a non-issue? Should not a person have the right to do whatever they want with their body as long as such activity does not harm or endanger another individual's life, health or property?

I only meant the question of an unborn child being living is unimportant information in regards to abortion. I argue abortion may harm another's life depending on an individuals view, but that from my reasoning, a woman's right to her body trumps an unborn child's right to life.

Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on March 26, 2012, 11:12:14 PM
Nope, I'm not a fan either.

For one, labour laws go out the window. No minimum wage? Zero rights in the workforce? I don't know about you, but I like having stat holidays and the security of knowing that my boss can't fire me for no reason without notice. This sets up a system where an employer can literally demand anything (60 hour work weeks with no overtime? 16 hour shifts?) and your only recourse is to quit. No thanks.

Edit: Also, using the "free market" to determine education is terrifying to me. It might guarantee the most popular curriculum gets taught, but not necessarily the best ( nor does it guarantee anything that's based on oh, I dunno, reality?). If you live in a part of the world where creationism is popular, sorry, your kid is going to be educated as a creationist!  

In short I really don't believe popular = universally the best for a lot of things in society.

It would simply allow natural competition for jobs. It is up to the individual to determine what is acceptable in a work environment and at what cost.

Our current system does not always guarantee those things either in regards to education.

I covered minimum wage already in my initial post though.

I'm not arguing it's a Utopian system, simply that it would be a better system.

Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on March 26, 2012, 11:31:50 PM

Yep, until there are a couple of huge monopolies that control the market on pretty much everything, can do whatever they like, and no one can stop them. If a company knows that I HAVE to buy their product from them, why should they care about keeping me happy? Part of healthy capitalism is competition. I don't know if I missed something, but I didn't see any stipulations for guaranteeing competition in there.

Government already has a monopoly on many things. Do you support their monopoly of force? Meaning a monopoly of police, military, etc.

Quote
Especially in industries where huge-start up capital is required to make a go of things; monopolies would definitely pop up and take over those areas.  

If you want to read more about monopolise from my perspective, you can follow this link and look through some of the results. I haven't looked through all the results, but their should be both critiques and defenses in regard to the monopoly objection.

This one goes into government supporting monopolise in some industries.

http://mises.org/daily/5266

More search results can be found here:

http://mises.org/ by searching "monopoly."

Quote from: Yodas_Apprentice on March 26, 2012, 11:50:22 PM
Yeah, I have to say that this kind of system actually scares the crap out of me.  I think that it places too much faith in the idea that, if left to their own devices, people and organizations will uphold the non-aggression principle.  Call me a cynic, but that's not how the world works.  If left to their own devices, people will generally act self-interestedly, which is why there needs to be oversight and law enforcement.  Do I unquestioning trust my Government?  Of course not, but at the end of the day I think that any Government worth its weight will ensure that reasonable safeguards are in place to prevent the unfair exploitation of the individual or groups of people.  Societies need the kind of macro-scale regulation that only a common Government mandated to protect the people's interests can provide.  The laissez-faire nature of this kind of system will not only perpetuate social and power inequalities, but will make them worse.

Again, I cover anarchist law and police in my wall of text. History disagrees with your assessment that government will protect individuals from exploitation. Slavery has been sanctioned by many governments throughout history. We have a historical record of governments continuously creating inequalities. Hell the government still currently threats certain non-violent citizen unequally, as evidenced by homosexuals not being allowed to marry, or in more oppressive governments, being sentenced to death.

Quote from: ThinkAnarchy on March 27, 2012, 12:23:03 AM
Government already has a monopoly on many things. Do you support their monopoly of force? Meaning a monopoly of police, military, etc.

I'm not currently troubled by the police or military, I am not worried about future trouble from them

Quote from: ThinkAnarchy on March 27, 2012, 12:23:03 AM
If you want to read more about monopolise from my perspective, you can follow this link and look through some of the results. I haven't looked through all the results, but their should be both critiques and defenses in regard to the monopoly objection.

This one goes into government supporting monopolise in some industries.

http://mises.org/daily/5266

More search results can be found here:

http://mises.org/ by searching "monopoly."

I think monopolies would be great concern of anarcho-capitalism.

Quote from: ThinkAnarchy on March 27, 2012, 12:23:03 AM

Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on March 26, 2012, 11:31:50 PM

Yep, until there are a couple of huge monopolies that control the market on pretty much everything, can do whatever they like, and no one can stop them. If a company knows that I HAVE to buy their product from them, why should they care about keeping me happy? Part of healthy capitalism is competition. I don't know if I missed something, but I didn't see any stipulations for guaranteeing competition in there.

Government already has a monopoly on many things. Do you support their monopoly of force? Meaning a monopoly of police, military, etc.

Quote
Especially in industries where huge-start up capital is required to make a go of things; monopolies would definitely pop up and take over those areas.  

If you want to read more about monopolise from my perspective, you can follow this link and look through some of the results. I haven't looked through all the results, but their should be both critiques and defenses in regard to the monopoly objection.

This one goes into government supporting monopolise in some industries.

http://mises.org/daily/5266

More search results can be found here:

http://mises.org/ by searching "monopoly."

The government having a monopoly on force is kind of my point. If anyone should have a monopoly, it should be the government and not private enterprise.

I saw the point about competition as "a permanent economic process", but I didn't really find it convincing. It simply makes a statement with a few quotes, but I didn't see an argument. I'm not an economic expert by any means, but I still don't see why one mega-corporation who controls pretty much everything should care about keeping the consumers happy (as long as they don't have a choice to go elsewhere).

I also did a literature search on the website, but the most relevant result seemed similarly general and was written by a guy who had a doctorate in musical arts and composition? I find it a little suspicious that they'd set up the search in a scholarly convention, but they seem to be listing articles based on random opinions from random people.

Some information that comes from somewhere besides that one particular Institute, by current economists might be helpful.

Other than that, I do agree with you on the bank-bailout thing. I would have been happy to see every bank that was involved go under when all of that happened.

Quote from: Stevil on March 27, 2012, 12:42:01 AM

Quote from: ThinkAnarchy on March 27, 2012, 12:23:03 AM
Government already has a monopoly on many things. Do you support their monopoly of force? Meaning a monopoly of police, military, etc.

I'm not currently troubled by the police or military, I am not worried about future trouble from them

You may not be troubled by it now, but it doesn't change the fact that government's monopoly of force has the potential to lead to atrocities like those committed by the Nazi's.

Quote from: ThinkAnarchy on March 27, 2012, 12:23:03 AM
If you want to read more about monopolise from my perspective, you can follow this link and look through some of the results. I haven't looked through all the results, but their should be both critiques and defenses in regard to the monopoly objection.

This one goes into government supporting monopolise in some industries.

http://mises.org/daily/5266

More search results can be found here:

http://mises.org/ by searching "monopoly."

I think monopolies would be great concern of anarcho-capitalism.
[/quote]
On what what grounds to you base you're concern? The article I linked to makes a good case, from my prospective. I'm simply curious if it's purely a gut reaction or not. I had concerns about monopolies as well until I began digging deeper into them.

Quote from: ThinkAnarchy on March 27, 2012, 12:29:27 AM
Again, I cover anarchist law and police in my wall of text. History disagrees with your assessment that government will protect individuals from exploitation. Slavery has been sanctioned by many governments throughout history. We have a historical record of governments continuously creating inequalities. Hell the government still currently threats certain non-violent citizen unequally, as evidenced by homosexuals not being allowed to marry, or in more oppressive governments, being sentenced to death.

And history also disagrees with your assumption that unregulated economic and education systems provide a better standard of living and equality of opportunity across the board.  The creation of the safety net we currently have didn't occur in a vacuum - at the start of the industrial revolution you had children working in industries where they were liable to get maimed or die.  This was a huge impetus behind England instituting compulsory education in 1870.  The development of labour regulations to protect workers has been a gradual process since the beginning of the industrial revolution.  Are you saying that we should still have children working in factories?  In such an extremely de-regulated, laissez-faire system as you're suggesting it seems a likely prospect.  What is the incentive for a struggling and starving family to put their kids in school when they could be out earning their keep?  Where is the incentive in this system for anything other than economic capital?

You also seem to be conflating the American government with other, more progressive national governments (such as in Canada where gay people do have the right to marry... at least for now, tho that's a different issue).  The problem with Government occurs when ideology becomes the guiding star and inflects policy. Good Governments rely on sound research to make evidence-based policy.

As for how you describe privatized Police forces, to me that sounds like a protection racket rather than a service mandated to enforce the law equally.  In the current system there are certainly jurisdictions, but I think privatized Police services would be outright exclusionary (where's the incentive for private Police to respond to a situation involving people who aren't paying for their service?  They should be ethically compelled to, but  may not because of insurance issues related to putting themselves in undue danger).  I outright reject your claim that "[their] presence would inadvertently benefit those who don't pay as well."

Quote from: ThinkAnarchy on March 27, 2012, 12:51:13 AM

Quote from: Stevil on March 27, 2012, 12:42:01 AM

Quote from: ThinkAnarchy on March 27, 2012, 12:23:03 AM
Government already has a monopoly on many things. Do you support their monopoly of force? Meaning a monopoly of police, military, etc.

I'm not currently troubled by the police or military, I am not worried about future trouble from them

You may not be troubled by it now, but it doesn't change the fact that government's monopoly of force has the potential to lead to atrocities like those committed by the Nazi's.

Oh, Godwin's law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law), you never fail. 

Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on March 27, 2012, 12:50:22 AM


The government having a monopoly on force is kind of my point. If anyone should have a monopoly, it should be the government and not private enterprise.

I disagree for reason in the above post, mainly that when the government has a monopoly on force, it typically will lead to oppression.

Quote
I saw the point about competition as "a permanent economic process", but I didn't really find it convincing. It simply makes a statement with a few quotes, but I didn't see an argument. I'm not an economic expert by any means, but I still don't see why one mega-corporation who controls pretty much everything should care about keeping the consumers happy (as long as they don't have a choice to go elsewhere).

It's economically beneficial to focus on quality and customer satisfaction. Even if the three big companies in an industry banded together to artificially keep prices high, it would clear the path for a smaller company to even the playing field by charging lower prices and providing better service. The only risk I see monopolies having a chance of surviving for an extended period of time is when they are sanctioned by the government, or happen in an emerging industry. Due to the high cost of new technology, it could be argued the cost of entering the field to compete would be to high for many smaller companies.

Quote
I also did a literature search on the website, but the most relevant result seemed similarly general and was written by a guy who had a doctorate in musical arts and composition? I find it a little suspicious that they'd set up the search in a scholarly convention, but they seem to be listing articles based on random opinions from random people.

The qualifications of the authors are listed, you are free to decide if their level of qualifications make them a credible source on an issue. I see nothing wrong with building a library and letting readers determine the qualifications of the authors. Literature is also not of high importance to the education the site focuses on.

Quote
Some information that comes from somewhere besides that one particular Institute, by current economists might be helpful.

If you are curious about the opposing economic view, look into Kenyan economics. That is the competing economic theory and the one that is overwhelmingly taught in schools.

There are a ton of arguments out their that make counter arguments to Anarcho-Capitalism, many from competing scholars. Feel free to look for opposing views, but the Mises institute is the best source if someone is curious about the philosophy from the perspective of the An-cap. It's purpose is to teach Austrian Economics and An-Cap to those who wish to learn more about it. You can also look elsewhere for arguments proposing other forms of governments. If you're curious, do some research. I don't mean that to be rude, but I'm spending my time defending my minority opinion, I shouldn't be expected to argue against myself as well.

There are many articles from present economists as well. The article I linked is published by a modern economist.

Quote
Other than that, I do agree with you on the bank-bailout thing. I would have been happy to see every bank that was involved go under when all of that happened.

Yeah, someone agrees with me on something.  ;D

Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on March 27, 2012, 01:19:29 AM

Quote from: ThinkAnarchy on March 27, 2012, 12:51:13 AM

Quote from: Stevil on March 27, 2012, 12:42:01 AM

Quote from: ThinkAnarchy on March 27, 2012, 12:23:03 AM
Government already has a monopoly on many things. Do you support their monopoly of force? Meaning a monopoly of police, military, etc.

I'm not currently troubled by the police or military, I am not worried about future trouble from them

You may not be troubled by it now, but it doesn't change the fact that government's monopoly of force has the potential to lead to atrocities like those committed by the Nazi's.

Oh, Godwin's law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law), you never fail. 

Excuse me, but when we are discussing the oppressive nature of government, an example of an oppressive government is a perfectly justified example.

Quote from: ThinkAnarchy on March 27, 2012, 01:24:24 AM

Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on March 27, 2012, 01:19:29 AM

Quote from: ThinkAnarchy on March 27, 2012, 12:51:13 AM

Quote from: Stevil on March 27, 2012, 12:42:01 AM

Quote from: ThinkAnarchy on March 27, 2012, 12:23:03 AM
Government already has a monopoly on many things. Do you support their monopoly of force? Meaning a monopoly of police, military, etc.

I'm not currently troubled by the police or military, I am not worried about future trouble from them

You may not be troubled by it now, but it doesn't change the fact that government's monopoly of force has the potential to lead to atrocities like those committed by the Nazi's.

Oh, Godwin's law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law), you never fail. 

Excuse me, but when we are discussing the oppressive nature of government, an example of an oppressive government is a perfectly justified example.

Sorry, couldn't help myself.  ;D

QuoteThe rule does not make any statement about whether any particular reference or comparison to Adolf Hitler or the Nazis might be appropriate, but only asserts that the likelihood of such a reference or comparison arising increases as the discussion progresses.

ThinkAnarchy, am I crazy, or wasn't there a time in the not so distant human history when things like fire departments, medical care, and education were not provided by the government to those who could not afford to purchase them?  I don't recall hearing that most people were better off before these things went public, or that charity was enough to cover the gaps in those days.  

I'm picturing the days when most people were illiterate and the average life expectancy was like 35, and not particularly wanting to go back to those days.

I realize that when it comes to life expectancy, you could argue that we did not have the medical technology that we have today, but I would argue that medical technology is fairly useless if you can't afford to access it.

@Yoddas and anyone else who responds tonight. I'm done with this for the day, but will pick it back up tomorrow and respond to as many as I can get through in one day.

Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on March 27, 2012, 01:25:48 AM

Quote from: ThinkAnarchy on March 27, 2012, 01:24:24 AM

Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on March 27, 2012, 01:19:29 AM

Quote from: ThinkAnarchy on March 27, 2012, 12:51:13 AM

Quote from: Stevil on March 27, 2012, 12:42:01 AM

Quote from: ThinkAnarchy on March 27, 2012, 12:23:03 AM
Government already has a monopoly on many things. Do you support their monopoly of force? Meaning a monopoly of police, military, etc.

I'm not currently troubled by the police or military, I am not worried about future trouble from them

You may not be troubled by it now, but it doesn't change the fact that government's monopoly of force has the potential to lead to atrocities like those committed by the Nazi's.

Oh, Godwin's law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law), you never fail. 

Excuse me, but when we are discussing the oppressive nature of government, an example of an oppressive government is a perfectly justified example.

Sorry, couldn't help myself.  ;D

QuoteThe rule does not make any statement about whether any particular reference or comparison to Adolf Hitler or the Nazis might be appropriate, but only asserts that the likelihood of such a reference or comparison arising increases as the discussion progresses.

No worries, I'm getting tired and as a result a little snappy, hence my taking a break for the day.

No worries.

And the only reason I mention the sources is because you are proposing a position that appears to be a minority view here. People are skeptical, and will probably keep pushing you to defend your points, so a variety of sources from people educated in economics, from more than one institute, will only help, is all.

It's like when creationists come here, quote things from one source, and then say "oh, look it up" if we take issue with their position. I have an open mind, but that sort of thing doesn't make it seem very credible.  

I have another question, though (when you are able to read it tomorrow). Why do you think it's important to have any government at all? Why not total anarchy? The value of capitalism seems sort of assumed in this worldview, why not descontruct everything and then see how society forms? You might value non-aggression, but what's the rationale behind instituting it systematically if you find other systematic obligations so abhorrent?

Let me just say one more thing before I retire for the night, because I think it may be a common misconception many are having, and are likely effecting the effectiveness I'm communicating.

My proposal is simply for a society based around these principles, but not a society that would simply replace you're current state. To do so would just be the restructuring of a major power. All I want, is for a government, to either sell some of their territory to us and allow us our social experiment. Not be governed by their laws, but ones based on our principles. I have heard of guy attempting to buy a third world country, but with no success. His plan was to then sell all it's resources and distribute it equally amongst the residents.

I was approaching the argument incorrectly. Although, I argue it could work on a large scale, that is not what would be the ideal situation. Like anything it needs to be proven, as it stands it's only a theory. I just want land acquired legally, that other governments respect the sovereignty of, in order to have this social experiment.

But, I'm officially done for the night and will pick back up tomorrow.  :)

Quote from: ThinkAnarchy on March 27, 2012, 12:13:30 AM

Quote from: Asmodean on March 26, 2012, 11:58:11 PM
I don't have the capacity of going into details at this point, but do you not think abortion should really be a non-issue? Should not a person have the right to do whatever they want with their body as long as such activity does not harm or endanger another individual's life, health or property?

I only meant the question of an unborn child being living is unimportant information in regards to abortion. I argue abortion may harm another's life depending on an individuals view, but that from my reasoning, a woman's right to her body trumps an unborn child's right to life.

As long as the fetus depends on its physical connection to the mother to survive, its right to live is really a privilege, one which I think the mother should be able to revoke at any time. The right to live kicks in when one is able to survive without a hose in one's belly conneting one's parasitic ass to someone else.

Quote from: Asmodean on March 27, 2012, 08:17:04 AM

Quote from: ThinkAnarchy on March 27, 2012, 12:13:30 AM

Quote from: Asmodean on March 26, 2012, 11:58:11 PM
I don't have the capacity of going into details at this point, but do you not think abortion should really be a non-issue? Should not a person have the right to do whatever they want with their body as long as such activity does not harm or endanger another individual's life, health or property?

I only meant the question of an unborn child being living is unimportant information in regards to abortion. I argue abortion may harm another's life depending on an individuals view, but that from my reasoning, a woman's right to her body trumps an unborn child's right to life.

As long as the fetus depends on its physical connection to the mother to survive, its right to live is really a privilege, one which I think the mother should be able to revoke at any time. The right to live kicks in when one is able to survive without a hose in one's belly conneting one's parasitic ass to someone else.

That is essentially how I view the issue too. And I agree with all of that. I was merely saying that I understand where the other side is coming from, especially if you take god out of that argument. But yes, I'm pro-choice for all the reasons you listed.

Quote from: ThinkAnarchy on March 27, 2012, 12:10:47 AM
It would be more difficult for poorer individuals to get an education, but not impossible. Online learning would also be more affordable than brick and mortar school houses as it currently is.

Top jobs will go to those students whom go to prestigious schools, not those whom educated themselves on the internet.
America and England already have this issue, privatising all schools will make this a much bigger problem.

Quote
Not herding, I obviously don't support some individuals forcing the poor to move into ghetto's. That however, does not mean poor individuals should not be free to try an alternative like communism if they view it as a more effective way to provide for their family.

I'm not a fan of communism, and don't particularly like the philosophy, but that political system, when absent of force, is a valid option for those who would prefer it.

A user pays system is implemented, so no longer do the wealthy subsidise the poor.
So from the perspective of the poor family:
The poor family can't afford health care, they can't afford fire service, or waste disposal, they are not receiving any financial support, no state housing, they live in a poor area, where no-one can afford these things, they can't afford police services, they can't afford education for their children, there is no government support to help them upskill and get a job, if they do have a job there is no minimum wage so they are working long hours for little pay, there are great pressures for the children to provide income for the family at a young age. Just to survive today the kids need to work rather than go to school.
For this family, how do the children get an education and compete against the wealthy family kids for a decent job? How do the poor kids break this cycle of poverty?

Quote from: ThinkAnarchy on March 27, 2012, 12:51:13 AM
On what what grounds to you base you're concern? The article I linked to makes a good case, from my prospective. I'm simply curious if it's purely a gut reaction or not. I had concerns about monopolies as well until I began digging deeper into them.

I see in my society today, monopolies and duopolies, ensuring they don't compete on price, they confuse the product, even though they are just selling telecommunication service (voice, sms or data), but they package it in inventive ways so that consumers cannot compare apples with apples and hence cannot demand lowest price.
It makes sense for shareholders to own monopolies rather than compete. Corporate takeovers and mergers happen all the time, so do unspoken agreements to not compete on price.
At least the current government does have regulation up its sleeve, as well as anti-competition laws.
Just look at how many times Microsoft has been slapped by anti competitive behaviours.


BTW, thanks again for taking this on. I know it seems that we are all criticising it, but it is such a leap from where we are today. Looking at it superficially leaves me feeling terrified as if I am about to jump off a very tall building. I need to double check my pack to ensure there is a parachute in there and make sure it has been packed properly with all the contingencies that would make me feel safe. I understand that you believe in it, and that you are a smart person so maybe my fear is unfounded, but I need to ask questions.
I think a country would be very scared to leap in and give this a go.

No taxes, no minimum wage, no public services, privatised healthcare, police, judiciary and education, I've gotta confess I'm with everyone else in not liking the idea of this. The system sounds like the only people who will benefit from it would be the rich, and that would only lead to more social division.

I really don't see how it can be argued that no minimum wage is better for unskilled workers, I think it's only better for rich employers who can employ 10 workers at $1 an hour instead of one worker at $10 an hour. I also disagree with the view that taxation is unjustified and just theft. Personally, I think taxation is justified because the taxes fund the social structure that allows people and corporations to trade and make the money in the first place.

I also worry that there's a slightly naive assumption that wealthy people and big corporations will play by the non-aggression rule if they have their own private police forces or even armies, or can buy the 'justice' they want in a private court. Or that they will be altruistic enough to care about society in general and not just about their profits and making more money. Much as I don't necessarily believe that my government always has the population's best interest at heart, my experience of big corporations is that they really don't give a toss, they're out to make money and little else. I think one of the major problems with the current system is the influence that wealthy people and big corporations are able to exert on governments, in an-cap it sounds like they'll have carte blanche to influence society and government.

Much as I think our current form of government is far from perfect, I see an-cap as being a far less perfect way of running a country. The current sytem has enabled us to live longer than anyone before, and live freer lives than most people throughout history (in the west at least).

Having said that, if some wealthy an-cappers want to buy a little island and set up a colony somewhere, good luck to them. But I can see why no country would want an an-cap community within its borders. People within that community would pay no tax and wouldn't contribute to any of the public service. But what if they weren't one of the wealthy and had children but decided they couldn't afford a decent privatised education or fell ill but couldn't afford the privatised healthcare, so decide they want to come back into our society, having not paid any taxes to contribute to those public services throughout their lives?

Quote from: Yodas_Apprentice on March 27, 2012, 01:09:46 AM

Quote from: ThinkAnarchy on March 27, 2012, 12:29:27 AM
Again, I cover anarchist law and police in my wall of text. History disagrees with your assessment that government will protect individuals from exploitation. Slavery has been sanctioned by many governments throughout history. We have a historical record of governments continuously creating inequalities. Hell the government still currently threats certain non-violent citizen unequally, as evidenced by homosexuals not being allowed to marry, or in more oppressive governments, being sentenced to death.

Quote
And history also disagrees with your assumption that unregulated economic and education systems provide a better standard of living and equality of opportunity across the board.

What societies have we had that have had a completely free economy? This lecture by Tom Woods does a good job regarding the industrial revolution around the 10:00 minute mark.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=bwEcH7HGSZY#!

I have seen just the opposite from the historical record regarding the effects of free-markets. Capitalism is why the first world is where it's at today in comfort level, wealth, affordable goods, etc.

QuoteThe creation of the safety net we currently have didn't occur in a vacuum - at the start of the industrial revolution you had children working in industries where they were liable to get maimed or die.  This was a huge impetus behind England instituting compulsory education in 1870.  The development of labour regulations to protect workers has been a gradual process since the beginning of the industrial revolution.  Are you saying that we should still have children working in factories?  In such an extremely de-regulated, laissez-faire system as you're suggesting it seems a likely prospect.  What is the incentive for a struggling and starving family to put their kids in school when they could be out earning their keep?  Where is the incentive in this system for anything other than economic capital?

Child labor is a natural and reoccurring issue during industrial revolutions. You see saw it in Britain, U.S., and you currently see it in many currently developing nations. Once enough capital is built up in these developing areas and more jobs are created, the need for children to work in factories becomes much less.

In an an-cap society, children would be allowed to work if they choose to, or if their family was poor and couldn't afford food. No body would force a child to work, but if it's necessary it the child and families life, I don't see why I should prevent it.

Not to mention, child labor laws today prevent many children who want to work from getting jobs. Why are young children who want to make money not allowed to work, it isn't as if the jobs they would get in the developed world would be factory jobs. They would simply be babysitters, dog walkers, entrepreneurs, web development, auto work, among other things. The work ethic they would develop and skills they learned would likely be better than most schools could do, public or private.

I understand the reasoning for supporting child labor laws during industrial revolutions in one degree. You see the children working in poor conditions and don't think that's expectable. That is fair enough, but you than have to consider what the alternative would be if they weren't in those factories; Likely hunger pains, maybe death. You than have to think about the 1st world today and if these laws are even necessary now. If children were allowed to work, they would not end up in factories, but typically safe and air-conditioned jobs.

Quote
You also seem to be conflating the American government with other, more progressive national governments (such as in Canada where gay people do have the right to marry... at least for now, tho that's a different issue).  The problem with Government occurs when ideology becomes the guiding star and inflects policy. Good Governments rely on sound research to make evidence-based policy.

I'm not saying their haven't been a few good and caring leaders throughout history, but Canada and most liberal countries are no better. Many have more social freedoms but less economic freedoms. Even the commendable one's didn't do a good job for long.

Quote
As for how you describe privatized Police forces, to me that sounds like a protection racket rather than a service mandated to enforce the law equally.  In the current system there are certainly jurisdictions, but I think privatized Police services would be outright exclusionary (where's the incentive for private Police to respond to a situation involving people who aren't paying for their service?  They should be ethically compelled to, but  may not because of insurance issues related to putting themselves in undue danger).  I outright reject your claim that "[their] presence would inadvertently benefit those who don't pay as well."

There is currently a monopoly on police protection. Some state run police departments do a good and fair job in their jurisdictions. Others due a terrible job, with high levels of crime, slow response times, police brutality, planting evidence, to name a few. If you happen to live in an area with a corrupt or incompetent police force, you have no recoures other than appealing to the government to fix the problems.

If these same problems happened when we had competing security forces, people would be able simply hire another company. Businesses centers would have a need to hire security forces and would be required to protect the people in a certain area. It is bad for business if people keep getting murdered on the block's near you're business. There are many clear indications that private police protection would clearly extend to those who don't pay. It also wouldn't be in the businesses best interest to hire a firm that beats up it's customers or people in the area, as that to would be bad for business.

With private residences, the same applies. What parent would want to hire a protection agency that isn't going to the safety of the community. It benefits the parent directly, knowing the entire neighborhood is safe, so her child can ride her bike around without accidentally ending up in a bad area.

Quote from: Ali on March 27, 2012, 01:25:55 AM
ThinkAnarchy, am I crazy, or wasn't there a time in the not so distant human history when things like fire departments, medical care, and education were not provided by the government to those who could not afford to purchase them?  I don't recall hearing that most people were better off before these things went public, or that charity was enough to cover the gaps in those days.  

These systems were also not as advanced as they are today. We have the capital, resources, and knowledge to provide these services properly through the free market. People in cities would likely indirectly benefit from many of these things by their neighbors purchasing them. Simply because these services were not accessible in the past does not mean they can not be successfully instituted today.

Schooling could be a very cheap and private to do this technology called the internet. Plus formal education is less important for many today. The information is readily accessible for those of us in the first world. It is no longer a problem of not having enough school houses, etc. and it wouldn't be again. Societies of the past were also not education based to the large amounts of poverty. People don't care to be educated when their starving. They would much prefer to work and survive.

This is why these problems that occurred pre-industrial revolution are not totally valid when discussing an an-cap society from a post-industrial revolution society.

Quote
I'm picturing the days when most people were illiterate and the average life expectancy was like 35, and not particularly wanting to go back to those days.

People were not illiterate because of free market principles. They were illiterate because they were poor and had to work long hours to provide for their families. School was a luxury than. Due to advances because of free market principles, not government, people have more time for education by having to work less. 

Quote
I realize that when it comes to life expectancy, you could argue that we did not have the medical technology that we have today, but I would argue that medical technology is fairly useless if you can't afford to access it.

Medical care is not a right in my eyes. That is not to say that people would be left to die however. With the amount of capital citizens have today, it is more likely that individuals and companies will set up charitable clinics for the impoverished. We already see increased philanthropy in most developed countries than their was pre-development. I simply don't see why it is believed this charity would not simply redistribute itself to areas the government no longer supported.

Free market principals, private innovation, and capitalism is what allowed us to get to this point however; not government. Government was only able to provide these services because of capitalism. Capitalism is capable of dealing with these issues now, but wasn't pre-industrial revolution.

It would likely have eventually though, once enough capital was accumulated.

Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on March 27, 2012, 01:57:04 AM
No worries.

And the only reason I mention the sources is because you are proposing a position that appears to be a minority view here. People are skeptical, and will probably keep pushing you to defend your points, so a variety of sources from people educated in economics, from more than one institute, will only help, is all.

Good point, I simply figure most people are well versed in the counter-arguments to this. They are always similar to the points you all have been making. That is the reason I don't feel counter-point's are needed.

But I will try and find a video debate between a respected Austrian economist and Kenseian economist, because I realize a lot of people might not see the differences in thinking.

In the mean time here are two music videos created by an Austrian professer and his student, that gives an accurate overview of what the two schools believe, and the difference in perspective from both economic theories. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0nERTFo-Sk&feature=relmfu
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GTQnarzmTOc&feature=relmfu

Quote
It's like when creationists come here, quote things from one source, and then say "oh, look it up" if we take issue with their position. I have an open mind, but that sort of thing doesn't make it seem very credible.

There is a key difference between the two. I am quoting different sources, they are all simply hosted in the same library. But you are correct. I will look for some actual debates between academics so people can get a better perspective. I also don't expect creationists to try and disprove their own theory. When they come here it's our job to provide them with the counter sources if we choose to engage in debate. The burden of proof may fall to them, but that doesn't excuse us from using sources.

Quote
I have another question, though (when you are able to read it tomorrow). Why do you think it's important to have any government at all? Why not total anarchy? The value of capitalism seems sort of assumed in this worldview, why not descontruct everything and then see how society forms? You might value non-aggression, but what's the rationale behind instituting it systematically if you find other systematic obligations so abhorrent?

The difference is anarchy would be a voluntary form of governance. I do not agree with implementing anarcho-capitalism in that way on a large scale. I fail to see why likeminded individuals can not be left alone to develop their society in the way they choose. The importance of private property rights is vital to the society we want to build, and would also facilitate the creation of it. It would not be instituted systematically and would evolve organically, but I can predict how it would develop because the community would be made up of like minded people.

The way things work now is that we are forced to live under government even if we find the idea repellent. I'm not promoting forcing people to live without the order they want. But I also don't appreciate being forced to live under the oder you want. There is no place to really try anarchy because government claims control over every piece of inhabitable land.

I don't call for systematically setting up an anarchist territory, it would occur naturally. In order for it to work we would need individuals who wanted to live in that society, which wouldn't be hard to do. The ideal would be a government allow one of us to purchase land and grant us sovereignty. Those who believed in the principles and wanted to live in our kind of society would move in. The same applies for other forms of anarchy, or any political system an individual think's is ideal.

With private property rights, voluntary governments would form naturally. I disagree with being forced to live under government, just as you would be resentful if you were forced to live under anarchy. You would have plenty of options for government if you chose, I have none for anarchy.

It would form naturally, if a government simply granted sovereignty to it's subjects. Some people would choose to created new governments, others may choose anarchy on their property.


Anarchy does not necessarily mean a complete absence of rules or structure. Certain rules are needed for society, in that certain things can never be viewed as acceptable for a society to function well. In order for anarchy to work, it would have to self-segregate itself from individuals who had different views. Please don't interpret this to mean that people wouldn't, or shouldn't co-exist.

It isn't that I think anarcho-capitalism is the only system that is capable of showing great success. Societies function best when people share similar views of how the society should work. Granted there are tragic examples to that statement when the shared view is hateful, but that is typically led by government.

I only call for us setting up that kind of society in the an-cap way, because that is the one I would want to live in. Others would be free to set up their governance or lack of governance as they see fit. You're government simply shouldn't demand it own's me or my land.

I'm trying to think how best to explain this...

1. I first believe in an over-arching structure of anarchy, which essentially boils down to no over-arching structure.
2. Within that non-existent overarching structure there are no laws, not even those against murder and rape.
3. Most people would not choose to live in this type of system, including me. It would likely be chaotic and dangerous.
4. Therefor there need to be certain rules, but what those rules should be will depend on which individual or group you ask.
5. So, most people within a large anarchist society would want some semblance of government.

Now, in the past, when people banded together for survival and the common good, we lacked the knowledge and technology we currently have. We turned to selected groups to control order. This natural early structuring of society has simply led to perpetual death, destruction, famine, at the hand's of the political ruling class.

I don't think humanity was incorrect in trying to order society, nor do I think a different outcome could of occurred. I think our current path was an inevitable trajectory, just as I think religion was. For the same reason people turned to religion, people turned to government; out of fear and ignorance.

Anarchy could never work if people simply got scared again and turned to a select few to rule.

So let me say again, people wanting structure and order was a good thing, it simply got out of hand very quickly.

The main reason we can't have total anarchy is because most people don't want it. They still retain the idea the state is needed. If more people start turning to this philosophy, or simply accepting parts of it, it would make anarchy on a smaller scale possible. The idea that people want government and structure is not a problem. We will alway have people who completely disagree with our ideals.

As I tried to explain before though, within an overarching system of anarchy, different groups and ideals would be allowed to thrive or fall. It would be a natural way of restructuring society.

I do not propose forcing my ideals upon others, though I would like to change some views of a few. I do not call for the systematic structuring of anarcho-capitalism upon individuals who do not want it. The reason we would structure it that way is because that is the particular view of anarchy we see most logical.

Quote from: Stevil on March 27, 2012, 09:48:16 AM

Quote from: ThinkAnarchy on March 27, 2012, 12:10:47 AM
It would be more difficult for poorer individuals to get an education, but not impossible. Online learning would also be more affordable than brick and mortar school houses as it currently is.

Quote
Top jobs will go to those students whom go to prestigious schools, not those whom educated themselves on the internet.
America and England already have this issue, privatising all schools will make this a much bigger problem.

Many of those prestigious schools, in the U.S. are private, I'm not sure about England. Jobs will go to the most qualified, all schools and forms of education will never be equal.

Quote
Not herding, I obviously don't support some individuals forcing the poor to move into ghetto's. That however, does not mean poor individuals should not be free to try an alternative like communism if they view it as a more effective way to provide for their family.

I'm not a fan of communism, and don't particularly like the philosophy, but that political system, when absent of force, is a valid option for those who would prefer it.

Quote
A user pays system is implemented, so no longer do the wealthy subsidise the poor.
So from the perspective of the poor family:
The poor family can't afford health care, they can't afford fire service, or waste disposal, they are not receiving any financial support, no state housing, they live in a poor area, where no-one can afford these things, they can't afford police services, they can't afford education for their children, there is no government support to help them upskill and get a job, if they do have a job there is no minimum wage so they are working long hours for little pay, there are great pressures for the children to provide income for the family at a young age. Just to survive today the kids need to work rather than go to school.
For this family, how do the children get an education and compete against the wealthy family kids for a decent job? How do the poor kids break this cycle of poverty?

First all we disagree on several things. I don't believe education is a right. The only rights I believe we have is to not have aggression initiated against us. If a child were had to work to eat, it's better than starvation. The current welfare system is not solving the problem of poverty, if anything it's just making the poor more dependent on government and aid.

We are never going to completely solve poverty, even by stealing money from the rich. Those who can't provide for themselves can ask for charity, but not steal from the productive. Or they can work longer hours or develop a skill to bring themselves out of poverty. Many individuals have gone from poor to making a comfortable living because they are willing to work.

They break the cycle of poverty by working and developing good work ethic. You don't need a great education to make decent money, but you do have to be willing to work hard.

Quote from: Too Few Lions on March 27, 2012, 10:52:31 AM
No taxes, no minimum wage, no public services, privatised healthcare, police, judiciary and education, I've gotta confess I'm with everyone else in not liking the idea of this. The system sounds like the only people who will benefit from it would be the rich, and that would only lead to more social division.

And it would if it weren't voluntary. The people who would move to an an-cap society would have similar principles.

Quote
I really don't see how it can be argued that no minimum wage is better for unskilled workers, I think it's only better for rich employers who can employ 10 workers at $1 an hour instead of one worker at $10 an hour. I also disagree with the view that taxation is unjustified and just theft. Personally, I think taxation is justified because the taxes fund the social structure that allows people and corporations to trade and make the money in the first place.

Fewer employer's higher unskilled workers because of the wage they would have to pay them. If you know nothing about the job, why should I pay you $10 so you can learn? Now as an employee, if I want to learn a new skill or change fields, why can't I negotiate my pay with the employer. He not hire me at $10, but perhaps I offer $5 an hour in order to prove myself. Hell I would even do it for free for a week to prove to him why he needs me.

If I steal a $100 from you, but $100 worth of things you don't need and give that back to you, is that justified? Why should my money be stolen and applied to many things I don't want, or would rather pay a private company to do?

Quote
I also worry that there's a slightly naive assumption that wealthy people and big corporations will play by the non-aggression rule if they have their own private police forces or even armies, or can buy the 'justice' they want in a private court. Or that they will be altruistic enough to care about society in general and not just about their profits and making more money. Much as I don't necessarily believe that my government always has the population's best interest at heart, my experience of big corporations is that they really don't give a toss, they're out to make money and little else. I think one of the major problems with the current system is the influence that wealthy people and big corporations are able to exert on governments, in an-cap it sounds like they'll have carte blanche to influence society and government.

You always have the potential for these things in any system. When a corporation used their power or army to prosecute others, the other people would be better able to defend themselves. There would be other military groups, with equal weaponry, for hire by those being attacked. As it stands now, when a government controls "all" the military might in an area, the people are helpless if the government turns their forces against them.

With my system it would be far less likely that one group would be able to oppress another without an equal and leveled retaliation from the oppressed group. 

A lot of the bad corporations are currently being protected by government, many of them are kept alive by government.

Quote
Much as I think our current form of government is far from perfect, I see an-cap as being a far less perfect way of running a country. The current sytem has enabled us to live longer than anyone before, and live freer lives than most people throughout history (in the west at least).

It wouldn't be a system for the entire country. It would be a voluntary system on a relatively small scale, especially right now.

Quote
Having said that, if some wealthy an-cappers want to buy a little island and set up a colony somewhere, good luck to them. But I can see why no country would want an an-cap community within its borders. People within that community would pay no tax and wouldn't contribute to any of the public service. But what if they weren't one of the wealthy and had children but decided they couldn't afford a decent privatised education or fell ill but couldn't afford the privatised healthcare, so decide they want to come back into our society, having not paid any taxes to contribute to those public services throughout their lives?

I see no reason why our not paying taxes should matter? We would not be using their roads anymore than Canada uses America's roads.

They would be free to even limit us from crossing over the border if they choose, I would disagree with it, but couldn't stop it. We would not be using the public services of the neighboring country, so we wouldn't need to pay taxes.

As to the last part, if you're not living in you're home country, not working in you're home country, and not using the services of you're home country, you shouldn't have to pay taxes. The U.S. is the only country that taxes it's citizens when they are residing and paying taxes in another country.

If an individual decided to move back to the U.K. or U.S. they could begin paying taxes when they re-enter the country. This is how most countries deal with world travelling residents already.

Quote from: ThinkAnarchy on March 27, 2012, 10:04:40 PM
Many of those prestigious schools, in the U.S. are private, I'm not sure about England. Jobs will go to the most qualified, all schools and forms of education will never be equal.

In NZ all of our universities are the same. We don't have prestigious ones. A degree is a degree.
Expensive prestigious schools only work towards dividing the wealthy from the poor. Of course the wealthy want to keep an upperhand, they want their offspring to be advantaged. Equal opportunity is a threat to the wealthy.

Quote from: ThinkAnarchy on March 27, 2012, 10:04:40 PM
First all we disagree on several things. I don't believe education is a right. The only rights I believe we have is to not have aggression initiated against us.

I believe if we don't take care of the poor, don't ensure they will survive and don't give them reasonable opportunity to significantly improve their lives then eventually we will find a revolt within our society. May people will die, the tables will be turned. Society will have failed.

Free and decent education is a way to level the playing field, to provide opportunity.
Educated people contribute to society, they are less likely to be a burdon and less likely to have huge amounts of children that they can't support. They are more likely to behave sociably rather than being simply concerned about survival.

A successful society cannot forsake the poor.

Quote from: Stevil on March 27, 2012, 10:00:08 AM

Quote from: ThinkAnarchy on March 27, 2012, 12:51:13 AM
On what what grounds to you base you're concern? The article I linked to makes a good case, from my prospective. I'm simply curious if it's purely a gut reaction or not. I had concerns about monopolies as well until I began digging deeper into them.

Quote
I see in my society today, monopolies and duopolies, ensuring they don't compete on price, they confuse the product, even though they are just selling telecommunication service (voice, sms or data), but they package it in inventive ways so that consumers cannot compare apples with apples and hence cannot demand lowest price.

People are not perfect and neither is business. There will be abuses, but they will be more easily fixed by the free market, instead of government. That is a common practice but not one I view as illegal. Of course the business selling the product want's people to buy the most expensive thing they have, and some do attempt to hide things. However, the government has not successfully rectified this problem either. I do however see way's the free market, if it were actually free, could rectify some of these problems.

Just as we have sites like this now.
http://snapsort.com/compare/Canon-T3-vs-Canon_EOS_Rebel_T2i

The site fills a problem in that it is difficult to accurately compare the features of different camera's. A manufacturer isn't going to compare things that make their product look inferior, so a third part is now profiting to fulfill that need.

Quote
It makes sense for shareholders to own monopolies rather than compete. Corporate takeovers and mergers happen all the time, so do unspoken agreements to not compete on price.
At least the current government does have regulation up its sleeve, as well as anti-competition laws.
Just look at how many times Microsoft has been slapped by anti competitive behaviours.

Those things have happened and have the potential to happen. Mergers and cooperation in keeping prices artificially high does not continue to work however. When a market get's monopolized like that, it allows other businesses not currently in that market an easier way to enter into it and drastically undercut those prices. It also runs the risk of completely destroying that potential market and those businesses. Prices fluctuate depending on supply and demand, and the over-reaction by government to this problem has not fixed it and has made things worse in other areas.

Now, whenever prices go up, people scream foul, despite the prices going up due to limited supply. When the prices rise other sectors of the economy see the increased prices and start producing more of the product, or resources for the product, equalizing the formula. Once inventory is built back up, you can see if to much is being produced by businesses lowering prices to get rid of excess inventory. By meddling with these inherent features, the free market is not allowed to function as it naturally would.

Quote
BTW, thanks again for taking this on. I know it seems that we are all criticising it, but it is such a leap from where we are today. Looking at it superficially leaves me feeling terrified as if I am about to jump off a very tall building. I need to double check my pack to ensure there is a parachute in there and make sure it has been packed properly with all the contingencies that would make me feel safe. I understand that you believe in it, and that you are a smart person so maybe my fear is unfounded, but I need to ask questions.
I think a country would be very scared to leap in and give this a go.

I enjoy the questions, and I enjoy discussing this with people. I understand the initial reaction, especially since I had the same question's and initial issues with it.

I will look for some good and fair debates between academic an-caps, left-anarchists, and different forms of statists. As well as debates between the two schools of economics so people can see both sides of the argument from the academics perspectives.

The only reason I sometimes get angry or annoyed when discussing this, is due to the underlying tone, which I'm may be unjustly interpreting. I like the discussion, and the world would be a boring place if we all agreed on everything. I also understand the serious issues people are having. However, I sometimes feel as if I'm being told, you have to live under my idea of society, because I disagree with you're.

I would have no problem with that if my philosophy was likely to force people to live under it. But it doesn't. If we had one anarchist territory, separate from the other governments, it would not effect anyone but those of us living under it. Those who didn't like it would be free to move to any of the other forms of government currently in existence. Or the new ones that were created with in the larger anarchistic territory. I would have no problem with my neighbors claiming their legal land communist, just don't cross over onto our an-cap land and cause trouble.

There are many alternate philosophies though, and I would want all to have a chance to flourish without intervention by government. I don't agree with government subjugating people who would choose to not live under their laws. Governments don't grant sovereignty though, they simply control.

Quote from: ThinkAnarchy on March 27, 2012, 08:26:05 PM

Quote from: Ali on March 27, 2012, 01:25:55 AM
ThinkAnarchy, am I crazy, or wasn't there a time in the not so distant human history when things like fire departments, medical care, and education were not provided by the government to those who could not afford to purchase them?  I don't recall hearing that most people were better off before these things went public, or that charity was enough to cover the gaps in those days.  

These systems were also not as advanced as they are today. We have the capital, resources, and knowledge to provide these services properly through the free market. People in cities would likely indirectly benefit from many of these things by their neighbors purchasing them. Simply because these services were not accessible in the past does not mean they can not be successfully instituted today.

Schooling could be a very cheap and private to do this technology called the internet. Plus formal education is less important for many today. The information is readily accessible for those of us in the first world. It is no longer a problem of not having enough school houses, etc. and it wouldn't be again. Societies of the past were also not education based to the large amounts of poverty. People don't care to be educated when their starving. They would much prefer to work and survive.

This is why these problems that occurred pre-industrial revolution are not totally valid when discussing an an-cap society from a post-industrial revolution society.

Quote
I'm picturing the days when most people were illiterate and the average life expectancy was like 35, and not particularly wanting to go back to those days.

People were not illiterate because of free market principles. They were illiterate because they were poor and had to work long hours to provide for their families. School was a luxury than. Due to advances because of free market principles, not government, people have more time for education by having to work less.  

Quote
I realize that when it comes to life expectancy, you could argue that we did not have the medical technology that we have today, but I would argue that medical technology is fairly useless if you can't afford to access it.

Medical care is not a right in my eyes. That is not to say that people would be left to die however. With the amount of capital citizens have today, it is more likely that individuals and companies will set up charitable clinics for the impoverished. We already see increased philanthropy in most developed countries than their was pre-development. I simply don't see why it is believed this charity would not simply redistribute itself to areas the government no longer supported.

Free market principals, private innovation, and capitalism is what allowed us to get to this point however; not government. Government was only able to provide these services because of capitalism. Capitalism is capable of dealing with these issues now, but wasn't pre-industrial revolution.

It would likely have eventually though, once enough capital was accumulated.

Especially in regards to education - were you not just arguing that in your society children would be allowed to work if they wanted to or needed to to provide for their families?  I would think that for the poor, at aleast, you would likely see a large rise in illiteracy again.  If you are barely scraping by, and you have the choice to either pay for your child to be educated, or to send your child to work, which are you more likely to feel like you have to do?  

And sorry, but the idea that people "would likely set up charities" to help the poor get medical care just really isn't enough of an inducement for me to believe that the poor wouldn't also see a drop in health care and thus a drop in life expectancy.  Maybe you're just more optimistic than I am when it comes to your view of human nature.  I picture the rich happily buying another jet or whatever and stepping over the poor people dying in the streets.

ETA:  I don't actually have a problem with a bunch of (presumably well off) anrchists going to live off in their own little anarchist haven if that is what they wanted.  I think that the poor would live horrible lives and die early deaths in your system, but as long as you could all voluntarily live there and leave there when you wanted, I don't see a huge problem with you and your like minded frends giving it a try.  I just wouoldn't want to live there myself, or want people to be trapped in that system.

Quote from: ThinkAnarchy on March 27, 2012, 10:48:45 PM
Now, whenever prices go up, people scream foul, despite the prices going up due to limited supply. When the prices rise other sectors of the economy see the increased prices and start producing more of the product, or resources for the product, equalizing the formula.

Some businesses like telecommunication have huge start-up costs. Billing systems, Cell sites spread across a country, network components, etc.

Sometimes when competition comes in, they do it on borrowed money, expecting profits to pay off the debts.
Then the incumbents drop their prices, they sell at a loss for an extended period until the new competition goes bankrupt, then they hike their prices again.

Quote from: Stevil on March 27, 2012, 10:28:47 PM

Quote from: ThinkAnarchy on March 27, 2012, 10:04:40 PM
Many of those prestigious schools, in the U.S. are private, I'm not sure about England. Jobs will go to the most qualified, all schools and forms of education will never be equal.

Quote
In NZ all of our universities are the same. We don't have prestigious ones. A degree is a degree.
Expensive prestigious schools only work towards dividing the wealthy from the poor. Of course the wealthy want to keep an upperhand, they want their offspring to be advantaged. Equal opportunity is a threat to the wealthy.

I would argue that system is not equal opportunity but forced equality. The rich should not be prevented from getting a better education if they can afford it. Lowering the bar so everyone is equal does not seem like a very good solution. I'm not saying NZ has a population of idiots, but it seems you prefer there be a level stagnated medium when it comes to education, instead of allowing it to get great in some areas and poor in others.

Both of our views have problems in them, it just depends how we look at it.

Quote from: ThinkAnarchy on March 27, 2012, 10:04:40 PM
First all we disagree on several things. I don't believe education is a right. The only rights I believe we have is to not have aggression initiated against us.

Quote
I believe if we don't take care of the poor, don't ensure they will survive and don't give them reasonable opportunity to significantly improve their lives then eventually we will find a revolt within our society. May people will die, the tables will be turned. Society will have failed.

My argument is simply that it is better for the poor to not have the safety net. I don't think they should be unfairly prevented from gaining wealth, but I also don't think wealth should simply be given to them. Welfare has not fixed the problem of poverty. Revolts like that do happen, but most have been revolts against the ruiling class who was actively keeping the peasants in poverty.

The poor should have the same freedoms others have, not more, or less. They should be able to work hard and find jobs just like me. I'm not saying poverty occurs because people are lazy, but many of the poor are becoming lazy due to not having to work.

Quote
Free and decent education is a way to level the playing field, to provide opportunity.
Educated people contribute to society, they are less likely to be a burdon and less likely to have huge amounts of children that they can't support. They are more likely to behave sociably rather than being simply concerned about survival.

A successful society cannot forsake the poor.

Uneducated people are also needed for society. Once you receive a good education, you typically don't want to work at a fast food restaurant, or refinery. Uneducated people are a great necessity to society and the economy as a whole. I'm not arguing for actively preventing individuals from choosing education, but I think it would be a detriment if to many people were educated. Our economy is not fit to handle a world of fully educated people. We would have a society over educated people as is currently happening in the U.S. People are graduating from college and not able to find the jobs college was supposed to qualify them for. There aren't any openings. Now we have people in debt, and unable to find work, or only work they are overqualified for.

If technology continues to advance and the labor market get's replaced by robotics, than I could see more educated people not causing problems.

Quote from: Stevil on March 27, 2012, 11:04:20 PM

Some businesses like telecommunication have huge start-up costs. Billing systems, Cell sites spread across a country, network components, etc.

Sometimes when competition comes in, they do it on borrowed money, expecting profits to pay off the debts.
Then the incumbents drop their prices, they sell at a loss for an extended period until the new competition goes bankrupt, then they hike their prices again.

I can't think off the top of my head how telecommunications companies would work exactly in my society. I know I looked into it before, but can't remember what the best ideas were.

I will look into it later or maybe tomorrow and get back to you.

Quote from: Ali on March 27, 2012, 10:59:11 PM

Especially in regards to education - were you not just arguing that in your society children would be allowed to work if they wanted to or needed to to provide for their families?  I would think that for the poor, at aleast, you would likely see a large rise in illiteracy again.  If you are barely scraping by, and you have the choice to either pay for your child to be educated, or to send your child to work, which are you more likely to feel like you have to do?  

I touched on it in an above post how more educated people is not always a good thing. But people are qualified for certain positions and there are only so many positions to go around. To many people without enough jobs means overqualified people doing menial jobs, and more menial laborer's out of work.

Here is a video of John Stossel giving, what I think, is a great example of government harming poor people. It also illustrates why I think the Free Market is the best tool to lift people out of poverty.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y1Ey_g4wOnw

As to illiteracy. I doubt society would ever return to that unless there were a great catastrophe. I imagine there will always be a very small percentage who can't read, but that won't be the fault of schools. There is currently a small percentage who still can't read in the U.S. The point is that illiteracy and other basic knowledge skills would be most likely be passed on naturally during the child's development process.

Many parent's already start the learning process themselves, before the child is even old enough for kindergarden. Important common knowledge, at this point in our history, should easily be able to be taught without ever needing formal school.

Quote
And sorry, but the idea that people "would likely set up charities" to help the poor get medical care just really isn't enough of an inducement for me to believe that the poor wouldn't also see a drop in health care and thus a drop in life expectancy.  Maybe you're just more optimistic than I am when it comes to your view of human nature.  I picture the rich happily buying another jet or whatever and stepping over the poor people dying in the streets.

It isn't just optimism though. Charities already fill in areas where government is failing. It seems illogical that the charitable in my society would not behave similar to the ones I'm currently living in. Granted, in the U.S. there are tax incentives for charitable donations, but I think even without them, charity would continue. Nearly everyone I talk to is altruistic in some way or another.

Quote
ETA:  I don't actually have a problem with a bunch of (presumably well off) anrchists going to live off in their own little anarchist haven if that is what they wanted.  I think that the poor would live horrible lives and die early deaths in your system, but as long as you could all voluntarily live there and leave there when you wanted, I don't see a huge problem with you and your like minded frends giving it a try.  I just wouoldn't want to live there myself, or want people to be trapped in that system.

The only thing that would stop someone from leaving is the territory being conquered by others or not enough money to leave. Chances are it would be best to pay for the family to fly back to their home country, in the form of charity. Unhappy people aren't nice to be around. There would be nothing to make anyone help them get out, but I imagine someone or several would. People already get stuck in places they don't want to live anymore. I'm certain their wouldn't be a great occurrence, and it might happen less frequently.

Also, I would hope the person's home country would help them get out. Preferably by private jet and not military.

I just came across this and thought of this thread.

(https://motherjones.com/files/images/fusewomenhcr.preview.jpg)

How would you figure women having to pay 100% more for health insurance than men being a good thing?

Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on March 28, 2012, 02:11:10 AM


How would you figure women having to pay 100% more for health insurance than men being a good thing?

It depends on the reasons why women pay more for health insurance. It could be due to them costing the insurance company more money than men due to pregnancy. Over half the country is already yellow or orange, and some is blue. I have no clue what the reason's are for the discrepancy though.

Quote from: ThinkAnarchy on March 28, 2012, 02:35:04 AM

Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on March 28, 2012, 02:11:10 AM


How would you figure women having to pay 100% more for health insurance than men being a good thing?

It depends on the reasons why women pay more for health insurance. It could be due to them costing the insurance company more money than men due to pregnancy. Over half the country is already yellow or orange, and some is blue. I have no clue what the reason's are for the discrepancy though.

I'm sure that's the pretense, but my point is that true "market forces" are unlikely the reason for the discrepancy. What seems more likely: a pregnancy actually truly costs 100% more in a red state vs. a blue state, or the people in the red states were taken advantage of because the insurance companies could get away with it? Unless those red states have some kind of magical-super expensive pregnancy technology that's not available in other parts of the country(extremely unlikely), they were simply gouging people.

And why wouldn't they, if they could get away with it? That is their job! To make money! Insurance, and many other, companies really don't give a rat's ass about "fair".

Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on March 28, 2012, 02:43:30 AM

Quote from: ThinkAnarchy on March 28, 2012, 02:35:04 AM

Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on March 28, 2012, 02:11:10 AM


How would you figure women having to pay 100% more for health insurance than men being a good thing?

It depends on the reasons why women pay more for health insurance. It could be due to them costing the insurance company more money than men due to pregnancy. Over half the country is already yellow or orange, and some is blue. I have no clue what the reason's are for the discrepancy though.

I'm sure that's the pretense, but my point is that true "market forces" are unlikely the reason for the discrepancy. What seems more likely: a pregnancy actually truly costs 100% more in a red state vs. a blue state, or the people in the red states were taken advantage of because the insurance companies could get away with it? Unless those red states have some kind of magical-super expensive pregnancy technology that's not available in other parts of the country(extremely unlikely), they were simply gouging people.

And why wouldn't they, if they could get away with it? That is their job! To make money! Insurance, and many other, companies really don't give a rat's ass about "fair".

It is not a result of the Free Market though. The U.S. government has been involved in the medical industry for about a 100 years now. I'm not sure off the top of my head, what all the regulations have been, or even what they currently are. But greed is not the reason for high medical prices. It's regulation that drives up costs, which is then passed on to the consumer.

Here is some information on their profit margins, if it is greed that is keeping prices high, why are insurance companies and medical facilities not at the top of the list? There profit margins do not seem to support the idea prices are high due to greed.

http://larrycheng.com/2010/03/08/just-how-profitable-are-healthcare-insurers/

And yet, in Canada, where there is far more "intervention" by the state, the prices for most medical procedures is much lower (not that we pay for them out of pocket, but if you came here to buy drugs or pay for a procedure, it'd be far less less).

QuoteAverage in-hospital treatment costs are nearly twice as much in the U.S. ($20,673 U.S. vs. $10,373)
In-hospital cost of coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG) in the U.S. is 82.5 % higher in the U.S. than in Canada.

"Medical Tourism" of Americans into Canada happens for just this reason.
http://www.understanding-medicaltourism.com/medical-tourism-canada.php][url]http://www.understanding-medicaltourism.com/medical-tourism-canada.php (http://[url)[/url]

How do you account for that?

Also, comparing health insurance companies to tech companies is apples to oranges in my mind. Tech companies have constant advances which drive investment and profits. Insurance is the same ol' racket that it's ever been. So no, they won't have explosive growth, but that doesn't mean that they aren't profit-driven.

Uh... Why would a regular pregnancy be covered by insurance? Complications due to pregnancy, I get, and it should be separate insurane you should be able to get once pregnant, but as long as there are none..?

Quote from: Asmodean on March 28, 2012, 04:09:03 AM
Uh... Why would a regular pregnancy be covered by insurance? Complications due to pregnancy, I get, and it should be separate insurane you should be able to get once pregnant, but as long as there are none..?

Pregnancy itself wouldn't necessarily cost money, but pre-natal check-ups, the birth, post-natal check-ups would. Anytime you see a doctor, you'd have to pay for that or have insurance cover it. When I was pregnant I had: three ultrasounds, 5 rounds of bloodwork, 2 emergency room visits, 10+ scheduled doctor's appointments, frequent urine testing, gestational diabetes testing, delivery in a private suite, pain medication, two nights stay at the hospital, and a visit from a registered nurse a week after I brought my son home. (the emergency room visits were out of the ordinary, but everything else listed is standard care)

I'm pretty sure an ultrasound alone costs several hundred dollars. Fortunately, the fact that my husband was a graduate student at the time, and we weren't bringing in a ton of money, didn't limit our care options. Thanks to our "interventionist" state. I find it pretty impossible to believe that a hospital or private charity would have "donated" everything that I had done out of some altruistic desire. With so many babies being born every year? And far more serious issues for charities to -rightly- focus on? Forget about it.

ThinkAnarchy, I'm not clear on who or what constitutes the government in the type of society you're describing. What entity is 1) drawing up the rules and laws that the society operates under, 2) enforcing those rules and laws, and 3) interpreting them?

For instance, take the following scenario from early in the thread.

Excerpt from quote from ThinkAnarchy from page 1 of the discussion (bolding is mine):

QuotePrivate courts would be left to determine if the accused is guilty of the initiation of violence and what the judgement and/or punishment should be. However, because they are private, they should also be held liable for mistakes in their rulings, which would help ensure just rulings. If it is discovered they convicted an innocent individual, they should than be found to have violated this basic principle themselves, and pay reparations or some other punishment for their act of unwarranted aggression.

-What entity is holding the private court liable?
-What entity would discover that a convicted individual was innocent?
-What entity would find that the court had violated "this basic principle"? And if it's just a principle and not codified in law, what bases is the private court using to make decisions in the first place?
-What entity would force the court to pay reparations?

And reedited because I'm writing completely ungrammatically b/c of the late hour.

Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on March 28, 2012, 04:27:39 AM
I find it pretty impossible to believe that a hospital or private charity would have "donated" everything that I had done out of some altruistic desire.

No, of course not. But can you really expect the insurance companies to give anything away? I think that if pregnancy is what drives insurance prices for women up in certain states, the women should be able to opt for cheaper insurance and go on the pill, or be prepared to cover the cost of pregnancy-associated health care themselves as long as there are no complications.

Quote from: Asmodean on March 28, 2012, 04:47:11 AM

Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on March 28, 2012, 04:27:39 AM
I find it pretty impossible to believe that a hospital or private charity would have "donated" everything that I had done out of some altruistic desire.

No, of course not. But can you really expect the insurance companies to give anything away? I think that if pregnancy is what drives insurance prices for women up in certain states, the women should be able to opt for cheaper insurance and go on the pill, or be prepared to cover the cost of pregnancy-associated health care themselves as long as there are no complications.

I think that makes sense (in a privatized healthcare system), but my point was: why would it cost twice as much to have a baby in one state vs. another state? It really shouldn't. I don't think the respective insurance rates were reflecting the reality of the medical costs of having a baby so much as other factors behind insurance pricing.

With insurance, it's pretty standard that if one "group" of people disproportionally inflates the likelihood that the insurance company will have to pay out to them, then they get charged a higher rate. I think that's acceptable. If women had to pay %25 more across the board (or something like that). It would make sense. But no higher rates for women at all in some areas vs. rates twice as high as men in others just makes no sense from a market perspective.

If it's pregnancy that's driving up the prices at all. We don't really know that either.

We are in agreement.

Quote from: Asmodean on March 28, 2012, 05:17:00 AM
We are in agreement.

*shakes hand briskly*

P.S. speaking of monopolies, I've been monopolising this conversation, so I'm going to cool it for a little bit. Let some other people add their two cents.  ;D

Quote from: ThinkAnarchy on March 27, 2012, 10:24:27 PM

Quote from: Too Few Lions on March 27, 2012, 10:52:31 AM
No taxes, no minimum wage, no public services, privatised healthcare, police, judiciary and education, I've gotta confess I'm with everyone else in not liking the idea of this. The system sounds like the only people who will benefit from it would be the rich, and that would only lead to more social division.

And it would if it weren't voluntary. The people who would move to an an-cap society would have similar principles.

But i'm suspecting that a lot of wealthy people and corporations would like to move to the sort of society you're suggesting so they can avoid paying taxes and pay their workers as little as possible.

Quote

QuoteI really don't see how it can be argued that no minimum wage is better for unskilled workers, I think it's only better for rich employers who can employ 10 workers at $1 an hour instead of one worker at $10 an hour. I also disagree with the view that taxation is unjustified and just theft. Personally, I think taxation is justified because the taxes fund the social structure that allows people and corporations to trade and make the money in the first place.

Fewer employer's higher unskilled workers because of the wage they would have to pay them. If you know nothing about the job, why should I pay you $10 so you can learn? Now as an employee, if I want to learn a new skill or change fields, why can't I negotiate my pay with the employer. He not hire me at $10, but perhaps I offer $5 an hour in order to prove myself. Hell I would even do it for free for a week to prove to him why he needs me.

My point is more that unscrupulous employers will try to pay staff as little as possible so maximizing their own profit. I live in the UK, and the minimum wage is a fairly recent thing here, and it's been a very good thing, lifting thousands of working people out of poverty. Personally, I think if a chairman or director of a company can take home a six or seven figure salary he should be able to afford to pay his workers a living salary. Otherwise we just have wage-slaves who are just about able to scrape by on a wage but never save anything or have very much disposable income to enjoy themselves. I guess I'm a utilitarian, but I think society should try to benefit as many people as possible, not just the rich. Plus, in a capitalist system, the rich can make more money without actually lifting a finger than the poor can by working 80 hour weeks just by investing their money, or can buy up all the land so poorer people permanently have to rent of them in a semi-feudal society.

QuoteIf I steal a $100 from you, but $100 worth of things you don't need and give that back to you, is that justified? Why should my money be stolen and applied to many things I don't want, or would rather pay a private company to do?

You have a very different view of taxation than me. I view taxation as a way of providing the infrastructure that allows society to function and wealth to be created in the first place. Taxes are laid out in advance and everyone knows roughly what they're going to have to pay, the taxman doesn't rob you at knifepoint and walk you to a cash machine.  You may not agree with what those taxes are spent on (and neither do I in some instances), but that's down to us to change through democracy. I find it funny that you see tax as outright theft but not property or wealth. I think just as strong an argument could be made to see those as theft from society in general. Maybe things are different in the US, but here in the UK I'd argue that you only pay a hefty amount of tax if you can afford it.

Quote

Quote
I also worry that there's a slightly naive assumption that wealthy people and big corporations will play by the non-aggression rule if they have their own private police forces or even armies, or can buy the 'justice' they want in a private court. Or that they will be altruistic enough to care about society in general and not just about their profits and making more money. Much as I don't necessarily believe that my government always has the population's best interest at heart, my experience of big corporations is that they really don't give a toss, they're out to make money and little else. I think one of the major problems with the current system is the influence that wealthy people and big corporations are able to exert on governments, in an-cap it sounds like they'll have carte blanche to influence society and government.

You always have the potential for these things in any system. When a corporation used their power or army to prosecute others, the other people would be better able to defend themselves. There would be other military groups, with equal weaponry, for hire by those being attacked. As it stands now, when a government controls "all" the military might in an area, the people are helpless if the government turns their forces against them.
With my system it would be far less likely that one group would be able to oppress another without an equal and leveled retaliation from the oppressed group.  

This sounds like a recipe for civil war. I don't see how the poor are ever going to be able to defend themselves against the rich or corporations in this system. Money is power in your society. If one large corporation uses its private militia to suppress or coerce parts of a population, why should another corporation's militia get involved? But admittedly bad governments do turn their armies on their own people and rule through fear. Thankfully neither of us live in that kind of society.

QuoteA lot of the bad corporations are currently being protected by government, many of them are kept alive by government.

If they're protected by government, it's because they pay to be protected. Without a government there for them to have to worry about, I hate to think what more unscrupulous corporations would get upto.

I think my main worry would be simply that I don't think anarcho-capitalism promotes social cohesion. I don't think capitalism does at the moment, I'm permanently having to avoid being ripped off by unscrupulous companies and tradesman big and small, and without recourse to an independent government and laws, I would hate to think how bad things would get. I think capitalism does seem to promote greed and selfishness, and it doesn't hurt to have a government that can provide basic services for all on top of that. Companies and corporations are invariably driven by profit, and I would also worry about education, healthcare, arts, and scientific and medical research. If there's no profit to be made in various areas in these fields, why are private companies going to bother? Governments currently fund a lot of scientific and medical research that private companies won't touch because there's no obvious profit to be made out of the research. We also know that evangelical churches will teach creationism, Muslim schools might teach that Jews are related to pigs (as they do in Saudi Arabia), food and tobacco companies will free to alter scientific research to suit their own ends, as they have already tried to do, and culture will tend to become more populist as that's where the money is.

Having said that I'm all up for smaller government, less laws and a smaller public sector, I just wouldn't want to go as far as you. I guess I trust large corporations less than I trust governments. Maybe your an-cap society would turn out to be better than the present one we have, maybe I just don't trust human nature as much as you.

Are your an-cap views based mainly on a utilitarianist/altruistic desire for a better society for all or just for a better society for you?

Quote from: Too Few Lions on March 28, 2012, 04:36:30 PMI guess I trust large corporations less than I trust governments.

Agreed.  At least in theory, the point of the government is to serve the needs of the people.  Corporations don't even have that in theory - the point of corporations is to make money. 

I also have to say that I find the idea of anarcho-capitalism to be very offputting as a principle for creating a cohesive society.  It seems so..."Me, me, me, mine, mine, mine....I don't have to do anything for anybody else if I don't want to...."  I think that a strong sense of interconnectedness is important for building the kind of community that I want to live in.  I don't think of taxes as the government "stealing" my money, even though I am not a huge fan of everything the government uses my money for (like the war.)  I feel like that's just the price of living within a collective community, and furthermore, it is my responsibility to help provide for those in my community that are less able to provide for themselves, just as others will provide for me if I ever need that safety net.  We do give money/food/clothing to charity too (on an almost weekly basis! My son's preschool collects food, money, and clothing every Friday, and I make sure to involve him in selecting the food and clothing that we send and talking to him about why what we are doing is important) but I am deeply grateful that people don't have to rely on charity alone, that my tax money goes to ensure that even when times are lean and people aren't giving as much to charity, those who need it still have food to eat and a roof over their heads and necessary medical care.  I can't imagine living in a society where my neighbors don't care to provide a gauranteed safety net for each other.  I picture us eying each other suspiciously over the hedges.  LOL

great post Ali, that's exactly how I feel

Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on March 28, 2012, 03:18:09 AM
Also, comparing health insurance companies to tech companies is apples to oranges in my mind. Tech companies have constant advances which drive investment and profits. Insurance is the same ol' racket that it's ever been. So no, they won't have explosive growth, but that doesn't mean that they aren't profit-driven.

I'm not saying they aren't profit drive, but that does not naturally equate to greed. Any business, that stay's in business, is profit driven.

The states that are currently blue are due to laws already in place preventing Insurance companies from "gender rating."

According to this article: http://www.ladieswholaunch.com/magazine/women-pay-more-for-health-insurance-than-men/2750#comments

Quote
Women are more likely to visit their doctors for their annual screenings and checkups and when they are feeling ill than men and are more likely to suffer from certain chronic diseases. Some other factors that force health insurance companies to charge women more than men is maternity care and increased incidence of chronic conditions among women. Some women even hold off on having children because their insurance policies do not cover maternity care.

It then goes on to give tips to women on how to get cheaper rates for women by seeing the doctor less, making sure your insured a couple years before a pregnancy, etc.

Seeing this is this is why I assumed the rates were higher for women, I'm inclined to believe the article is mostly accurate.

Quote from: Asmodean on March 28, 2012, 04:09:03 AM
Uh... Why would a regular pregnancy be covered by insurance? Complications due to pregnancy, I get, and it should be separate insurane you should be able to get once pregnant, but as long as there are none..?

If an insurance did accept you once pregnant, you would have to pay more, and justifiably so. Your chance of a complication in pregnancy is now much greater than that of a women who isn't yet pregnant, and may not become pregnant. You are getting onto pre-existing conditions which isn't insurance. You can't and shouldn't be able to insure against something you already have.

Just as you can't get car insurance after an accident and expect the company to pay.

I have work I have to get done today, and going out to the bar for pint night afterwards, so I probably won't get around to responding to anyone else today.

Here is a 10 minute cartoon, explaining why I don't understand the majority idea that government is a good thing. It just doesn't seem logical to me. But I will be back later tonight or tomorrow.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=EUS1m5MSt9k

I must say that this thread is a fine example of a well controlled discussion. On any other forum I have been on this thread would have degenerated into a flame war of the first order.

Thank you all for making moderation here pretty easy.

Quote from: Anne D. on March 28, 2012, 04:28:53 AM
ThinkAnarchy, I'm not clear on who or what constitutes the government in the type of society you're describing. What entity is 1) drawing up the rules and laws that the society operates under, 2) enforcing those rules and laws, and 3) interpreting them?

For instance, take the following scenario from early in the thread.

Excerpt from quote from ThinkAnarchy from page 1 of the discussion (bolding is mine):

QuotePrivate courts would be left to determine if the accused is guilty of the initiation of violence and what the judgement and/or punishment should be. However, because they are private, they should also be held liable for mistakes in their rulings, which would help ensure just rulings. If it is discovered they convicted an innocent individual, they should than be found to have violated this basic principle themselves, and pay reparations or some other punishment for their act of unwarranted aggression.

Quote
-What entity is holding the private court liable?

Competing third party courts would probably hear cases of another courts unfair ruling.

Quote
-What entity would discover that a convicted individual was innocent?

There would be private investigation's, either run thorough an extension of the protection agency, the court, or another entity.

Quote
-What entity would find that the court had violated "this basic principle"? And if it's just a principle and not codified in law, what bases is the private court using to make decisions in the first place?

All the courts would likely be able to do is award monetary gain, possibly to the extent of indentured servitude if the culprit is unable to pay.

There would be no criminal law as it is today. The courts would discover guilt or innocence, but would not be able to sentence individuals to death or incarceration as government courts can today. I wasn't thinking fully when I mentioned jails earlier. They could maybe fit in somehow, but I'm not positive how.

Individuals would likely be represented by one court, another individual by another. In the case of the disputing parties being protected by different courts, the dispute would likely be heard by a 3rd independent court while the other two provide their cases.

If a person continues to aggress upon others, they would likely be dropped from their court group and would no longer have protection. Vigilante justice would also be acceptable, so violent criminals would likely be forcefully exiled or murdered by the population.

Quote
-What entity would force the court to pay reparations?

Another court. Although it is possible some would make it contractually impossible to hold them liable. I'm confident the market and people would dislike that, and courts that could be held liable would take their place.

Quote from: Too Few Lions on March 28, 2012, 04:36:30 PM
But i'm suspecting that a lot of wealthy people and corporations would like to move to the sort of society you're suggesting so they can avoid paying taxes and pay their workers as little as possible.

I'm not wealthy and a lot of an-caps are poor to middle class. It isn't only the rich who agree with this line of thinking. Businesses would move to this society to avoid paying taxes, but paying their workers as little as possible is not a risk. Even in the 3rd world, companies pay those employee's more than the average worker in those areas. Many corporations would not choose to move to our society because they wouldn't have the protection they currently have. They would be able to keep 100% of their profits, but they would also be held liable for damages done, which they currently aren't. Corporations and L.L.C's would not exist.

QuoteI really don't see how it can be argued that no minimum wage is better for unskilled workers, I think it's only better for rich employers who can employ 10 workers at $1 an hour instead of one worker at $10 an hour. I also disagree with the view that taxation is unjustified and just theft. Personally, I think taxation is justified because the taxes fund the social structure that allows people and corporations to trade and make the money in the first place.

Quote
Fewer employer's higher unskilled workers because of the wage they would have to pay them. If you know nothing about the job, why should I pay you $10 so you can learn? Now as an employee, if I want to learn a new skill or change fields, why can't I negotiate my pay with the employer. He not hire me at $10, but perhaps I offer $5 an hour in order to prove myself. Hell I would even do it for free for a week to prove to him why he needs me.

Quote
My point is more that unscrupulous employers will try to pay staff as little as possible so maximizing their own profit.

They may try, but the workers don't have to accept it.

QuoteI live in the UK, and the minimum wage is a fairly recent thing here, and it's been a very good thing, lifting thousands of working people out of poverty. Personally, I think if a chairman or director of a company can take home a six or seven figure salary he should be able to afford to pay his workers a living salary.

What about the small mom & pop stores that don't have the income to hire as many employee's now due to a required minimum wage. What about the poor people who still can't find a job and would be willing to work for less than minimum wage just to by food for their family? Why should these people be hurt because big business is finding people to work for less?

Quote
Otherwise we just have wage-slaves who are just about able to scrape by on a wage but never save anything or have very much disposable income to enjoy themselves.

I really hate that term, "wage-slave." Slave are required to work with the threat of force and receive no compensation and have no freedom. Employee's are not forced to work for a particular place over another, and they are free to negotiate their costs.

Quote
I guess I'm a utilitarian, but I think society should try to benefit as many people as possible, not just the rich. Plus, in a capitalist system, the rich can make more money without actually lifting a finger than the poor can by working 80 hour weeks just by investing their money, or can buy up all the land so poorer people permanently have to rent of them in a semi-feudal society.

The capitalist system does more to benefit the poor than government could ever hope to do. Capitalism provides the jobs to allow them to bring themselves out of poverty. Hell, Apple releasing an Ipad every six months is indirectly helping the poor. I could not afford to buy an ipad when they first came out, but can now get an older generation, that is still fantastic, at a much more affordable used price. None of us are living under a Capitalist system though.

As for the rental thing, it would be no more a risk than it currently is. Rentals are great for people who can't afford to purchase property. Those who can afford to purchase property typically are unhappy living in a rental.

QuoteIf I steal a $100 from you, but $100 worth of things you don't need and give that back to you, is that justified? Why should my money be stolen and applied to many things I don't want, or would rather pay a private company to do?

Quote
You have a very different view of taxation than me. I view taxation as a way of providing the infrastructure that allows society to function and wealth to be created in the first place. Taxes are laid out in advance and everyone knows roughly what they're going to have to pay, the taxman doesn't rob you at knifepoint and walk you to a cash machine.

They use force in order to collect taxes. I see no difference between threatening violence of imprisonment by armed thugs as  any different than being robbed at the threat of being stabbed. The only difference is the level of violence being threatened to make me comply.

Taxes are the current way of providing infrastructure, but that does not mean it is the only way, or the best way. It has proven a very ineffective way, given the poor condition of some of America's infrastructure. Taxes also do not create wealth, it simply redistributes it around. Capitalism does create wealth on the other hand and redistributes it in a voluntary way.

Quote
You may not agree with what those taxes are spent on (and neither do I in some instances), but that's down to us to change through democracy. I find it funny that you see tax as outright theft but not property or wealth. I think just as strong an argument could be made to see those as theft from society in general. Maybe things are different in the US, but here in the UK I'd argue that you only pay a hefty amount of tax if you can afford it.

In our current system wealth is being stolen, but it wouldn't be in a truly free market. Property is protected by contract, but homesteading would likely be an acceptable means of gaining property as well.

Quote
I also worry that there's a slightly naive assumption that wealthy people and big corporations will play by the non-aggression rule if they have their own private police forces or even armies, or can buy the 'justice' they want in a private court. Or that they will be altruistic enough to care about society in general and not just about their profits and making more money. Much as I don't necessarily believe that my government always has the population's best interest at heart, my experience of big corporations is that they really don't give a toss, they're out to make money and little else. I think one of the major problems with the current system is the influence that wealthy people and big corporations are able to exert on governments, in an-cap it sounds like they'll have carte blanche to influence society and government.

Quote
You always have the potential for these things in any system. When a corporation used their power or army to prosecute others, the other people would be better able to defend themselves. There would be other military groups, with equal weaponry, for hire by those being attacked. As it stands now, when a government controls "all" the military might in an area, the people are helpless if the government turns their forces against them.
With my system it would be far less likely that one group would be able to oppress another without an equal and leveled retaliation from the oppressed group.  

I was using the term corporation like an idiot before. There would be no corporations seeing as those only exist due to the laws of the state. They would simply be businesses run by an individual or group of individuals. The need for force would only be greatly needed in the event of foreign invasion though.

Quote
This sounds like a recipe for civil war. I don't see how the poor are ever going to be able to defend themselves against the rich or corporations in this system. Money is power in your society. If one large corporation uses its private militia to suppress or coerce parts of a population, why should another corporation's militia get involved? But admittedly bad governments do turn their armies on their own people and rule through fear. Thankfully neither of us live in that kind of society.

Yes governments do turn their forces against the population sometimes, and the population is completely defenseless. You wouldn't have the problem of corporations gathering large sums of money though. We only have the 1% in the U.S. because of government. Owners of Corporations and L.L.C's are allowed to make their riches because of governmental laws that insure them against liability. The force in my society would not be owned

QuoteA lot of the bad corporations are currently being protected by government, many of them are kept alive by government.

QuoteIf they're protected by government, it's because they pay to be protected. Without a government there for them to have to worry about, I hate to think what more unscrupulous corporations would get upto.

Yes, I have been dealing with this issue poorly, but there would be no corporations. I don't see how they could do worse, government has facilitated their rise to riches at the expense of everyone else.

Quote
I think my main worry would be simply that I don't think anarcho-capitalism promotes social cohesion. I don't think capitalism does at the moment, I'm permanently having to avoid being ripped off by unscrupulous companies and tradesman big and small, and without recourse to an independent government and laws, I would hate to think how bad things would get.

We don't have capitalism. Due to government, they have propped up and helped their friends instead of allowing the free market to do it's job.

Quote
To promote greed and selfishness, and it doesn't hurt to have a government that can provide basic services for all on top of that. Companies and corporations are invariably driven by profit, and I would also worry about education, healthcare, arts, and scientific and medical research. If there's no profit to be made in various areas in these fields, why are private companies going to bother? Governments currently fund a lot of scientific and medical research that private companies won't touch because there's no obvious profit to be made out of the research. We also know that evangelical churches will teach creationism, Muslim schools might teach that Jews are related to pigs (as they do in Saudi Arabia), food and tobacco companies will free to alter scientific research to suit their own ends, as they have already tried to do, and culture will tend to become more populist as that's where the money is.

Of course business men are motivated by profit, that is not a bad thing though. Without profit there would be no motivation to innovate and create. Governments create nothing.

Do you really believe most governments are doing a good job with education and healthcare? We don't need the government to provide these functions. Investors can fund expensive research, many of which could ask for funding from the population. If there is something the people want researched or developed, they can fund the project voluntarily if they see a need. I would likely donate money to scientific institutions for space exploration and medical research as others would.

Quote
Having said that I'm all up for smaller government, less laws and a smaller public sector, I just wouldn't want to go as far as you. I guess I trust large corporations less than I trust governments. Maybe your an-cap society would turn out to be better than the present one we have, maybe I just don't trust human nature as much as you.

How many of these problems that you think an an-cap society might suffer from has the government fixed? Does everyone get a good education? Have they prevented violent crime? Have they prevented a small portion of people from accumulating a large portion of wealth? Have they always kept their people safe from foreign invasion? Do they have a perfect or even just legal system? Have they not not killed other's in you're name and with you're money?

Quote
Are your an-cap views based mainly on a utilitarianist/altruistic desire for a better society for all or just for a better society for you?

They are based on how the society would function as a whole. There would likely be less poverty, more opportunity, more freedom, and greater wealth. Obviously a society that functions better for everyone benefits me, I don't support this philosophy because I think I would benefit at the expense of others though.

I don't know if you've seen this ThinkAnarchy, but this is an interesting "Tedtalks" segment on some of our assumptions about motivations and money as a reward.

http://youtu.be/u6XAPnuFjJc (http://youtu.be/u6XAPnuFjJc)

If you're not interested in watching it, it pretty much argues that social science has shown that: when it comes to complex cognitive tasks, money isn't the most important motivating factor to people - and, actually, it can have an opposite effect. What would you make of that?

Quote from: Tank on March 28, 2012, 08:26:42 PM
I must say that this thread is a fine example of a well controlled discussion. On any other forum I have been on this thread would have degenerated into a flame war of the first order.

Thank you all for making moderation here pretty easy.

We usually try to behave  ;D
And kudos to ThinkAnarchy for presenting a minority opinion without resorting to calling us "sheeple". Instant bonus points for that.

Quote from: Ali on March 28, 2012, 05:03:10 PM
Agreed.  At least in theory, the point of the government is to serve the needs of the people.  Corporations don't even have that in theory - the point of corporations is to make money.  

What good is it in theory? Governments have been tested and proven that theory false. Mine has neither been proven or disproven, on the other hand.

Quote
I also have to say that I find the idea of anarcho-capitalism to be very offputting as a principle for creating a cohesive society.  It seems so..."Me, me, me, mine, mine, mine....I don't have to do anything for anybody else if I don't want to...."  

No people wouldn't be required to help anybody else. People don't need to be forced to help others though... I'm just not sure why that is so difficult to see.

Quote
I think that a strong sense of interconnectedness is important for building the kind of community that I want to live in.

Do you really believe government's are better able to develop that sense over individuals freely working together? That sense would not be missing from my society, it would probably be stronger. People would rely on help from their neighbors instead of government. It would seem to promote peaceful co-existence and interconnectedness amongst you're neighbors.

QuoteI don't think of taxes as the government "stealing" my money, even though I am not a huge fan of everything the government uses my money for (like the war.)  I feel like that's just the price of living within a collective community, and furthermore, it is my responsibility to help provide for those in my community that are less able to provide for themselves, just as others will provide for me if I ever need that safety net.

That is a fundamental difference and a fair reason for never choosing to move to my type of community. I don't see how forcefully taking money from others is not considered theft when the government does it.

Quote
 We do give money/food/clothing to charity too (on an almost weekly basis! My son's preschool collects food, money, and clothing every Friday, and I make sure to involve him in selecting the food and clothing that we send and talking to him about why what we are doing is important) but I am deeply grateful that people don't have to rely on charity alone, that my tax money goes to ensure that even when times are lean and people aren't giving as much to charity, those who need it still have food to eat and a roof over their heads and necessary medical care.  I can't imagine living in a society where my neighbors don't care to provide a gauranteed safety net for each other.  I picture us eying each other suspiciously over the hedges.  LOL

There may still be safety nets, but they would develop naturally, and be voluntary. I could see a market for unemployment insurance for instance. It's up to individuals to determine if they believe the premiums justify the potential benefits.

Honestly though, how many of the problems do you have with my philosophy that governments have effectively fixed or prevented?

I also wonder why you think the government has failed so spectacularly.

Are you able to go about your business on a day-to-day basis without harassment? Do you legitimately live in fear? Besides taxes, have you had your things stolen by them? Have you been wrongly imprisoned? censored? persecuted? Besides "in theory", what are they actually doing to do you that bothers you so much?

I genuinely wonder, because you seem pretty committed to the idea that government is horrible. Maybe you have had horrible experience, I dunno.

On a related note, I recently worked on a project in which we conducted opinion surveys on the "satisfaction" the public has with their provincial police department. 90-95% of respondents (randomly selected) said they were "satisfied" or "very satisfied" with their local detachment. The majority had, also, not had any contact with their provincial police in the past year.  If government policing is so inherently bad and abusive, why don't most of us feel like it is?

I have watched the video you posted, but do you happen to know where I could find more information on the experiment. I simply want to get a better understanding of how it was conducted before forumlating a full opinion. The fact the Federal Reserve funded it, makes me skeptical. With that said, the information revealed does make sense.

Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on March 29, 2012, 07:10:54 PM
I also wonder why you think the government has failed so spectacularly.

Are you able to go about your business on a day-to-day basis without harassment? Do you legitimately live in fear? Besides taxes, have you had your things stolen by them? Have you been wrongly imprisoned? censored? persecuted? Besides "in theory", what are they actually doing to do you that bothers you so much?

Aside from the theft called taxation, and keep in mind I'm relatively poor, so I'm not taxed much yet.:

I have been fined by the government for doing things I don't view as illegal.
-For example. I received a ticket for stopping past the white line the state indicates is the stopping point at stop signs. Despite explaining to the ignorant pig that the line is to far back to see on-coming traffic due to the parking lot next to the sign.

-People are wrongly convicted due to our legal system and their is no recourse. You can maybe get the conviction overturned, but you aren't going to be fully compensated for your unjustified capture and lose of work and friends.

-People are abused or murdered by our police forces, with little to no punishment for the offending cops.

-Millions of people... most likely billions, have died directly due to government through out history. We have a historical record full of examples of governments slaughtering people in droves.

-I have been fined for going three mph over the posted speed limit in a school zone, despite posing no risk of injury to the students of the school.

-I run the risk of being arrested for choosing to ingest a natural plant and have been robbed because I have had to go through some very shady people to purchase it. I would not have to deal with these douches if it were legal for me to put what I wanted in my body.

-I read stories everyday of innocent people being persecuted by unjust laws or mistakes. False information is a big problem with the police force, resulting in innocent peoples doors being busted down, their dogs shot, and their children traumatized because I drug dealer lived in the house a year earlier. Typically these families have to fight to get compensated for their busted door, much less their dead dog and terrified children.

-The government allows businesses to exist, whose owners are not liable for the actions of their business. This result's in many abuses.

-I am not allowed to consume raw milk, because the government thinks I'm not intelligent enough to determine if a risk outweighs a reward.

-I am having to pay more for gas because the government owns the reserves in Alaska, refuses to allow many American companies to drill in the Gulf Coast, despite Chinese companies already drilling oil off U.S. shores. They also choose war and sanctions with oil rich nations instead of diplomacy.

-The government creates laws that are 3,000 pages long, for the sole purpose of sneaking things through without anyone noticing and/or being able to raise to much of a fuss.
       -Thankfully the Supreme Court looks like it is about to rule Obama's law unconstitutional, at least Single Payer, but they may throw the whole law out, which I hope they do.

-They have bailed businesses out that should have failed, because, what would we stupid peasants do without Ford.

-They require children to attend school for a certain amount of years and receive a well rounded education. It is good in theory, but many individuals have no need and receive no benefit from the information they are taught. Children should be allowed to focus their education to things that interest them, even if that means some will make mistakes and decide to learn about Islam. I'm all for exposing children to different ideas and fields of education, but why should a child be forced to continue in math if they are terrible at it like me. I can add, subtract, multiply, divide, read graphs, calculate percentages, and a few other basic things. The basics are all I ever need in life. The kids who like and easily understand mathematical concepts are those who eventually become doctors, scientists, accountants, etc. I never thought I would be that as a kid, nor did I have any desire to be any of those. Why should I have been required to learn more in math when my time could have been better spent learning HTML. Yes, HTML requires some math, but if my interest were HTML coding, I would than have motivation to better my math skills to be better at coding.

-Government has failed to eliminate crime.

-Not only has government failed to eliminate it, they are responsible for it. They are responsible for murder in wars, theft in taxation, and that isn't even mentioning how their actions have simply made things worse. The drug laws have not eliminated drugs, the evidence suggest the laws actually encourage drug use. By criminalizing drugs, they make drug users go underground in order to acquire them and refuse to protect a victim if they became a victim during illegal activity. The drug laws have done nothing more than increase violence due to drugs.

-Government, at least in the U.S., has crippled the aviation industry and placed unneeded burden and harassment of the population due to an unreasonable fear of terrorism. We have the least educated entering into government jobs with the TSA, some of which who have criminal histories. They are not only allowed, but encouraged to molest children and the infirmed, because someone may plant a bomb on them. We are subjected to invasive inspections all because the government say's it's for our protection.

-Many areas are now trying to criminalize the recording of police interactions with the public. What does that say? They are worried because their abuses are being recorded more and more as cell phone cameras become more readily available. They don't want evidence proving they mistreated a citizen, or broke the law themselves. Honestly, what danger do camera's pose to police other than a means of exposing what is actually happening?

-Government has never ended poverty.

This list could go on for much longer, and if you would like links to the abuses I mention, I will be happy to find some.

Quote
I genuinely wonder, because you seem pretty committed to the idea that government is horrible. Maybe you have had horrible experience, I dunno.

I have had limited run-ins with government, but have been harassed several times in the past. Seeing government inflict things on my fellow human beings is enough to make me resent it though. Seeing the death it has caused and the violence it itself initiates is enough for me. I know I'm in the minority, but I can't understand why I am. I can't understand why others don't see the government is evil. All individuals who make up a government are not evil, but the institution as a whole is. It is also detrimental to humanities ability to live mostly in peace.

There will always be individuals who want control and power, but I fail to see how putting a group of individuals in control of that power is a good solution to preventing other's from seizing power. The justification seems to be, we need this government, because a new one would simply kill more people.

Quote
On a related note, I recently worked on a project in which we conducted opinion surveys on the "satisfaction" the public has with their provincial police department. 90-95% of respondents (randomly selected) said they were "satisfied" or "very satisfied" with their local detachment. The majority had, also, not had any contact with their provincial police in the past year.  If government policing is so inherently bad and abusive, why don't most of us feel like it is?

Because most people only see what happens to them directly. I wasn't beaten by a cop, so that black guy must have done something wrong. Most people also accept the cop was simply doing his job, when they get pulled over for doing five over the speed limit, without ever questioning the validity of that speed limit. Or those who get caught running a stoplight when there is clearly not traffic, accepting it because, "Well I broke the law." Most people think we aren't capable of deciding for ourselves if it is safe to run that stop light at 3AM, they simply accept we can't.

Not to mention, they will pull you over and fine you for going through a red, even if you are running that light because you don't want to be alone and at a dead stop in a high crime area.

Interesting points, but I still don't see the context in a lot of the things you describe. No one argues that the government hasn't been responsible for some bad things. It's the "they do MORE bad things than good". That I'm getting stuck on. I just don't see it. I could list a dozen really amazing, awesome things that police have done. A cop once gave me a lift home when I was a kid because I blew out one of my bike tires. He didn't have to. He just did, because he's nice.

But it's anecdotal. It doesn't mean that all police officers stop and help little girls, just as one video of a doche-bag cop beating someone up doesn't mean that all cops are power-hungry assholes (or do you call everyone who works for the government a "pig"?)

But thanks for elaborating.

Quote from: ThinkAnarchy on March 29, 2012, 05:30:49 PM

Quote from: Anne D. on March 28, 2012, 04:28:53 AM
ThinkAnarchy, I'm not clear on who or what constitutes the government in the type of society you're describing. What entity is 1) drawing up the rules and laws that the society operates under, 2) enforcing those rules and laws, and 3) interpreting them?

For instance, take the following scenario from early in the thread.

Excerpt from quote from ThinkAnarchy from page 1 of the discussion (bolding is mine):

QuotePrivate courts would be left to determine if the accused is guilty of the initiation of violence and what the judgement and/or punishment should be. However, because they are private, they should also be held liable for mistakes in their rulings, which would help ensure just rulings. If it is discovered they convicted an innocent individual, they should than be found to have violated this basic principle themselves, and pay reparations or some other punishment for their act of unwarranted aggression.

Quote
-What entity is holding the private court liable?

Competing third party courts would probably hear cases of another courts unfair ruling.

Quote
-What entity would discover that a convicted individual was innocent?

There would be private investigation's, either run thorough an extension of the protection agency, the court, or another entity.

Quote
-What entity would find that the court had violated "this basic principle"? And if it's just a principle and not codified in law, what bases is the private court using to make decisions in the first place?

All the courts would likely be able to do is award monetary gain, possibly to the extent of indentured servitude if the culprit is unable to pay.

There would be no criminal law as it is today. The courts would discover guilt or innocence, but would not be able to sentence individuals to death or incarceration as government courts can today. I wasn't thinking fully when I mentioned jails earlier. They could maybe fit in somehow, but I'm not positive how.

Individuals would likely be represented by one court, another individual by another. In the case of the disputing parties being protected by different courts, the dispute would likely be heard by a 3rd independent court while the other two provide their cases.

If a person continues to aggress upon others, they would likely be dropped from their court group and would no longer have protection. Vigilante justice would also be acceptable, so violent criminals would likely be forcefully exiled or murdered by the population.

Quote
-What entity would force the court to pay reparations?

Another court. Although it is possible some would make it contractually impossible to hold them liable. I'm confident the market and people would dislike that, and courts that could be held liable would take their place.

This does not sound at all workable.

The only scenarios a private court would work in would be in very basic civil matters where both parties agreed to submit to the judgment of a particular court and agreed that that court's judgment would be final.

In the society you describe, if someone, say, murders your relative, you would seem to have the recourse of a) killing them (since you stated vigilantism would be legal) or b) paying a private court to hear your civil suit against the person.
-What would compel the person you were suing to appear before this private court? In other words, would anyone you chose to sue (even on faked or trumped up grounds) be required to appear before the private court you were paying to hear the case just because you'd sued them?
Say that a person would be compelled to appear before any private court in which he'd had been sued.
-What if the person chose not to appear? Would a private police force be authorized to use force to take that person into custody and hold him until the trial? On what legal basis would the police force be allowed to do that?
-If you chose to go the vigilante route and killed the person, could that person's family then sue you?
-What if you, oops, killed the wrong person and the person you killed didn't have family to sue you for it? No harm, no foul?
-What if you didn't have the money to sue the person and weren't strong enough to exact vigilante justice? Too bad, so sad?

Re the following:

QuoteCompeting third party courts would probably hear cases of another courts unfair ruling.

What you are describing is the equivalent of an appeals court. In the society you describe, for the decision of the first court to be appealable, the two parties would have to agree going in to the first trial that the decision of that first court would not necessarily be final and could be appealed. What if the two parties didn't agree? (If I'm being sued for wrongful death, there's no way I'd agree to the judgment's being final, and if I'm suing someone for wrongful death in a court I pay dues to, I have great incentive to want the judgment to be final.) Or what if they do agree? Can the two parties just take turns appealing forever and ever?

It sounds like this society would need a mammoth body of civil law, especially contract law. Otherwise, the private courts would have nothing to base their decisions on. You'd also have to have some body of law setting out what constituted a private police force, what constituted a private court, and what powers they would have.

-What entity would be responsible for drawing up that law in the first place, making changes to it, and maintaining it?

Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on March 29, 2012, 08:52:02 PM
Interesting points, but I still don't see the context in a lot of the things you describe. No one argues that the government hasn't been responsible for some bad things. It's the "they do MORE bad things than good". That I'm getting stuck on. I just don't see it.  

It's, "they do MORE good things than bad" that I'm getting stuck on.  :)

The purpose of the government is supposed to be to keep us from harming each other, and has not only failed to prevent that, but actually hurts others on our behalf.

There is now a facebook group called Israel-Loves-Iran, because the people don't feel the hatred for the Iranians their government does.
http://www.facebook.com/israellovesiran

You than have this video that supposedly comes from an Iranian.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=sCdHlGaALc0

Even if these are faked, it still illustrates how many of the average citizens don't hate each other. Just as I have no grudge against Israeli or Iranian citizens. I hate their governments, but don't want to see any of the citizens slaughtered in another useless fucking war.

Quote
I could list a dozen really amazing, awesome things that police have done. A cop once gave me a lift home when I was a kid because I blew out one of my bike tires. He didn't have to. He just did, because he's nice.

The Catholic church can list a lot of good deeds as well... Does that make up for the evil it's responsible for? I have had some decent run-ins with police as well, but that doesn't make up for the abundance of stories about police misconduct.

Quote
But it's anecdotal. It doesn't mean that all police officers stop and help little girls, just as one video of a doche-bag cop beating someone up doesn't mean that all cops are power-hungry assholes (or do you call everyone who works for the government a "pig"?)

When their purpose is to protect and serve, they should pick up girls who don't have rides. There was a story in my town of two girls who were raped outside a club. They tried getting into a cop car, extremely drugged up saying "he's going to rape us" and the cop told the guy to drive them home. They were raped and left for dead in the parking lot. Thankfully the cops who found them after the rape occurred decided to lend some fucking assistance. I know one of the girls, so I won't be posting that story.

How is this shit tolerated because they do some good? And we as citizens are than forbidden to seek justice ourselves, when the protectors fail to protect us.

They're horrible stories, but I think it's part of the human experience, sadly. If there is power, SOME people will abuse it. Even with no real centralized government a power structure will emerge and there will be people within that power structure who abuse it.

Capitalism was shut-down in the USSR and Communism became the power-hierarchy that everyone subscribed to; high ranking communists got the perks that wealthy businessmen used to get. If you leave mainstream society and join a cult, the cult-leader has the power. If you're die-hard roman catholic, the pope has the power. If you're a hunter-gatherer in the amazon, your tribe leader has the power. If you join HAF, Whitney and Tank have the power. If it's a Zombie-apocalypse, whoever has the most guns and the best fortified fort has the power. I really think power hierarchies are inevitable, so people have to decide what they want to base that power structure upon.

Personally, I'd rather take my chances in a zombie-apocalypse world than a world where we willingly give all of our power to corporations.

Quote from: ThinkAnarchy on March 29, 2012, 06:38:59 PM

QuoteI live in the UK, and the minimum wage is a fairly recent thing here, and it's been a very good thing, lifting thousands of working people out of poverty. Personally, I think if a chairman or director of a company can take home a six or seven figure salary he should be able to afford to pay his workers a living salary.

What about the small mom & pop stores that don't have the income to hire as many employee's now due to a required minimum wage. What about the poor people who still can't find a job and would be willing to work for less than minimum wage just to by food for their family? Why should these people be hurt because big business is finding people to work for less?

Over here, you don't ever hear of any small shops over here complaining that the minimum wage is putting them out of business. I don't think the minimum wage is that crippling to anyone, and I also don't think people can live particularly well on it. If someone's got to spend their whole week working I think they at least deserve a wage that allows them to have a bit of a life outside of work and be able to pay their rent and bills. If your business is that unprofitable that you can't afford to pay your staff £200 a week I think your business clearly isn't going to work long term.

Quote

Quote
Otherwise we just have wage-slaves who are just about able to scrape by on a wage but never save anything or have very much disposable income to enjoy themselves.

I really hate that term, "wage-slave." Slave are required to work with the threat of force and receive no compensation and have no freedom. Employee's are not forced to work for a particular place over another, and they are free to negotiate their costs.

You want to live in a society without a welfare system, therefore everyone other than the well-off will have to work, and if they're on a ridiculously low income they're never going to be able to save up any money to take time off or afford to pay for studying, learning or training. You might hate the word wage-slave, but that doesn't mean it's not an apt description. If someone is having to spend their lives doing a job they don't like or want to do and are getting paid a tiny amount of money that they can barely live off, never mind save anything, I'm happy to call that kind of life wage-slavery. It sounds awful, and there might be a lot of people in that situation.

Quote
I guess I'm a utilitarian, but I think society should try to benefit as many people as possible, not just the rich. Plus, in a capitalist system, the rich can make more money without actually lifting a finger than the poor can by working 80 hour weeks just by investing their money, or can buy up all the land so poorer people permanently have to rent of them in a semi-feudal society.

QuoteThe capitalist system does more to benefit the poor than government could ever hope to do. Capitalism provides the jobs to allow them to bring themselves out of poverty. Hell, Apple releasing an Ipad every six months is indirectly helping the poor. I could not afford to buy an ipad when they first came out, but can now get an older generation, that is still fantastic, at a much more affordable used price. None of us are living under a Capitalist system though.

As for the rental thing, it would be no more a risk than it currently is. Rentals are great for people who can't afford to purchase property. Those who can afford to purchase property typically are unhappy living in a rental.

Seriously, an iPad? If I was properly poor and struggling to get by, I wouldn't give a toss about an overpriced laptop. I'd be more worried about food, accommodation, heating  etc. Personally, I think maybe we should be trying to build a society where everyone can own a home if they want to, rather than tell people, 'Sorry you're too poor, home ownership's only for rich folk...but you can pay them rent to temporarily live in one of their homes.'

Quote

Quote
You have a very different view of taxation than me. I view taxation as a way of providing the infrastructure that allows society to function and wealth to be created in the first place. Taxes are laid out in advance and everyone knows roughly what they're going to have to pay, the taxman doesn't rob you at knifepoint and walk you to a cash machine.

They use force in order to collect taxes. I see no difference between threatening violence of imprisonment by armed thugs as any different than being robbed at the threat of being stabbed. The only difference is the level of violence being threatened to make me comply.

You live in a society where that's the rules / laws, if you don't pay your taxes you're the one acting like a criminal, not the state. Maybe you should look to move to a country with zero / very low taxes, there are plenty of tax havens around the world.

QuoteTaxes are the current way of providing infrastructure, but that does not mean it is the only way, or the best way. It has proven a very ineffective way, given the poor condition of some of America's infrastructure. Taxes also do not create wealth, it simply redistributes it around. Capitalism does create wealth on the other hand and redistributes it in a voluntary way.

Or it doesn't redistribute wealth at all. It's funny that you think that the US has poor infrastructure given that I imagine that it's a lot closer to your capitalist utopia than most if not all countries in Europe. Germany and France have great infrastructure, but they also have high taxes to pay for that infrastructure

Quote
In our current system wealth is being stolen, but it wouldn't be in a truly free market. Property is protected by contract, but homesteading would likely be an acceptable means of gaining property as well.

We live in a society, we're all part of that society and we all contribute to that society. If some people benefit more from that society I don't think it's unreasonable for them to also contribute more. You think government steals from the wealthy, I think the wealthy steal from society if they don't contribute. I guess it's just a different way of looking at things.

Quote
Of course business men are motivated by profit, that is not a bad thing though. Without profit there would be no motivation to innovate and create. Governments create nothing.
Do you really believe most governments are doing a good job with education and healthcare? We don't need the government to provide these functions. Investors can fund expensive research, many of which could ask for funding from the population. If there is something the people want researched or developed, they can fund the project voluntarily if they see a need. I would likely donate money to scientific institutions for space exploration and medical research as others would.

We live longer than anyone else before in human history, we're generally freer than the majority of other people ever to have lived, we're better educated and we can say and do pretty much as we please (within reason), and we don't normally have to worry about being robbed, murdered, raped etc etc, I don't think western governments are doing everything wrong. It's not their job to 'innovate and create', it's their job to create a stable society that allows people to innovate and create, and trade and manufacture, and live hopefully happy lives. And I think they're clearly doing that to some degree, personally there's nowhere else in the world I'd rather live. I'd rank univeral healthcare, education or literacy to be far greater creations and achievements than the i-pad. Plus government funding has done some amazing stuff, the world wide web is largely a result of government funded research. Plus look at all the amazing things they're currently doing at CERN, and probably lots of other places too.
I wouldn't argue with you that governments waste a lot of money, or that things couldn't be done better, but I'm not convinced that a tax free society is the answer. The only people I ever hear moaning about taxes is the rich, but they still earn far more than the rest of us even after they've paid their contributions to society. Without taxes, who's going to pay for the care and treatment of the poor when they're ill or injured in your system? and who's going to support the long term mentally or physically ill? or the old? (assuming they're not wealthy).

QuoteHow many of these problems that you think an an-cap society might suffer from has the government fixed? Does everyone get a good education? Have they prevented violent crime? Have they prevented a small portion of people from accumulating a large portion of wealth? Have they always kept their people safe from foreign invasion? Do they have a perfect or even just legal system? Have they not not killed other's in you're name and with you're money?

I agree that the current system is less than perfect, but I don't believe you're ever going to be able to educate everyone well or stop some people from committing violence or crime. As for stopping a small amount of people accumulating a large proportion of wealth, how is not taxing the wealthy going to solve that problem?

Quote
They are based on how the society would function as a whole. There would likely be less poverty, more opportunity, more freedom, and greater wealth. Obviously a society that functions better for everyone benefits me, I don't support this philosophy because I think I would benefit at the expense of others though.

I honestly don't believe that, I just see more poverty generally, and more wealth only for the rich. But that's just my opinion, and I'll happily admit I might well be wrong. I'm glad you want a system that benefits the majority though and not just yourself. Now all we need is to buy you that small island somewhere or otherwise create a complicated computer programme to model an an-cap society and see how it pans out. I hope you get to live in the society you want one day, maybe a colony on land reclaimed by the sea created by an an-cap billionaire?

Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on March 30, 2012, 01:59:23 AM
They're horrible stories, but I think it's part of the human experience, sadly. If there is power, SOME people will abuse it. Even with no real centralized government a power structure will emerge and there will be people within that power structure who abuse it.

I agree there will always be a power struggle, but if people recognized the pattern and were liberty minded, I'm certain it could be prevented from the inside. Foreign invasion would be another thing. The reason I don't like the idea of government is because people do keep fighting for control. It could very well be an unavoidable cycle, but I hope not.

Regardless, I'm lucky to live in a country with free speech. I would not even be allowed to have this conversation in some countries.

Quote from: ThinkAnarchyRegardless, I'm lucky to live in a country with free speech. I would not even be allowed to have this conversation in some countries.

That is very true and I am glad that you are able to share your ideas, even if I don't agree with all of them.  :)

  On your presentation, an unqualified thumbs up, TA! Thank you.

As a libertarian, I agree with a lot of it, but the "anarcho" element leaves too much trust to individual responsibility for my taste.  Minimal government: yes. But no organized government at ALL?  Nope.  Leaves a vacuum, with random human nature (often falling to the LCD (lowest common denominator)) inevitably filling it.

Even rational cooperative behavior is not to be assumed, any more than rationality itself.

EG: I live on a rural dead-end road.  Early on, we neighbors were left with its maintenance.  Those at its beginning didn't see why they should chip in for the upkeep of the road's entirety.  Others thought their minimal usage should rate a smaller contribution than those with heavier usage.  Some were willing to help, but just "not this month" (read as 'never').  How much money/work is the proper amount, was never agreed upon.  Etc., etc.  The road remained a mess for years until the county stepped in, but neighborly resentments never fully ceased.

 

Quote from: Non Sum on March 30, 2012, 09:10:32 PM
 On your presentation, an unqualified thumbs up, TA! Thank you.

As a libertarian, I agree with a lot of it, but the "anarcho" element leaves too much trust to individual responsibility for my taste.  Minimal government: yes. But no organized government at ALL?  Nope.  Leaves a vacuum, with random human nature (often falling to the LCD (lowest common denominator)) inevitably filling it.

I started out like that as well, but than I started thinking about how America was founded. It was founded on small government principles, and look at it's current state over 200 years later. I like the idea of small government, but can't see it every staying small. The same pattern very well may repeat itself from anarchy, but it would hopefully take longer than a starting point of limited government.  :)

Quote
Even rational cooperative behavior is not to be assumed, any more than rationality itself.

EG: I live on a rural dead-end road.  Early on, we neighbors were left with its maintenance.  Those at its beginning didn't see why they should chip in for the upkeep of the road's entirety.  Others thought their minimal usage should rate a smaller contribution than those with heavier usage.  Some were willing to help, but just "not this month" (read as 'never').  How much money/work is the proper amount, was never agreed upon.  Etc., etc.  The road remained a mess for years until the county stepped in, but neighborly resentments never fully ceased.

I agree, and I know problems like that currently happen. It could be prevented in the future by mentioning the shared road and expected contributions in the contract when the property is purchased. This obviously would only work effectively with new developments though. Most of the neighbors may be willing to sign a contract regarding the road, but the free loaders, unless it was tied to their purchase of the property, wouldn't sign it. But than again, they still weren't paying.

It would be very hard to make it work retroactively, but with a clause in the property agreement relating to the road, future problems could be avoided.

I believe I have two unanswered posts still, and want to reply to that TED video in more detail. Those posts will be more time consuming though so I probably won't reply until after the weekend.

One of the main problems I have with your argument is that you make a lot of generalizations about government and its perceived failings.
Your claims about the government "creating nothing", for example, aren't really true. Here's a list of things the government has created

- the Internet (a military project originally)
- Space exploration (NASA is a government agency), which you claim people will fund out of the goodness of their hearts. Not a chance, considering how expensive it is
- All sorts of long-term research which is not initially profitable, but which pays an enormous social benefit in the end. Clean energy research, for example, or genetically modified crops which resist diseases.
- Universal health care for the population, in most Western nations

You also claim that not only has the government failed to eliminate crime, but they're really making it worse. I can say with certainty that is not true in the US. Take New York City, for example. The crime rate has nosedived since the early 90's thanks to the NYPD adopting techniques such as computerized tracking of crimes and more cops patrolling directly on the streets. That is the government right there. My particular town was a rundown community up until 15 years ago, and is now so safe that I often walk around at night, thanks again to the police.

One of the reasons businesses succeed and thrive in the Western world is because of government funding of infrastructure such as effective roads, railroads, electricity, internet, police and fire protection, etc, which gives them the ability make and transport their goods safely. Elizabeth Warren, who is running for Senate in Massachusetts, had a great speech about this, starting at the 1:00 mark: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=htX2usfqMEs
Government is not perfect by any means. However, your solution of throwing it all away is extreme. You say that your experiment has never been tried, as opposed to bigger government, but there are countries with little organized government, and none of them have thrived. Look at Pakistan, which has little organized government and where citizens have to rely on private security guards to keep them safe in their gated communities. Pakistan is an infinitely more dangerous country than most of the Western world, due in large part to the lack of effective government. Not to mention the horrendous human rights abuses there.
You have an extreme faith in the ability of the free-market to fix everything. Who's going to tackle the inevitable corruption that always pops up in said free markets? What if an organized crime racket corners the private security guards which replace police in your system, and force the population to pay them extreme amounts of money or else? Who's going to stop them with no government? Another marauding band of citizens who'll duke it out in the streets with them? Without regulation, there's no reasons businesses wouldn't do unethical or downright illegal things to earn profit. Or, at least, illegal as it stands, since you wouldn't even outlaw murder.
While getting a ticket for going 3 mph over the speed limit is an annoyance, it is not an infringement on your liberty. It's to protect the kids who are in that school zone. That's more important than your "right" to go a little faster, as far as I'm concerned, and an important value to hold onto in most societies.

Great post, Firebird.

Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on March 30, 2012, 04:30:09 PM

Quote from: ThinkAnarchyRegardless, I'm lucky to live in a country with free speech. I would not even be allowed to have this conversation in some countries.

That is very true and I am glad that you are able to share your ideas, even if I don't agree with all of them.  :)

I've read this thread, and just wanted to say that while I don't really have any arguments to make/contribute, I've appreciated reading everyone's comments and ideas.

I will just say this, though: regardless of what one feels about their government, I totally agree that if you're posting on this website, at least you're living under a government that allows free speech. I had the privilege (and I mean that sincerely) of knowing men who lived under a government that censored their words, their ability to research ideas, etc. They were good men, very polite, very friendly, but they knew that anything they said or did or researched could be held against them, so they were very careful to praise their government and the king of their country. I am extraordinarily thankful that, even though I get ticked off at my politicians/government time and time again, I do not live in the society they live in and must raise their kids in.

Quote from: Anne D. on March 30, 2012, 01:44:53 AM
This does not sound at all workable.

The only scenarios a private court would work in would be in very basic civil matters where both parties agreed to submit to the judgment of a particular court and agreed that that court's judgment would be final.

Yes, those would be easy because two parties that agree to do business together could simply agree to use "X" Dispute Resolution Service in the event of a dispute.

Quote
In the society you describe, if someone, say, murders your relative, you would seem to have the recourse of a) killing them (since you stated vigilantism would be legal) or b) paying a private court to hear your civil suit against the person.
-What would compel the person you were suing to appear before this private court? In other words, would anyone you chose to sue (even on faked or trumped up grounds) be required to appear before the private court you were paying to hear the case just because you'd sued them?

The court the victim brought the case too, would likely serve the accused much as they do today. If the accused failed to appear, the court would most likely be able to issue a Default Judgement, after hearing the side of the dispute that appeared. I'm also a supporter of loser pay's, in order to help prevent frivolous lawsuits. I imagine the private courts would do the same. We already see what happens when those who file frivolous law suits are not required to pay the other persons costs, it simply leads to more B.S. suits.

Quote
Say that a person would be compelled to appear before any private court in which he'd had been sued.
-What if the person chose not to appear? Would a private police force be authorized to use force to take that person into custody and hold him until the trial? On what legal basis would the police force be allowed to do that?

I wouldn't say so, since it would be unjustified to kidnap a still innocent person. Others might disagree with me however. If the person were "forced" to appear in court and was guilty, their would be no foul. If the individual was innocent, however, he would seem to have a claim against the agency that grabbed him.

They would most likely serve the accused, and if he refused to appear, he simply would not be their to argue his case. If he felt he wasn't going to get a fair trial at the court the individual chose, they might have to agree on one, or possibly agree to let a mediator pick the neutral court. Or perhaps, if they have hired a protection agency, the two agencies would agree on a location.

Quote
-If you chose to go the vigilante route and killed the person, could that person's family then sue you?

I would imagine it would depend why you killed that person. If you thought he raped you're daughter, but it is later discovered he did not, than the killer should be liable for killing an innocent person. If the rape did occur, I can't imagine anyone would really care the rapist is now dead.

Quote
-What if you, oops, killed the wrong person and the person you killed didn't have family to sue you for it? No harm, no foul?

Those without family already have trouble seeking justice. If they already subscribed to a protection service, that service would most likely seek justice on behalf of the victim. Why would people in my society want to live next to someone who murders innocent people?

Quote
-What if you didn't have the money to sue the person and weren't strong enough to exact vigilante justice? Too bad, so sad?

If you won the case, you likely wouldn't have to pay anything as the one bringing it. If you lost, you would likely receive a bill for your's and the defendants fees.

Re the following:

QuoteCompeting third party courts would probably hear cases of another courts unfair ruling.

What you are describing is the equivalent of an appeals court. In the society you describe, for the decision of the first court to be appealable, the two parties would have to agree going in to the first trial that the decision of that first court would not necessarily be final and could be appealed. [/quote]

It would depend on what the contract was in regards to the court who first ruled. If the contract states they are the final decision maker on this issue, than an appeal would be useless. People may not like that however, so it may be put in the contract how to go about appealing the decision.

Quote
What if the two parties didn't agree? (If I'm being sued for wrongful death, there's no way I'd agree to the judgment's being final, and if I'm suing someone for wrongful death in a court I pay dues to, I have great incentive to want the judgment to be final.) Or what if they do agree? Can the two parties just take turns appealing forever and ever?

It would depend on what people want. For serious issues, like murder, I think most people would want the ability to have the decision reviewed by a second court. If that court found the previous court erred, it would than likely have to go to a third, for the final decision. If money was an issue, both parties would likely agree to abide by the decision of the first court with no option of appeal.

There is no way to say how they would fully function, because we currently only have private dispute resolution for minor issues. There are many options as to how they would function, but I can't say 100% they would function one way or the other.

Quote
It sounds like this society would need a mammoth body of civil law, especially contract law. Otherwise, the private courts would have nothing to base their decisions on. You'd also have to have some body of law setting out what constituted a private police force, what constituted a private court, and what powers they would have.

You don't need a big body of law when it comes to contracts. If both individuals signed the contract, they must abide by what the contract says. If they break the contract, they are in violation. Quite simple.

Their basis would simply be that of initiation. If I steal you're car because you refuse to pay me $25,000 you owe me, the court would likely uphold my theft as being just. You were the one who initiated the problem by refusing to pay me what you owe.

The only problem that would arise, and I'm unsure how it would be handled, is when can an individual sign a contract? A six year old child should not be required to abide by a contract he signed, but I'm not sure how age of majority would be determined.

Quote
-What entity would be responsible for drawing up that law in the first place, making changes to it, and maintaining it?

The courts would simply make their decisions based on the evidence and the societies views much like common law today. The body of law would be built up naturally with how the courts ruled. Since they are beholden to the people for clients, their would be much more control over the court system.

No time to proof read, so I apologize if their are typos or incomplete thoughts.

Quote from: Too Few Lions on March 30, 2012, 02:44:23 AM
Over here, you don't ever hear of any small shops over here complaining that the minimum wage is putting them out of business. I don't think the minimum wage is that crippling to anyone, and I also don't think people can live particularly well on it. If someone's got to spend their whole week working I think they at least deserve a wage that allows them to have a bit of a life outside of work and be able to pay their rent and bills. If your business is that unprofitable that you can't afford to pay your staff £200 a week I think your business clearly isn't going to work long term.

You missed the point I was making. It isn't that it put's them out of business, but businesses hire fewer people. They can only allot so much to payroll. When the government requires them to pay more to their employee's, it results in them hiring fewer employees. This means there are fewer jobs to go around.  I'm not going to start spending more than I can afford on payroll because the government say's I now have to pay my employee's more. I will simply fire a few, or not hire new ones, so as not to pay to continue to keep may labor cost low enough to make a profit.

Quote
Otherwise we just have wage-slaves who are just about able to scrape by on a wage but never save anything or have very much disposable income to enjoy themselves.

Quote
I really hate that term, "wage-slave." Slave are required to work with the threat of force and receive no compensation and have no freedom. Employee's are not forced to work for a particular place over another, and they are free to negotiate their costs.

Quote
You want to live in a society without a welfare system, therefore everyone other than the well-off will have to work, and if they're on a ridiculously low income they're never going to be able to save up any money to take time off or afford to pay for studying, learning or training. You might hate the word wage-slave, but that doesn't mean it's not an apt description. If someone is having to spend their lives doing a job they don't like or want to do and are getting paid a tiny amount of money that they can barely live off, never mind save anything, I'm happy to call that kind of life wage-slavery. It sounds awful, and there might be a lot of people in that situation.

Yeah, I'm calling for a society where people work. Working a shitty job is better than starvation. Nor should people get paid to not work, simply because they feel the jobs they can get are beneath them. I understand that some people legitimately can't find work, but I do not agree with forcing others to help them.

Quote
I guess I'm a utilitarian, but I think society should try to benefit as many people as possible, not just the rich. Plus, in a capitalist system, the rich can make more money without actually lifting a finger than the poor can by working 80 hour weeks just by investing their money, or can buy up all the land so poorer people permanently have to rent of them in a semi-feudal society.

QuoteThe capitalist system does more to benefit the poor than government could ever hope to do. Capitalism provides the jobs to allow them to bring themselves out of poverty. Hell, Apple releasing an Ipad every six months is indirectly helping the poor. I could not afford to buy an ipad when they first came out, but can now get an older generation, that is still fantastic, at a much more affordable used price. None of us are living under a Capitalist system though.

As for the rental thing, it would be no more a risk than it currently is. Rentals are great for people who can't afford to purchase property. Those who can afford to purchase property typically are unhappy living in a rental.

QuoteSeriously, an iPad? If I was properly poor and struggling to get by, I wouldn't give a toss about an overpriced laptop. I'd be more worried about food, accommodation, heating  etc. Personally, I think maybe we should be trying to build a society where everyone can own a home if they want to, rather than tell people, 'Sorry you're too poor, home ownership's only for rich folk...but you can pay them rent to temporarily live in one of their homes.

A single individual with no kids can survive on a lot less than an entire family. Simply because people are impoverished does not mean they can't buy toys if their primary needs are taken care of. It's obviously smarter to save that excess money, but that is up to the individual to decide.

Quote
You have a very different view of taxation than me. I view taxation as a way of providing the infrastructure that allows society to function and wealth to be created in the first place. Taxes are laid out in advance and everyone knows roughly what they're going to have to pay, the taxman doesn't rob you at knifepoint and walk you to a cash machine.

Quote
They use force in order to collect taxes. I see no difference between threatening violence of imprisonment by armed thugs as any different than being robbed at the threat of being stabbed. The only difference is the level of violence being threatened to make me comply.

Quote
You live in a society where that's the rules / laws, if you don't pay your taxes you're the one acting like a criminal, not the state. Maybe you should look to move to a country with zero / very low taxes, there are plenty of tax havens around the world.

It is only the law because the people in power, who get rich off taxation, say it's so. If it were law to kill homosexuals, would that be evidence that killing homosexuals is not murder?  Simply because the state makes something law, in no way makes it any less wrong.

I have also been looking into other countries, but I would still have to become a citizen of that country before getting my U.S. citizenship revoked. The U.S. government taxes it's citizens even when they are living and working abroad.

QuoteTaxes are the current way of providing infrastructure, but that does not mean it is the only way, or the best way. It has proven a very ineffective way, given the poor condition of some of America's infrastructure. Taxes also do not create wealth, it simply redistributes it around. Capitalism does create wealth on the other hand and redistributes it in a voluntary way.

QuoteOr it doesn't redistribute wealth at all. It's funny that you think that the US has poor infrastructure given that I imagine that it's a lot closer to your capitalist utopia than most if not all countries in Europe. Germany and France have great infrastructure, but they also have high taxes to pay for that infrastructure

Yes they do, but only because taxes are the means for providing infrastructure. Many cities suffer from traffic jams do to poor engineering, old bridges, pot holes, etc. Not to mention there are some very dangerous roads, with no reason to fix them. The government is not held liable when someone dies on the roadways due to poor design or infrastructure. It is nothing like the society I propose, seeing as the roads are run by the state, and financed through taxation. In my system, unsafe roadways, would likely result in their owners being held liable for any deaths or injuries.

Quote
In our current system wealth is being stolen, but it wouldn't be in a truly free market. Property is protected by contract, but homesteading would likely be an acceptable means of gaining property as well.

Quote
We live in a society, we're all part of that society and we all contribute to that society. If some people benefit more from that society I don't think it's unreasonable for them to also contribute more. You think government steals from the wealthy, I think the wealthy steal from society if they don't contribute. I guess it's just a different way of looking at things.

Why is theft justified if someone is wealthy. I will say some of the wealthy do currently steal from society, but that is facilitated by the governments you support. The rich in government help the rich in business and vice versa.

Quote
Of course business men are motivated by profit, that is not a bad thing though. Without profit there would be no motivation to innovate and create. Governments create nothing.
Do you really believe most governments are doing a good job with education and healthcare? We don't need the government to provide these functions. Investors can fund expensive research, many of which could ask for funding from the population. If there is something the people want researched or developed, they can fund the project voluntarily if they see a need. I would likely donate money to scientific institutions for space exploration and medical research as others would.

Quote
We live longer than anyone else before in human history, we're generally freer than the majority of other people ever to have lived, we're better educated and we can say and do pretty much as we please (within reason), and we don't normally have to worry about being robbed, murdered, raped etc etc, I don't think western governments are doing everything wrong. It's not their job to 'innovate and create', it's their job to create a stable society that allows people to innovate and create, and trade and manufacture, and live hopefully happy lives.

Yet robberies, murders, and rapes take place every day, despite the government having so little to do. Furthermore, many government laws result in more violence. Take the drug laws for example. If their only charge is to protect the people, how is justified they put the people at risk by driving certain business underground. Also, so much for happy lives. I'm sure the Middle Easterners are thrilled with our Western governments killing their people. I suppose they only should care about the lives under their charge.

Quote
And I think they're clearly doing that to some degree, personally there's nowhere else in the world I'd rather live.

We don't need them to fight violent crime. They have never eliminated it and never will. Government is useless. We would have as much success, if not more, handeling these problems without government.

Quote
I'd rank univeral healthcare, education or literacy to be far greater creations and achievements than the i-pad.

I completely disagree with universal healthcare. The education is the U.S. is quite poor, though I'm not to sure about other nations. Education on a larger scale was only made possible due to certain technological advances. However, simply because the government currently provides education does not mean people would not be able to be educated without the government.

Quote
Plus government funding has done some amazing stuff, the world wide web is largely a result of government funded research. Plus look at all the amazing things they're currently doing at CERN, and probably lots of other places too.

We are back to theft. Governments don't make money, they can only steal it. I would not be viewed as good if I stole your money and invested it in internet development. I fail to see why an exception is made when governments do it.

Quote
I wouldn't argue with you that governments waste a lot of money, or that things couldn't be done better, but I'm not convinced that a tax free society is the answer. The only people I ever hear moaning about taxes is the rich, but they still earn far more than the rest of us even after they've paid their contributions to society. Without taxes, who's going to pay for the care and treatment of the poor when they're ill or injured in your system? and who's going to support the long term mentally or physically ill? or the old? (assuming they're not wealthy).

They would have to rely on charity. Without taxes, people would have more of the wealth they earned to do with as they saw fit. There would also be much cheaper options for medical care due to the elimination of all the regulations.

QuoteHow many of these problems that you think an an-cap society might suffer from has the government fixed? Does everyone get a good education? Have they prevented violent crime? Have they prevented a small portion of people from accumulating a large portion of wealth? Have they always kept their people safe from foreign invasion? Do they have a perfect or even just legal system? Have they not not killed other's in you're name and with you're money?

QuoteI agree that the current system is less than perfect, but I don't believe you're ever going to be able to educate everyone well or stop some people from committing violence or crime. As for stopping a small amount of people accumulating a large proportion of wealth, how is not taxing the wealthy going to solve that problem?

They are able to accumulate the amount of wealth they currently have because the government protects them. The owners of Corporations are not held liable for the actions of their companies. The businesses wealth may be on the line, but not the individuals behind the business. In my society, their would be nothing protecting the owner of a business from being held liable for the actions his business takes. If I was an owner of an oil company, my personal wealth would be at risk in case of a spill, not separated from my business.

Quote
They are based on how the society would function as a whole. There would likely be less poverty, more opportunity, more freedom, and greater wealth. Obviously a society that functions better for everyone benefits me, I don't support this philosophy because I think I would benefit at the expense of others though.

Quote
I honestly don't believe that, I just see more poverty generally, and more wealth only for the rich. But that's just my opinion, and I'll happily admit I might well be wrong. I'm glad you want a system that benefits the majority though and not just yourself. Now all we need is to buy you that small island somewhere or otherwise create a complicated computer programme to model an an-cap society and see how it pans out. I hope you get to live in the society you want one day, maybe a colony on land reclaimed by the sea created by an an-cap billionaire?

It would be nice, but I don't see it happening in my lifetime. I have been having fun with this conversation but am starting to grow bored with it. So if it takes me a while to respond, that is why. I tried looking for some debates to post, but most are between an-caps and an-comms. Two anarchists debating doesn't really fit into this conversation.  :)

I would just like to add to the above:

Some good act's do not negate evil acts. I would imagine I could look at the worst individuals or states throughout history and point to a few good things they did. That in no way makes their existence any less evil.

Thanks for the response, TA. I think there are aspects of our society and legal system that you are taking for granted as being present in your anarcho-capitalist society that would not be present unless you specifically provided for them in law. Also, there are some things you are presenting as almost understood or givens when, in fact, they won't be unless you specifically provide for them in law.

QuoteQuote
It sounds like this society would need a mammoth body of civil law, especially contract law. Otherwise, the private courts would have nothing to base their decisions on. You'd also have to have some body of law setting out what constituted a private police force, what constituted a private court, and what powers they would have.
You don't need a big body of law when it comes to contracts. If both individuals signed the contract, they must abide by what the contract says. If they break the contract, they are in violation. Quite simple.

Their basis would simply be that of initiation. If I steal you're car because you refuse to pay me $25,000 you owe me, the court would likely uphold my theft as being just. You were the one who initiated the problem by refusing to pay me what you owe.

The only problem that would arise, and I'm unsure how it would be handled, is when can an individual sign a contract? A six year old child should not be required to abide by a contract he signed, but I'm not sure how age of majority would be determined.

You're going to need more than contract law. "Just" making vigilantism legal will require a set of laws to set out things like the following:
--what acts would allow for vigilantism. Huge, thorny legal issues there, e.g., questions like what constitutes rape/murder, is payback still okay if it's a payback violent act for an act that was itself payback. "Rape" is only "rape" in the U.S. legal system because there's a statutory definition of "rape." You've stated there wouldn't really be such a thing as criminal law in your society, but in order to sue for things like wrongful death or allow for vigilantism, you're going to need to define terms like "manslaughter," "murder," and "rape" somewhere. Without it being set out that "manslaughter" = [specific legal definition], there is nothing for a "court" to base a decision on.
--who has standing to commit an act of vigilantism (immediate family members only?, extended family?, anyone?)
--how long do you have to take your revenge (if you wait several years is that still legal, does it depend on the violent act you're avenging)

If you think these types of things will just be "understood," I think you're being extremely unrealistic.

QuoteQuote
-What entity would be responsible for drawing up that law in the first place, making changes to it, and maintaining it?

The courts would simply make their decisions based on the evidence and the societies views much like common law today. The body of law would be built up naturally with how the courts ruled. Since they are beholden to the people for clients, their would be much more control over the court system.

This shows a fundamental misunderstanding of our legal system. While there is some small room for subjectivity in interpretation of laws, our courts' decisions are not based on "society's views." They are based on specific laws passed at the local, state, and federal level. In the U.S., interpretation of specific laws is not just built up haphazardly, an understanding of how a law is to be interpreted is hammered out as a legal case works its way up the system of courts, sometimes up to the Supreme Court. This works because we have a set hierarchy of courts. A higher court's ruling and understanding of a law prevails over a lower court's ruling. In the society you've described, there will be no set hierarchy of courts (as having a set hierarchy of courts would require a government). Instead, you'll have a jumbled group of private "courts," none having more authority than the other. As I stated in my previous post, the only way for one of those private "courts" to be able to have any authority over another would be if the two parties with a case before the initial "court," agreed that if one of the parties disagreed w/ court A's decision, it could be "appealed" to court B. And just because John and Susan chose to have Nick's court be their initial court and Al's court be their "appeal" court, that would not prevent Pete and Brenda from having Al's court be their initial court and Nick's court be their "appeal" court. There would be no natural hierarchy of courts in the society you have described. Law would not "build up naturally," as you could have two different courts give completely contradictory rulings, and because there is no hierarchy of courts, neither decision would "stand" over the other.

QuoteQuote
In the society you describe, if someone, say, murders your relative, you would seem to have the recourse of a) killing them (since you stated vigilantism would be legal) or b) paying a private court to hear your civil suit against the person.
-What would compel the person you were suing to appear before this private court? In other words, would anyone you chose to sue (even on faked or trumped up grounds) be required to appear before the private court you were paying to hear the case just because you'd sued them?
The court the victim brought the case too, would likely serve the accused much as they do today. If the accused failed to appear, the court would most likely be able to issue a Default Judgement, after hearing the side of the dispute that appeared. I'm also a supporter of loser pay's, in order to help prevent frivolous lawsuits. I imagine the private courts would do the same. We already see what happens when those who file frivolous law suits are not required to pay the other persons costs, it simply leads to more B.S. suits.

Things like this—allowing for "courts" to issue default judgments in cases where the accused does not show up—is a huge power to turn over to private courts. This is exactly the kind of power you would need to provide for and limit with law. Otherwise, nothing would prevent someone from constantly suing and being awarded default judgments. Again, if you think that somehow "common sense" would just naturally prevail and that private courts would not take advantage of their powers, I think that is unrealistic.

QuoteQuote
Say that a person would be compelled to appear before any private court in which he'd had been sued.
-What if the person chose not to appear? Would a private police force be authorized to use force to take that person into custody and hold him until the trial? On what legal basis would the police force be allowed to do that?
I wouldn't say so, since it would be unjustified to kidnap a still innocent person. Others might disagree with me however. If the person were "forced" to appear in court and was guilty, their would be no foul. If the individual was innocent, however, he would seem to have a claim against the agency that grabbed him.

They would most likely serve the accused, and if he refused to appear, he simply would not be their to argue his case. If he felt he wasn't going to get a fair trial at the court the individual chose, they might have to agree on one, or possibly agree to let a mediator pick the neutral court. Or perhaps, if they have hired a protection agency, the two agencies would agree on a location.

If you plan to have a society in which private "courts" would be allowed to use force to compel an appearance, then that's a huge amount of power to turn over to a private company. If you plan to have a society in which private "courts" would not be allowed to use force to compel an appearance, then you're going to have to spell that out with a law. Once again, if you think that what's allowable is somehow just going to be understood, I would say that's highly improbable.

QuoteQuote
-If you chose to go the vigilante route and killed the person, could that person's family then sue you?
I would imagine it would depend why you killed that person. If you thought he raped you're daughter, but it is later discovered he did not, than the killer should be liable for killing an innocent person. If the rape did occur, I can't imagine anyone would really care the rapist is now dead. 

If you want it to depend on "why" one person killed the other, then that's another thing that would need to be spelled out in law. If you want a person to be "liable" for vigilante killings that later turn out to be unjustified, then that's yet another thing that would need to be spelled out in law. To repeat, it's unrealistic to think that this would somehow just be "understood."

As others have stated, the society you describe sounds like one in which only those with money would have access to justice and safety. I don't see any protections for the poor or anything that would check the ability of well-financed private companies from running roughshod over the poor and powerless. Our justice system is imperfect, but it offers at least minimal protections and basic rights that are spelled out in law. A poor defendant is guaranteed some form of legal counsel and a means to appeal a judgment if there are grounds. I don't see even those basic protections in the society you've described.

Quote from: ThinkAnarchy on April 03, 2012, 12:07:21 AM
Yeah, I'm calling for a society where people work. Working a shitty job is better than starvation. Nor should people get paid to not work, simply because they feel the jobs they can get are beneath them. I understand that some people legitimately can't find work, but I do not agree with forcing others to help them.

I think people should work too, so they're not a burden to the state and instead can contribute to society via taxes. But if someone's going to days their life doing some dead-end job, I think they should at least receive a wage that allows them to be afford to live a basic existence. Working for peanuts in a shitty job or starvation shouldn't be the only options. But I would also agree that plenty of people milk the system and get paid far too much on welfare. I guess my main problem with your free market model in general is that I don't see it creating a cohesive or egalitarian society, and I think both those things are important. I don't think the free market gives a toss about any social values or justice.

QuoteIt is only the law because the people in power, who get rich off taxation, say it's so. If it were law to kill homosexuals, would that be evidence that killing homosexuals is not murder?  Simply because the state makes something law, in no way makes it any less wrong.

It's not a question of right or wrong, it's just a question of law. I don't agree with every law, but I know if I break them that's a criminal act. Whether or not I personally feel that any given law is morally right or wrong is an entirely different question. It's not just the people in power who believe in taxation to fund a basic social structure and redistribution of wealth, I would imagine it's the majority of people in society.

QuoteMany cities suffer from traffic jams do to poor engineering, old bridges, pot holes, etc. Not to mention there are some very dangerous roads, with no reason to fix them. The government is not held liable when someone dies on the roadways due to poor design or infrastructure. It is nothing like the society I propose, seeing as the roads are run by the state, and financed through taxation. In my system, unsafe roadways, would likely result in their owners being held liable for any deaths or injuries.

This society you're proposing suddenly doesn't sound very anarchic at all. What if I don't want to repair the potholes in my road? Who are you or anyone else to force me to repair those potholes? Or to say I can be sued because someone who I might not want driving down my road in the first place had an accident on it? What if I consider forcing me to fix a road that I'm fine with just the way it is, or by suing me after any accident as being plain theft? I've put a 'traveller uses this road at their own risk / responsibility' sign up, why should I be held responsible for the road?

I can see most roads being toll roads in the system you're proposing anyway, why should I let anyone drive for free down my road that I've paid for? Plus what if a racist person / community doesn't want any blacks driving down their road? Or a Muslim community don't want any women drivers or non-Muslims on their roads? Or an evangelical Christian community don't want any homosexuals on their roads? Aren't you infringing on their rights as road-owners in a very governmental way if you don't allow them to run their roads the way they want?

QuoteWhy is theft justified if someone is wealthy. I will say some of the wealthy do currently steal from society, but that is facilitated by the governments you support. The rich in government help the rich in business and vice versa.

Only you see tax as theft, most of us see it as redistribution of wealth and the rich contributing back to the society without which they never would have become wealthy in the first place. I could also ask why should laws protect individual wealth and property? There's no stone tablets saying that has to be so, just society's laws.

Quote
Yet robberies, murders, and rapes take place every day, despite the government having so little to do. Furthermore, many government laws result in more violence. Take the drug laws for example. If their only charge is to protect the people, how is justified they put the people at risk by driving certain business underground. Also, so much for happy lives. I'm sure the Middle Easterners are thrilled with our Western governments killing their people. I suppose they only should care about the lives under their charge.

Far more Middle Easterners are being killed and suppressed by their own governments than by western governments. What gives you the idea that governments have 'little to do'? Making sure societies of tens of millions of people function well seems like a mammoth task to me. Do you seriously think you could stamp out robberies, murders, and rapes in an an-cap society? Short of removing any remotely violent or sociopathic person and their genes from society I don't see how that's possible.

QuoteWe don't need them to fight violent crime. They have never eliminated it and never will. Government is useless. We would have as much success, if not more, handeling these problems without government.

how? Without any police, your system would appear to make organised crime easier to me. How are the poor even going to get justice if they can't afford to pay for an investigation or any legal support?

Quote

QuoteWithout taxes, who's going to pay for the care and treatment of the poor when they're ill or injured in your system? and who's going to support the long term mentally or physically ill? or the old? (assuming they're not wealthy).

They would have to rely on charity. Without taxes, people would have more of the wealth they earned to do with as they saw fit. There would also be much cheaper options for medical care due to the elimination of all the regulations.

Again we're back to the idea of 'society'. Old and ill and poor people having to rely on charity or otherwise dying or starving isn't the kind of society I personally would want to live in.

QuoteI have been having fun with this conversation but am starting to grow bored with it. So if it takes me a while to respond, that is why. I tried looking for some debates to post, but most are between an-caps and an-comms. Two anarchists debating doesn't really fit into this conversation.   

although it might make for some tasty viewing! I guess we both just have different values and as a result different views on society, government and peoples' social responsibilities, and there's nothing wrong with that. Variety of opinion's generally a good thing.

Quote from: Firebird on March 31, 2012, 06:12:32 AM
One of the main problems I have with your argument is that you make a lot of generalizations about government and its perceived failings.
Your claims about the government "creating nothing", for example, aren't really true. Here's a list of things the government has created

- the Internet (a military project originally)

A few good contributions do not make an evil entity good. They were only able to fund these ventures through taxation, which is theft.

Quote- Space exploration (NASA is a government agency), which you claim people will fund out of the goodness of their hearts. Not a chance, considering how expensive it is

Although a lot has been discovered through space exploration, their tract record isn't all that impressive. The shuttle has had the same basic design since it's infancy. Sure they have made some imporvements throughout the years, but governments don't care how much something costs, because it isn't their money being spent. I can't say for certain if the costs would be much lower if it had been in the private sectors hands all these years, but when someones money is actually on the line, and you must rely on investors, you tend to be more motivated to lower the costs of such technology.

Quote
- All sorts of long-term research which is not initially profitable, but which pays an enormous social benefit in the end. Clean energy research, for example, or genetically modified crops which resist diseases.

There is a market for all those things. Medical research is an expensive venture as well, that results in most drugs never making it to market. This is why drugs cost so much, they have to make up for the money spend of failed drugs that will never be sold.

Clean Energy would be developed in the private sector when the need arises for it and many farmers would be happy to buy genetically modified crops. We don't need the government to research these things. I doubt anyone thought a civilian would be able to create a candle with no flame at some points in history.

Quote
- Universal health care for the population, in most Western nations

Don't get me started on universal healthcare.

Quote
You also claim that not only has the government failed to eliminate crime, but they're really making it worse. I can say with certainty that is not true in the US. Take New York City, for example. The crime rate has nosedived since the early 90's thanks to the NYPD adopting techniques such as computerized tracking of crimes and more cops patrolling directly on the streets. That is the government right there. My particular town was a rundown community up until 15 years ago, and is now so safe that I often walk around at night, thanks again to the police.

What I was referring to is that by criminalizing things like drugs, they actually create more crime. When they criminalized booze, it to led to more crime. I don't particularly call that them doing their jobs.

Quote
One of the reasons businesses succeed and thrive in the Western world is because of government funding of infrastructure such as effective roads, railroads, electricity, internet, police and fire protection, etc, which gives them the ability make and transport their goods safely. Elizabeth Warren, who is running for Senate in Massachusetts, had a great speech about this, starting at the 1:00 mark: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=htX2usfqMEs

In our current world, what she say's in the video is not completely untrue. What I'm saying is we don't need the government for infrastructure, police, fire, or anything else. They would have those same benefits without the government.

Quote
Government is not perfect by any means. However, your solution of throwing it all away is extreme. You say that your experiment has never been tried, as opposed to bigger government, but there are countries with little organized government, and none of them have thrived. Look at Pakistan, which has little organized government and where citizens have to rely on private security guards to keep them safe in their gated communities. Pakistan is an infinitely more dangerous country than most of the Western world, due in large part to the lack of effective government. Not to mention the horrendous human rights abuses there.

Pakistan is not even close to what I propose. They have a state police force and if they are ineffective, that seems to strengthen my arguments. An ineffective government is not an example of anarchy. It is simply more evidence for the ideals of anarchy.

Quote
You have an extreme faith in the ability of the free-market to fix everything. Who's going to tackle the inevitable corruption that always pops up in said free markets?

Because the free-market does fix problems when given the time. When ever a problem appears the government jumps in and typically makes the problem worse.

Quote
What if an organized crime racket corners the private security guards which replace police in your system, and force the population to pay them extreme amounts of money or else? Who's going to stop them with no government? Another marauding band of citizens who'll duke it out in the streets with them?

Unlikely, if one police force did that, their customers would be very unhappy, resulting in them picking up a different agency. I also find it slightly funny you are worried about private police forces charging to much, when our current police shoot the family dog when they bust down you're door, attack non-violent individuals, arrest people for filming them, shoot unarmed civilians, etc. We currently have private security at most amusement parks and shopping malls, yet we don't hear about them abusing people nearly as often.

And organized crime? Really? Organized crime is due to the government making things illegal. The mob in the U.S. gained power during Prohibition. The current drug cartels are only around because of Drug Prohibition.  There is no money to be made in organized crime when these things are allowed to be sold on the open market. Furthermore, if one protection agency were to charge too high a fee, people would cancel their contracts and choose a cheaper one.

Quote
Without regulation, there's no reasons businesses wouldn't do unethical or downright illegal things to earn profit. Or, at least, illegal as it stands, since you wouldn't even outlaw murder.

There profits would come from selling what ever service they provide. Murder would not be acceptable in my society, it simply wouldn't be criminal as it is today.

Business in my society would not be protect by the government for doing bad things. LLC's and Corporations protect their owners from liability. There would be no such protections in my society.

Quote
While getting a ticket for going 3 mph over the speed limit is an annoyance, it is not an infringement on your liberty. It's to protect the kids who are in that school zone. That's more important than your "right" to go a little faster, as far as I'm concerned, and an important value to hold onto in most societies.

Pulling me over for going 3mph over is not protecting any children. There would still be rules like speed limits enforced around school zones, they would simply be set by the owner of the roads. If the speed were set too high and a child were killed. The owner of the road would likely be sued for having an unsafe roadway.

Quote from: ThinkAnarchy

QuoteYou have an extreme faith in the ability of the free-market to fix everything. Who's going to tackle the inevitable corruption that always pops up in said free markets?

Because the free-market does fix problems when given the time.

This is such a huge assumption. It's the basis for pretty much all of your arguments.

Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on April 03, 2012, 08:15:49 PM

Quote from: ThinkAnarchy

QuoteYou have an extreme faith in the ability of the free-market to fix everything. Who's going to tackle the inevitable corruption that always pops up in said free markets?

Because the free-market does fix problems when given the time.

This is such a huge assumption. It's the basis for pretty much all of your arguments.

This lecture provides some information as to how it isn't a huge baseless assumption. But yes, a basis for this philosophy is that the free-market is better able to correct problems as opposed to government. I don't have a whole lot of time right now, but here is a good video about free-market facts and fallacies.

It starts off a little slow, but picks up speed at around the 10:00 minute mark.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=bwEcH7HGSZY

And here is more info about the speaker.
http://www.tomwoods.com/about/

Yeah, that's really what it comes down to. I just don't believe that the free-market is a cure-all for every problem, for reasons I've already cited.
Anyway, we've clearly agreed to disagree at this point. Thank you for presenting your arguments and being willing to defend them in this way. As many people have noted, such discussions on the internet are not usually so civil.

Quote from: ThinkAnarchy on April 03, 2012, 08:40:48 PM

Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on April 03, 2012, 08:15:49 PM

Quote from: ThinkAnarchy

QuoteYou have an extreme faith in the ability of the free-market to fix everything. Who's going to tackle the inevitable corruption that always pops up in said free markets?

Because the free-market does fix problems when given the time.

This is such a huge assumption. It's the basis for pretty much all of your arguments.

This lecture provides some information as to how it isn't a huge baseless assumption. But yes, a basis for this philosophy is that the free-market is better able to correct problems as opposed to government. I don't have a whole lot of time right now, but here is a good video about free-market facts and fallacies.

It starts off a little slow, but picks up speed at around the 10:00 minute mark.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=bwEcH7HGSZY

And here is more info about the speaker.
http://www.tomwoods.com/about/

I know the principles behind a Laissez-faire market. "Invisible hand" and all of that, but I just don't buy it and I don't think that our actual experiences with capitalism point that way. You claim that our capitalism troubles come from Government intervention and not from capitalism itself which, again, I just can't agree with.

I feel like we're going in circles a bit  :-\ So I'll withdraw (again. for now.  :P)

Quote from: ThinkAnarchy on March 30, 2012, 09:28:44 PM

Quote from: Non Sum on March 30, 2012, 09:10:32 PM
 On your presentation, an unqualified thumbs up, TA! Thank you.

As a libertarian, I agree with a lot of it, but the "anarcho" element leaves too much trust to individual responsibility for my taste.  Minimal government: yes. But no organized government at ALL?  Nope.  Leaves a vacuum, with random human nature (often falling to the LCD (lowest common denominator)) inevitably filling it.

I started out like that as well, but than I started thinking about how America was founded. It was founded on small government principles, and look at it's current state over 200 years later. I like the idea of small government, but can't see it every staying small. The same pattern very well may repeat itself from anarchy, but it would hopefully take longer than a starting point of limited government.  :)

This just makes me want to cry. First of all, you make the assumption that the USA is the best country, and second you make the assumption that it was because of small govt principles. THINK CRITICALLY MAN. First of all, the USA is miles behind other countries in a LOT of ways. Give Japan twice the land they own now and they are suddenly the world's ultimate power, that is BECAUSE of their large amount of social control and structure, not despite it. Second of all, the USA had many, MANY large government principles. What brought this country to a lot of greatness was partly due to the Fed through the mid-later 1900's. It was also just due to, ya know, stumbling upon a mostly ungaurded continent-sized country with vast resources and two oceans of water that prevented it from getting its infrastructure destroyed during wars, that which happened very regularly all throughout Asia and Europe...

If you really think all of that isn't a million times more of the reason for any success the US scrounged up, and moreso because of robber-barons which caused the great depression in the first place, then you really need a revitalized education. You shouldn't believe all the right wing propaganda you come across. It's best to ignore any and all subjective claims and focus on objective facts.

Also, the non-aggression principle is a moral nightmare to me. If you live in country X and have a neighbor who owns the only nuke in the world, and an asteroid is heading towards country Y, I think it is that neighbors responsibility to save the other country. If he refuses due to prejudice or whatever, I believe it is morally necessary and even somewhat righteous to invade his house with an SMG, kill him, and launch the nuke to kill the asteroid.

If you are walking in the wilderness and find a man trapped in a deep hole, it is your moral duty to save him and not walk away and avoid calling for help. You should be held for negligence if you do that. Aggression/force/coercion/etc are NOT inherently bad in any way shape or form. They are neutral things; the end result is the only thing that matters. Subjectivity should be cut through. In my experiences, the main thing that leads to Libertarianism is the belief in free will, the hopeless illusion that people actually have control in their lives. Every last thought/belief/action/behavior is predetermined in a myriad of ways. For each one individual, there is only one possible outcome given their situation. What's true for one is not true for all. A person left to their own devices will never change. No one accomplished anything on their own, all the success from those like Einstein, Bill Gates, etc? Their minds were shaped 100% by the societies they live in, they owe it all to them. An individual is responsible for nothing.

Sorry, but my cognitive Psychology bias tends to leak out with anger. It just annoys me when people are so arrogant and fall for such illusions of control in life. As the quote goes "too many people are born on third base and go through life thinking they hit a triple."

To further demonstrate the basis for my rebuttal:

Assume you are not born yet, but you have a great deal of empirical facts about reality. Now say that you need to vote for laws in a new country, a new country that you will be born into. You do not know *who* you will be born as. So for example, if you vote against women's rights, you *could* be voting against yourself. Only a fucktard would vote against things like gay marriage because they do not yet know how they will develop as a person when they are born in this illustration.

I think the problem a lot of people have is that they think people who work, or who get rich, actually did something from their own merit.
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-richmerit.htm

This very simple, basic myth-busting article just hits the tip of the iceberg in terms of how much luck is involved to live a good life. Nothing you do in life is through your own merit. Have a good job now? Okay, now say you were born in Africa for the first five years of life, then learned English and came here. Still think you would be in the exact same position in life? Your thoughts are all pre-determined with foreknowledge. Your thoughts are a product of what society has put into you.

Individuals cannot change who or what they are without *external* factors going into them. For example, say you decide to read a self-help book in order to deal with a problem you are facing. You likely bought the book because someone brought up the idea that you need help, and you may be receptive to self-help books for other variables throughout your life. Now you are reading this book, and you decide to change some aspects of your behavior to become more successful. But wait a minute, you wouldn't even have the OPTION to change at all if it wasn't for a great deal of people in society to put the book together and advertise it. Furthermore, how *receptive* you are to changing is not a part of "you" either, but is ALSO due to the causal chain that makes up who you are. If you have had experiences and variables that are not conducive to using a self-help book as a guide, then you are less receptive to taking its advice.


I cannot even possibly go into all the messiness and details that come from analyzing a simple choice or decision such as those outlined above. But what should be clear is that there is no free will. Now you might say "well I still think the rich should be rich and the poor should suffer." And that's what I will call the naturalistic fallacy.

The implications of all this? Science demonstrates rather clearly that individuals cannot and should not be responsible for themselves. Group responsibility is the only way changes will ever occur. I also believe in utilitarianism as my basis for morality over non-aggression. Utilitarianism is logical and based on objective facts. N-A is based on subjective wishes which may even come back to harm the individual! Objective facts are always there and they will stay the same from person to person. Subjective wishes change from person to person, and how you developed that interest is through your experience. Subjectivity should never be heralded over objectivity. End results matter more. Most atheists are liberal because of their scientifically-guided minds. I know how people like you think, my dad is identical to you more or less. Atheist, doesn't believe in climate change, only believes in the science he likes such as evolution, thinks all coercion is evil etc. This attitude is derived from subjectivity. And guess what, my dad disbelieves in God for subjective reasons, not objective, empirically-guided ones. It's very childish. You shouldn't try to assert a position based on feelings of discomfort with anything. It leads you to seeking confirmation bias such as believing conspiracy theories like "climate change is fake" or "supply-side economics work." A lot of things that may sound reasonable to your intuitive mind are actually the exact opposite of reality. I am an atheist but I have more of a beef with people who think intuitively instead of logically. Make no mistake, that leads to religion. But religion is the least of my concerns, the disastrous policies from right-wing politicians are what can harm us all, simply because it sounds true to their intuition. Sigh, if only everyone was required to take a few years in cognitive Psych before being allowed into politics.


I think a good video to watch that doesn't even play into politics, but is more about science (which I know libertarians don't care much for, but he's an atheist).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mm2Jrr0tRXk

Quote from: NatsuTerran on April 09, 2012, 11:58:42 PM

Quote from: ThinkAnarchy on March 30, 2012, 09:28:44 PM

Quote from: Non Sum on March 30, 2012, 09:10:32 PM
 On your presentation, an unqualified thumbs up, TA! Thank you.

As a libertarian, I agree with a lot of it, but the "anarcho" element leaves too much trust to individual responsibility for my taste.  Minimal government: yes. But no organized government at ALL?  Nope.  Leaves a vacuum, with random human nature (often falling to the LCD (lowest common denominator)) inevitably filling it.

I started out like that as well, but than I started thinking about how America was founded. It was founded on small government principles, and look at it's current state over 200 years later. I like the idea of small government, but can't see it every staying small. The same pattern very well may repeat itself from anarchy, but it would hopefully take longer than a starting point of limited government.  :)

This just makes me want to cry. First of all, you make the assumption that the USA is the best country, and second you make the assumption that it was because of small govt principles. THINK CRITICALLY MAN.

Are you serious. Where did I make the assumption the U.S. is the best country? If you had read the things I have said, you would realize I think the U.S. is a very shitty country. With that, the second assumption is invalid as well. I simply said it was founded on some small government principles. Seeing as you seem to have based your response on assumptions I have not made, I see no reason to even read further.

As for the others, I have been taking a break from this thread, but am planning to respond to one or two on Tuesday.

I just think it's inconceivably sad that you are poor and have bought the lies that think-tanks push out to further their selfish agenda. Libertarianism makes things worse for everyone except those born into success. Looking at things strictly objectively, all of their policies are total lies that will make things worse. And yes, the government SHOULD restrict you from doing things that you may think you are intelligent enough to make your own decisions on. Risk/reward should not be a part of life when there are serious objective consequences.

How would you raise a child? I just imagine you saying "Son, go to school and try your hardest, if you don't do well then you will be quite miserable 15-20 years in the future." That's bullshit parenting. Control is a must. I'm an Asian parent and I will instill good habits into a child that will lead to OBJECTIVELY good results. One must always remember that your own subjective values are irrelevant. Control is irrelevant, the objective end result is all that matters. No individual ever chose a thing. People are molded by their circumstances. It is up to society to correctly implant proper behaviors that lead to objective well-being for all.

ThinkAnarchy

This must be taking up heaps of your time.
You have been making a great effort thus far.

I don't think you have won anyone over though,

Like me they are all scared of this concept, worried for the poor. Poor people often group together in poor neighborhoods, they won't have rich neighbors to pay for infrastructure, no police, no fire service, no waste management, no hospitals, no schools, no welfare support.
Also scared of the rich, whom can buy the justice they want, whom can own the courts, the police, the good schools, the neighborhoods and whom can push all small businesses out of operation as they build their lucrative monopolies.

I know you have tried to explain to us how this won't happen, but I struggle to see anything but this happening. I do not have faith that people will be charitable and throw money into the poor neighborhoods. I don't have faith that the rich won't look to dominate and accumulate all the wealth and control all that they can afford.

Anyway, please don't go to any effort to address this post of mine. If I thought this was a worthy candidate to explore further I would go to the wealth of resources on the internet so as not to drown you further in this discussion.

My current position is that an-cap is scary. If it picks up momentum in my society then I may reconsider trying to understand it. It is just too hypothetical and too scary right now.

Quote from: NatsuTerran on April 10, 2012, 01:02:19 AM
I just think it's inconceivably sad that you are poor and have bought the lies that think-tanks push out to further their selfish agenda.

I would like to know what think-tank you are referring to. I would imagine this is another incorrect assumption. However, if you are referring to a think tank like Cato, or a magazine like Reason, you would yet again be incorrect. Those groups are worthless at best.

QuoteLibertarianism makes things worse for everyone except those born into success. Looking at things strictly objectively, all of their policies are total lies that will make things worse. And yes, the government SHOULD restrict you from doing things that you may think you are intelligent enough to make your own decisions on. Risk/reward should not be a part of life when there are serious objective consequences.

How can you say that risk/reward should not be a consideration where there are serious consequences? Everything you do, every decision you make, is based on this. Whether to open a business, get an advanced degree, or have children. These all have serious consequences. Should someone make ALL decisions for you?

QuoteHow would you raise a child? I just imagine you saying "Son, go to school and try your hardest, if you don't do well then you will be quite miserable 15-20 years in the future." That's bullshit parenting. Control is a must.

Again, I am confused. This is basically what happens now. Children and parents have basically no choice but to follow this path. Even if a child goes to school and does great they are not guaranteed a successful career. I am not saying that it is a bad route, but how can you say that this is the only option people should have? Besides, there are many highly successful people like the late Steve Jobs and Bill Gates that did not finish school, and far surpassed the successes most college graduates will ever achieve. I think going to school should be an option. If at 12 a child wants to learn computer programing, they should have the option to apprentice with a computer programer to learn the business first hand. Or watch free online tutorials as I'm doing now.

Control of a child is not a must. If anything that is highly destructive. Children need to learn how to take care of themselves as early as possible. Total control produces a child that cannot think for themselves and always needs someone to tell that what to do. These children will never run and own successful businesses or create new and unusual products. I'm sure there are exceptions, but the most important job of a parent is to teach a child how to survive on their own.

QuoteI'm an Asian parent

Well I'm German-American. Not sure how our races place a role in THIS conversation.

Quote...and I will instill good habits into a child that will lead to OBJECTIVELY good results.

What if the child would have to do something highly immoral, like fraud in order to produce these so called objective results? So, how do you subjectively define objectively good? No matter what, your SUBJECTIVE values must be used in order to define what you believe to be objectively good.

QuoteOne must always remember that your own subjective values are irrelevant. Control is irrelevant, the objective end result is all that matters.

Everything in your daily life is based on subjective value. There is no such thing as objective value. Individuals value things differently. I may think that it is stupid to buy a home, while you may believe it is a good investment. I think buying a pair of designer shoes is a waste of money, you may think that the price is nothing compared to the status symbol. Perhaps you think a private school education is worth the money while I may think that home school is the way to go. These are all subjective values. Again, whose subjective values are you basing your objective values on?

Please lay out what values you subjectively believe are objective.

QuoteNo individual ever chose a thing.

So you choose nothing in your life? Not how to discipline your children, what you will eat for dinner tonight, or what outfit you will wear? Maybe this is an unfinished thought, but by looking at it, I don't think I need to hear the rest of it to call it banal.

QuotePeople are molded by their circumstances.

Again this is subjective because all our experiences are different. 

QuoteIt is up to society to correctly implant proper behaviors that lead to objective well-being for all.

So, who makes up societies values? Perhaps I think your command and control manner of raising children is destructive. What if society as a whole wanted to correct those implanted behaviors?

There's not one single thing you quoted that actually even comprehends my position. I really feel like I'm talking to a wall. You're just like a theist in your misunderstanding of determinism. Know that there is quite a bit of scientific evidence for it.

And no, I HIGHLY disagree that a child should be taught to take care of themselves as early as possible. No one can truly take care of themselves in every aspect of life. A child should not be allowed to just drop school and do what they want. Are you that immature? They don't have the cognitive maturity to truly know what is best for them. You are in fact the perfect testament to liberalism, that even adults do not know what is ultimately best for them. How on earth are businesses run in Asia? Oh my. By Asian parenting I meant strict and disciplined. Apparently there are no businesses in Asia. Oh wait, Asia is extremely prosperous right around now. Teaching a child to take care of themselves is irrelevant. Societies should take care of societies. Everyone does what they can. Hard work should be rewarded, not demanded.

I'm sorry to say but a lot of your ideas on parenting and human nature are extremely farfetch to someone like me who studies Psychology. People aren't going to turn into lazy bums when there are safety nets and societal supports, they actually start working harder. Authoritative parenting isn't going to have negative side effects; your kids will be thanking you when they are older. If I had it my way I would have dropped out of high school at 17 to become a "pro-gamer." There's your individual choice. Where does society get its knowledge and expertise? By society itself: Individuals working together is not a group of individuals. It creates an entirely new entity by bouncing ideas off each other. Everything you have ever known and learned comes from someone else.

The children that are the least likely to think for themselves are those granted too much freedom. Thinking for yourself doesn't even entail anything. What does that even mean from a psychological standpoint? Japanese are group people and they don't just accept things without thinking about them. I'm sorry but a stern education will solve all the problems of our world in my opinion. We wouldn't even be having this conversation if you had one.

And no, everything can be considered objective. There is nothing subjective going on that is necessary other than our basic moral goals for humanity. Watch the Sam Harris video I posted above for a complete rundown.

Quote from: NatsuTerran on April 10, 2012, 05:31:37 AM
There's not one single thing you quoted that actually even comprehends my position. I really feel like I'm talking to a wall. You're just like a theist in your misunderstanding of determinism. Know that there is quite a bit of scientific evidence for it.

I quoted your exact post. Don't expect further responses. I will limit my responses to those intelligent enough to discuss this like FireBird, Stevil, TooFewLions and every other individual who has responded. You are clearly a fucking idiot though, and I will not waste anymore time on you.

Tank, Whitney, or another mod feel free to warn me or give me a temporary ban, but I can't deal with idiots who think they are intelligent.

Added: Sorry for making your job harder Tank, but my response is staying up unless someone with authority decides to delete it.

(A warning (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/index.php?topic=9620.msg164560#msg164560) has been issued to ThinkAnarchy for violation of the civility rule.
-- Recusant)

I'm the idiot? Wow, what a twisted world you live in. Your mind is clearly already made up about this. I came into politics with a completely free head and libertarian parents. My knowledge and expertise on human nature made short work of just about every right wing claim I then encountered.

If I'm getting flustered, it's due to the sheer arrogance of a person who thinks they can put forth some seemingly new system that destroys the status quo, and they have absolutely no doubts in their mind that it will be objectively better for all of us. I'm not going to lie, I have anger issues when people don't have the same knowledge background as I do. It's okay to ask questions; it's not okay to make up your mind about a drastic change due to an intuitive bias against a vital system and then seek confirmation bias from other such asshats who have not a shred of objective evidence any of it works. That's called religion.

Your only qualm about "control" in the other post was that people don't think for themselves or can't run a business or something. Seriously? I'm sorry but I believe in a group effort. Individuals should NOT be making choices in their lives where there is pre-existing knowledge and expertise that serves as a foundation. People should know when to listen to others and expand upon that frontier once they get up to a certain level.

Let me guess, you're one of those people who goes to a boxing class, gets told you are punching incorrectly, and then continues to punch like a tard because it simply feels more comfortable/powerful to you. We have an established system for boxing that dates back hundreds of years. What I hate is the arrogance that you, someone that can just step up and think that you have new and better ideas about how to punch than the millions of people who became experts through both experience and theory in the past. Humans are social animals and must build their knowledge from others, not try to re-learn every mistake everyone has ever made. That's my issue with your take on parenting. Experience is mightily expensive. Individuals should not be put in a position to have to learn things for themselves. If I am to start a business I don't have to be able to "think for myself" whatever that means. I'm not the first person in existence to start a business. I would get educated and become familiar with the longstanding knowledge and expertise on how to run a business. You seem to be making it out like everyone should just try to learn everything from experience. Society will get nowhere with a mentality like that. All of humanity's success comes from the strength of a collective conscious that knows it needs to take advice of other people and step the fuck down in any area they are not an expert. When I was a kid/teen I knew I didn't know anything about politics, and I didn't say a word or make a value judgement about anything. Even during my learning process I had serious reservations about committing to any side until the vast majority of facts were uncovered.

But then here you are, wanting to learn the same experience firsthand what our ancestors learned before societies were invented. These things were invented out of necessity. Liberalism has won its battles so thoroughly that people forget why they were waged in the first place.

Oh and you keep getting stuck on "values." We are essentially speaking different languages, which is why I'm done here. You seem to only think small picture whereas I can only see big picture. There is a clash between subjective values and interests versus objective well-being. Objective well-being is what is truly good for everyone once all values are stripped away. We implant values onto people so they should not be glorified. For example, say a person likes hard drugs. Now, their subjective interest in the activity is in direct conflict with the objectively negative results. They may deem it worthy as you seem to based on "risk/reward." But anyone in their right mind that only had objective facts and was stripped of subjective values would clearly see how destructive and pointless this is. Now, are hard drugs *necessary* for people to live a happy life? Of fucking course not. People have plenty of interests and values that do not bring with them serious objective consequences. But what is true for one is not true for all. So this person can likely not change and lower their standard of living because of addiction. They are now trapped in objective suffering either way you look at it. If, after they die, they could look back and rethink life, they will almost certainly choose to live a more risk-free life. To say otherwise is to suggest that people who do drugs are having more "fun" than people who do sports or paint or have any other activity. But this is not true, what you don't know you don't know. Even if certain things were better, it is best left untouched if it leads to serious objective consequences. Notice I say *serious* consequences. I'm not saying junk food should be banned because it makes you fat.

This brings up the issue of what to do with those who are already trapped in a cycle. We obviously can't ban things that people are already dependent on. The goal should be to coerce future generations into leading better lives. Another example, taken from the Harris video, is that of a native girl who is ecstatic about being sacrificed, probably for a religious reason. She personally values her choice, but it is objectively harmful. There is a clash there. What I am saying is that subjective values must almost always be trampled in favor of objective well-being. To say otherwise is to think in your shoes and your shoes only. Again, imagine yourself a person who is not yet born. You are stripped of values but objective facts are always there. Would you want to be born in a native society that will brainwash you into liking the value of sacrificing yourself? Since you have no preconceived values, there is ONLY a negative to this situation, and not a positive. This is how I feel everyone should think. I like video games for instance, but if there was some objective harm that video games did to society that carried serious consequences (besides making some people fat and lazy) then I would be the first to discard my interest in favor of another. Would I be upset at first? Of course, but I am smart enough to know that once I get comfortable in a new position in life, then I will not miss the past.

Now obviously, our subjective interests are what make life worth living, you may retort. What I am getting at is that our subjective interests do not arise out of thin air. I didn't learn to like video games just because, I was given them at age 4 to play with. The hypothetical native girl didn't just "choose" to enjoy her religion of self-sacrifice, she was born into that. I'm sorry if I haven't made myself clear. I just assume most atheists know what I'm talking about when I rail on the notion of free will. But our subjective interests are implanted in us by society at large. It should be up to society to encourage interests that do not carry negative objective repercussions, rather than just allow people to fall into traps. Seen in this light, nothing is voluntary because our very thoughts and interests are not of our choosing, but of random chance.

Now think, if you are that preconceived person that will be born in the future, ask yourself: Where would you want to be born in the world? Strip away all of the things that make you who you are. Think of humanity as all equals, we are all one. I don't think anyone who honestly does this exercise will choose to live in the middle east for one thing. Now a person who is already brainwashed to appreciate their values may think it is a great place to be, but that's because those values are already implanted. I'm asking to remove these values to see what is truly best for everyone. This is the basis for morality that Sam Harris talks about. He calls it something like the "worst possible suffering for everyone." In which we are to assume objective suffering for everyone's conscious mind that can be applied to all of us.

The reason I ask to remove subjective values should be obvious, but if not, it is because these things are not necessary before the fact. When you have a child you can mold them into whatever you want them to be. To do otherwise and allow them perfect freedom is NOT allowing them to "choose for themselves.'' There is no such thing! If they are not influenced by you, they will be influenced by other prominent figures in their environment. So by neglecting to use control and force you are in essence glorifying nature. Glorifying that people who are ill-equipped in certain areas of life should suffer the consequences, glorifying that people who make simple mistakes should suffer. I guess the gist of what I'm saying is that it is a fact that people are ultimately in control of other peoples' lives, but not their own. We like to think we are in control of our own lives, but it is a well-documented illusion. It's like the glass ceiling for the poor worker. He is but a wage slave, committed to working 40-50 hour weeks and all he can show for it is bread on the table. The republicans tell him "look, you can be rich too! Look at Joe Blow over there, he was in your position and he made something of himself!" But it is disingenuous. You aren't Joe Blow, you don't have the same brain as he does, nor the same experiences. Therefore, you CAN'T pull off what some "rags to riches" story pulled off. There is only one possible truth for every individual.

We have two options. We can either glorify nature, glorify natural selection which is inherently wasteful and has none of the compassion that we have. Or, we can treat nature as something that needs controlling. I believe nature is here for us to overcome, not worship. Humans are rewriting the rules of natural selection with their modern, first world societies. This has numerous benefits. For one thing, by not allowing people to be killed off or inhibited by otherwise avoidable things, we are dramatically increasing the talent pool of our society to go into a variety of fields and make life more comfortable for all of us. Just throwing your hands up and letting people be free may sound nice at first glance, but when that freedom inhibits objective well-being, it's sickening. I don't believe people should act like children and glorify their interests over objective well-being. There are many times in everyone's life where they have been stubborn about something and then later found out they were wrong and wished someone was there to force them otherwise. Even my dad, at this time in his life is still so immature as to not realize when he needs to go to the doctor. He could have died to a type of cancer if my mom did not coerce him into going. Freedom is a horrible, horrible thing to glorify. It is entirely neutral in essence. Freedom can lead to good results just as likely as it can lead to bad ones. The end results are what truly matter, not our subjective interests.

Edit: And just to clarify, I'm not encouraging in any way a total militant trampling of people's subjective values and interests. I simply say that there is an objective morality, based on utilitarianism/consequentialism which is based on our conscious experience. Sam Harris goes into detail on this notion. What I am seeing is that there is a spectrum of morality based on this concept, and we are neither totally perfect in our well-being or totally imperfect. We are along the continuum. Now, I am saying that societies should attempt to move towards that side of the spectrum that carries more objective well-being, and not just let life sit wherever it is and glorify the nature of the situation. So I'm not saying to go out and kill/jail people with abhorrent subjective interests, but rather to promote education and hope to ourselves that their ideas die off with them and do not gain a foothold in the newer generations. It's a slow process. I am not militant in imposing my idea of morality on others, but I simply believe in education and wishing for the best in my society to follow those values. It is obviously hypocritical to my moral foundation to trample currently integral subjective interests that in essence "kill" the individual. That is a form of objective suffering too, in some cases. But it is also true that in many cases subjective interests are quickly forgotten when they are gone for over a month or two. People don't clutch onto things, they find new interests and modes of life. It's all a case by case basis in this regard.

NatsuTerran, I understand that you feel passionately about this, but there's no reason to get aggressive/personal. Nearly everyone else who has posted here (myself included) have disagreed with ThinkAnarchy on many points, but everyone has kept it pretty civilized. I'm not a mod, so you can take what I say with that in mind, but most of us like keeping things civil here.

EDIT: Ermm, it looks like some of the posts have changed since the last time I looked and a lot of the inflammatory things have been removed. But yeah. Um. I'll still leave my two cents here. 

Quote from: ThinkAnarchy on April 10, 2012, 05:55:26 AMTank, Whitney, or another mod feel free to warn me or give me a temporary ban, but I can't deal with idiots who think they are intelligent.

Noted. You are hereby given an official warning. In the future, please refrain from using abusive language when addressing a fellow member of this site. You apparently edited your post, but did not delete the epithet ("idiot") in question. You may think that shows honesty, but to me it shows that even after consideration, you chose to violate the civility rule. I have no choice but to give you a warning.

Quote from: Anne D. on April 03, 2012, 03:38:02 AM
Thanks for the response, TA. I think there are aspects of our society and legal system that you are taking for granted as being present in your anarcho-capitalist society that would not be present unless you specifically provided for them in law. Also, there are some things you are presenting as almost understood or givens when, in fact, they won't be unless you specifically provide for them in law.

Sorry for the long delay in a response. I needed to take a break from this thread, it was starting to get boring. Also thanks to those of you who are able to accurately pinpoint my assertions, or at least logically lay them out so I can refute it, rather than assuming an "anarchist" thinks the U.S. is the best country in the world, and than accuse him of twisting your words when he quotes your post in it's entirety.

Quote
It sounds like this society would need a mammoth body of civil law, especially contract law. Otherwise, the private courts would have nothing to base their decisions on. You'd also have to have some body of law setting out what constituted a private police force, what constituted a private court, and what powers they would have.

Quote
You don't need a big body of law when it comes to contracts. If both individuals signed the contract, they must abide by what the contract says. If they break the contract, they are in violation. Quite simple.

Their basis would simply be that of initiation. If I steal you're car because you refuse to pay me $25,000 you owe me, the court would likely uphold my theft as being just. You were the one who initiated the problem by refusing to pay me what you owe.

The only problem that would arise, and I'm unsure how it would be handled, is when can an individual sign a contract? A six year old child should not be required to abide by a contract he signed, but I'm not sure how age of majority would be determined.

Quote
You're going to need more than contract law. "Just" making vigilantism legal will require a set of laws to set out things like the following:
--what acts would allow for vigilantism. Huge, thorny legal issues there, e.g., questions like what constitutes rape/murder, is payback still okay if it's a payback violent act for an act that was itself payback. "Rape" is only "rape" in the U.S. legal system because there's a statutory definition of "rape." You've stated there wouldn't really be such a thing as criminal law in your society, but in order to sue for things like wrongful death or allow for vigilantism, you're going to need to define terms like "manslaughter," "murder," and "rape" somewhere. Without it being set out that "manslaughter" = [specific legal definition], there is nothing for a "court" to base a decision on.
--who has standing to commit an act of vigilantism (immediate family members only?, extended family?, anyone?)
--how long do you have to take your revenge (if you wait several years is that still legal, does it depend on the violent act you're avenging)

If you think these types of things will just be "understood," I think you're being extremely unrealistic.

You don't need laws to determine these things. Courts would have their own legal definitions for all these crimes. If the population was not happy with their definition of rape, murder, or vigilantism, they would refuse to use that court. There would be competing legal definitions for some of these things and the free market would help decide what constitutes rape and murder for the grey areas.

Quote
-What entity would be responsible for drawing up that law in the first place, making changes to it, and maintaining it?

Quote
The courts would simply make their decisions based on the evidence and the societies views much like common law today. The body of law would be built up naturally with how the courts ruled. Since they are beholden to the people for clients, their would be much more control over the court system.

Quote
This shows a fundamental misunderstanding of our legal system.

You are correct, although it isn't due to ignorance of the law, simply my inability to word things correctly sometimes.

QuoteWhile there is some small room for subjectivity in interpretation of laws, our courts' decisions are not based on "society's views."

Again you are correct, and I have no clue what I was thinking when I typed that.

Quote
They are based on specific laws passed at the local, state, and federal level. In the U.S., interpretation of specific laws is not just built up haphazardly, an understanding of how a law is to be interpreted is hammered out as a legal case works its way up the system of courts, sometimes up to the Supreme Court. This works because we have a set hierarchy of courts.

I would say this is a terrible system though. We have statutory laws that seem good on paper, like criminalizing child porn, but then, due to the broadness of these laws, children themselves get charged with crimes. Some of these cases have been thrown out while other children have had to register as sex offenders. Stories like the one below happen because of the statutory laws.
http://articles.cnn.com/2009-04-07/justice/sexting.busts_1_phillip-alpert-offender-list-offender-registry?_s=PM:CRIME

Quote
A higher court's ruling and understanding of a law prevails over a lower court's ruling. In the society you've described, there will be no set hierarchy of courts (as having a set hierarchy of courts would require a government). Instead, you'll have a jumbled group of private "courts," none having more authority than the other.

There likely would be no set hierarchy of courts, but that is not to say they may not evolve naturally from the private system. I think it would be unlikely and maybe impossible, but I haven't looked into court systems too deeply. If both parties were to agree the ruling of the initial court is final, there would be no need for another to hear the case.

Quote
As I stated in my previous post, the only way for one of those private "courts" to be able to have any authority over another would be if the two parties with a case before the initial "court," agreed that if one of the parties disagreed w/ court A's decision, it could be "appealed" to court B. And just because John and Susan chose to have Nick's court be their initial court and Al's court be their "appeal" court, that would not prevent Pete and Brenda from having Al's court be their initial court and Nick's court be their "appeal" court. There would be no natural hierarchy of courts in the society you have described. Law would not "build up naturally," as you could have two different courts give completely contradictory rulings, and because there is no hierarchy of courts, neither decision would "stand" over the other.

Courts would likely rule in contradictory and unjust way's sometimes. This happens today in the lower levels. People don't have the freedom to choose one court over the other how ever. Based on Jurisdiction, they may have a few choices depending on where the act took place and the residence of the defendant, but all those courts are still owned by the same organization. The free market would decide which rulings are just. People would want courts were justice will be achieved and the defendant would want a court where he will receive a fair trial. Currently, if you get a judge on a bad day, you could be screwed with little to no recourse.

Quote
In the society you describe, if someone, say, murders your relative, you would seem to have the recourse of a) killing them (since you stated vigilantism would be legal) or b) paying a private court to hear your civil suit against the person.
-What would compel the person you were suing to appear before this private court? In other words, would anyone you chose to sue (even on faked or trumped up grounds) be required to appear before the private court you were paying to hear the case just because you'd sued them?

Quote
The court the victim brought the case too, would likely serve the accused much as they do today. If the accused failed to appear, the court would most likely be able to issue a Default Judgement, after hearing the side of the dispute that appeared. I'm also a supporter of loser pay's, in order to help prevent frivolous lawsuits. I imagine the private courts would do the same. We already see what happens when those who file frivolous law suits are not required to pay the other persons costs, it simply leads to more B.S. suits.

Quote
Things like this—allowing for "courts" to issue default judgments in cases where the accused does not show up—is a huge power to turn over to private courts. This is exactly the kind of power you would need to provide for and limit with law. Otherwise, nothing would prevent someone from constantly suing and being awarded default judgments. Again, if you think that somehow "common sense" would just naturally prevail and that private courts would not take advantage of their powers, I think that is unrealistic.

I really don't see why.
Here is a good video on a voluntarist society and how private arbitration could work. It's only 13 minutes, so it won't take to much out your day.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tE9dZATrFak&f

Obviously if the accused were unable to show up for a certain date, the courts should work with them to reschedule, but somebody refusing to appear, should not harm the victim. There would also likely be more options for how trials were carried out. You would also have more sites like this one, making it much easier for people to appear and provide their defense.
https://e-court.us.com/indexFIRST.php

Quote

Say that a person would be compelled to appear before any private court in which he'd had been sued.
-What if the person chose not to appear? Would a private police force be authorized to use force to take that person into custody and hold him until the trial? On what legal basis would the police force be allowed to do that?
I wouldn't say so, since it would be unjustified to kidnap a still innocent person. Others might disagree with me however. If the person were "forced" to appear in court and was guilty, their would be no foul. If the individual was innocent, however, he would seem to have a claim against the agency that grabbed him.

Quote
They would most likely serve the accused, and if he refused to appear, he simply would not be their to argue his case. If he felt he wasn't going to get a fair trial at the court the individual chose, they might have to agree on one, or possibly agree to let a mediator pick the neutral court. Or perhaps, if they have hired a protection agency, the two agencies would agree on a location.

Quote
If you plan to have a society in which private "courts" would be allowed to use force to compel an appearance, then that's a huge amount of power to turn over to a private company. If you plan to have a society in which private "courts" would not be allowed to use force to compel an appearance, then you're going to have to spell that out with a law. Once again, if you think that what's allowable is somehow just going to be understood, I would say that's highly improbable.

I don't think so. We don't need laws to know kidnapping is wrong. It could be argued that it would be justified to kidnap a murderer, but if they kidnapped an innocent person, the protection agency would be liable for that aggression. This is why I doubt private courts and protection agencies would resort to that.

Quote
-If you chose to go the vigilante route and killed the person, could that person's family then sue you?
I would imagine it would depend why you killed that person. If you thought he raped you're daughter, but it is later discovered he did not, than the killer should be liable for killing an innocent person. If the rape did occur, I can't imagine anyone would really care the rapist is now dead.  

Quote
If you want it to depend on "why" one person killed the other, then that's another thing that would need to be spelled out in law. If you want a person to be "liable" for vigilante killings that later turn out to be unjustified, then that's yet another thing that would need to be spelled out in law. To repeat, it's unrealistic to think that this would somehow just be "understood."

We don't need laws to know that killing is wrong. We also don't need laws that killing in self defense is justified. As for vigilantly killings, it would depend on the views of society. One court may view vigilantism as acceptable while another may not.

Lets say I belong to court A and you belong to court B. If both court A and court B view vigilantism as wrong, then there would be no dispute as to a court hearing a case on those grounds. If both courts viewed the issue differently, this would obviously cause some problems which I will have to research further. I remember reading before how could work fairly, but I don't remember where.

Quote
As others have stated, the society you describe sounds like one in which only those with money would have access to justice and safety. I don't see any protections for the poor or anything that would check the ability of well-financed private companies from running roughshod over the poor and powerless. Our justice system is imperfect, but it offers at least minimal protections and basic rights that are spelled out in law. A poor defendant is guaranteed some form of legal counsel and a means to appeal a judgment if there are grounds. I don't see even those basic protections in the society you've described.

The poor would be protected through contracts just as the rich would be. When the poor would be taken advantage of outside of contracts, as with violent crimes, it's in the societies best interest as a whole to seek justice. Just as people today don't accept serial killers when the simply target prostitutes, my society would not tolerate preying on the weak. I don't feel threatened by serial killers that don't target me or the ones I love, but it is still in my best interest for the perpetrator to be caught and justice to be served.

Quote from: Recusant on April 10, 2012, 07:21:56 PM

Quote from: ThinkAnarchy on April 10, 2012, 05:55:26 AMTank, Whitney, or another mod feel free to warn me or give me a temporary ban, but I can't deal with idiots who think they are intelligent.

Noted. You are hereby given an official warning. In the future, please refrain from using abusive language when addressing a fellow member of this site. You apparently edited your post, but did not delete the epithet ("idiot") in question. You may think that shows honesty, but to me it shows that even after consideration, you chose to violate the civility rule. I have no choice but to give you a warning.

I have to say, the red font really spices this thread up. ;D I will try not to allow people to bait me in the future, but I can't make any promises.

Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on April 10, 2012, 07:14:55 PM
NatsuTerran, I understand that you feel passionately about this, but there's no reason to get aggressive/personal. Nearly everyone else who has posted here (myself included) have disagreed with ThinkAnarchy on many points, but everyone has kept it pretty civilized. I'm not a mod, so you can take what I say with that in mind, but most of us like keeping things civil here.

EDIT: Ermm, it looks like some of the posts have changed since the last time I looked and a lot of the inflammatory things have been removed. But yeah. Um. I'll still leave my two cents here. 

I know, I'm usually pretty civil, especially in person. I want to apologize to TA first. I get really fired up on my position sometimes. It's mainly because I have a severe case of OCD which forces me to 1. Become absorbed in fact-hunts whenever people make spiritual/political claims, 2. Thoroughly think out my beliefs and even take them to extremes when they feel threatened, and 3. Become abusive towards others when they don't have knowledge that I have been through a dozen times.

This isn't just you TA, but other people in my life. I am currently in a med shift and the OCD fully returned. It may sound like I'm passing blame for my actions, but I'm really just explaining. Blaming does nothing, but hopefully by explaining myself you realize that it was not "me" flat out, but simply my circumstances. Sorry for being so offensive. And also, I apologize for giving you the warning. It was me who elicited the response. As a determinist, it was perfectly predictable and probabilistic that you would rise to my aggressiveness. I don't think you deserve the warning and hope the mods remove it, but if not I'm sorry.

I think I will stay away from threads like these, at least until my illness is more under control

Quote from: NatsuTerran on April 10, 2012, 09:11:31 PM

Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on April 10, 2012, 07:14:55 PM
NatsuTerran, I understand that you feel passionately about this, but there's no reason to get aggressive/personal. Nearly everyone else who has posted here (myself included) have disagreed with ThinkAnarchy on many points, but everyone has kept it pretty civilized. I'm not a mod, so you can take what I say with that in mind, but most of us like keeping things civil here.

EDIT: Ermm, it looks like some of the posts have changed since the last time I looked and a lot of the inflammatory things have been removed. But yeah. Um. I'll still leave my two cents here.  

I know, I'm usually pretty civil, especially in person. I want to apologize to TA first. I get really fired up on my position sometimes. It's mainly because I have a severe case of OCD which forces me to 1. Become absorbed in fact-hunts whenever people make spiritual/political claims, 2. Thoroughly think out my beliefs and even take them to extremes when they feel threatened, and 3. Become abusive towards others when they don't have knowledge that I have been through a dozen times.

This isn't just you TA, but other people in my life. I am currently in a med shift and the OCD fully returned. It may sound like I'm passing blame for my actions, but I'm really just explaining. Blaming does nothing, but hopefully by explaining myself you realize that it was not "me" flat out, but simply my circumstances. Sorry for being so offensive. And also, I apologize for giving you the warning. It was me who elicited the response. As a determinist, it was perfectly predictable and probabilistic that you would rise to my aggressiveness. I don't think you deserve the warning and hope the mods remove it, but if not I'm sorry.

I think I will stay away from threads like these, at least until my illness is more under control

No worries, and don't worry about the warning. I knew the consequences of my actions and judged the repercussions acceptable. I also don't hold grudges, but when someone initiates conversations in a hostile tone, I can't help but be hostile as well. Admittedly, some of my posts my have been condescending and/or antagonistic as well, if so I apologize too.

I thoroughly think out my beliefs as well. I believe most atheists do, at least most here on this forum and the ones in the intellectual sphere. Anarchy is not something I adopted overnight or accepted without a plethora of reading and research.

But, it's all good; don't worry about it.

Edit: I should mention I do in fact hold grudges, but not for minor things like this.

I would like to add one thing Anne D.

I bring up the porn laws quite a bit because I think it's unacceptable that they are used to target children sometimes. Aside from that however, the make the sex offender databases virtually useless. The point of the databases is to give parents an idea of who in their community are highly likely to attack their children. Again, this is great, but by forcing children to register as sex offenders because they received an unsolicited picture of another minor, is counter intuitive to the databases purpose. it simply increases the size of the databases with individuals who pose no logical risk to women or children.  

It goes even further than that though. Some states require you be submitted to the database for flashing and public urination. It could be a federal law, but I think it's up to the states. These crimes to not suggest the perp is a danger to women or children, yet their names may go in the database. Furthermore, from the research I've done in the past, many of these databases update the pictures of the perpetrators without giving the date the crime was committed.  You can have a picture of a 40 year old man who had sex with a 15 year old, but the crime took place when he was 19. That is hardly equivalent to a 40 year old having sex with a 15 year old.

These databases and laws, the way they are currently run, seem to do more harm than good.

Edit: It appears they now show the date of conviction on the sites, at least at familywatchdog.us. This is a very good thing, but just looking at the map, there are about 100 sex offenders in my old neighborhood. I know that can't be right. As a parent, it still would seem to provide very little service to me.

The one individual I clicked on was convicted of "computer aided solicitation of a minor" and "indecent behavior." That doesn't give a lot of information. Did the girl lie about her age? What was the girl or boys age? Soliciting a 6 year old for sex is far worse than soliciting a 17 year old. As a parent I still don't have enough information to determine if he would be an actual threat to my children.

TA, thanks for the response posts; the link to the video, which I did watch; and the other links. I think we'll probably just have to agree to disagree at this point. You seem to see a lot of things that I see as huge causes of potential conflict as just naturally working themselves out. I just don't have that much faith in human nature when people are placed in a legal vacuum.

QuoteQuote from me:
It sounds like this society would need a mammoth body of civil law, especially contract law. Otherwise, the private courts would have nothing to base their decisions on. You'd also have to have some body of law setting out what constituted a private police force, what constituted a private court, and what powers they would have.

QuoteQuote from ThinkAnarchy:
You don't need a big body of law when it comes to contracts. If both individuals signed the contract, they must abide by what the contract says. If they break the contract, they are in violation. Quite simple.

Their basis would simply be that of initiation. If I steal you're car because you refuse to pay me $25,000 you owe me, the court would likely uphold my theft as being just. You were the one who initiated the problem by refusing to pay me what you owe.

The only problem that would arise, and I'm unsure how it would be handled, is when can an individual sign a contract? A six year old child should not be required to abide by a contract he signed, but I'm not sure how age of majority would be determined.

QuoteQuote from me:
You're going to need more than contract law. "Just" making vigilantism legal will require a set of laws to set out things like the following:
--what acts would allow for vigilantism. Huge, thorny legal issues there, e.g., questions like what constitutes rape/murder, is payback still okay if it's a payback violent act for an act that was itself payback. "Rape" is only "rape" in the U.S. legal system because there's a statutory definition of "rape." You've stated there wouldn't really be such a thing as criminal law in your society, but in order to sue for things like wrongful death or allow for vigilantism, you're going to need to define terms like "manslaughter," "murder," and "rape" somewhere. Without it being set out that "manslaughter" = [specific legal definition], there is nothing for a "court" to base a decision on.
--who has standing to commit an act of vigilantism (immediate family members only?, extended family?, anyone?)
--how long do you have to take your revenge (if you wait several years is that still legal, does it depend on the violent act you're avenging)

If you think these types of things will just be "understood," I think you're being extremely unrealistic.

QuoteQuote from ThinkAnarchy (bolding mine):
You don't need laws to determine these things. Courts would have their own legal definitions for all these crimes. If the population was not happy with their definition of rape, murder, or vigilantism, they would refuse to use that court. There would be competing legal definitions for some of these things and the free market would help decide what constitutes rape and murder for the grey areas.

Yes, you could leave it up to the private courts to come up with their own definitions of "rape" and "theft," but these definitions wouldn't be "legal" definitions, as "legal" is defined as "of or established by law." And regarding "refusing to use" a court, as I've stated before, it's not at all clear how you're going to get someone who refuses to appear before a court to appear. I think there are lots of potential problems that are being glossed over with the "the free market will work it out naturally" argument.

I think we just see things very differently. I see a huge, unworkable mess with a lawless society. I don't think disagreements will just naturally work themselves out over time; I think they'll lead to the dissolution of the society. At the start of the video to which you posted a link, the narrator said that one had to start with four broad principles. My first reaction was, Why? It's all well and good to hope that everyone will subscribe to and abide by the four principles, but chances are that someone's not going to. You have faith in the free market somehow keeping that person in line; I don't. The solution to people not acting in good faith that was described in the video centered around elaborate private record keeping. Again, I think we just have different visions of how that would work out. I see catastrophe and complete social breakdown.

QuoteQuote from ThinkAnarchy:
I would say this is a terrible system though. We have statutory laws that seem good on paper, like criminalizing child porn, but then, due to the broadness of these laws, children themselves get charged with crimes. Some of these cases have been thrown out while other children have had to register as sex offenders. Stories like the one below happen because of the statutory laws.
http://articles.cnn.com/2009-04-07/justice/sexting.busts_1_phillip-alpert-offender-list-offender-registry?_s=PM:CRIME

I agree with you wholeheartedly that the legal and justice systems in our country are imperfect and do not always produce just results. And, yes, like you, I have huge issues with certain offenses meriting automatic inclusion on a sex offender registry. What I don't understand is how you get from point A, "our justice system is imperfect," to point B, "we should scrap that system entirely and replace it with . . . nothing." Baby with the bathwater and all.

I do not expect perfection from my government or from any government. Governments are created and run by humans. Our particular government in the U.S. has produced a relatively free society in which most have a decent standard of living, as have the other western democracies. In my view, the system you would replace this government with would produce a society in which people would be "free" in name only, with only the wealthy enjoying real freedom, and in which there would be huge disparities in standards of living, with a small percentage of wealthy and a large percentage of poor people and not many people in between.

Feel free to respond or not respond to this. As I said, I think we may just be at the "agree to disagree" point. I appreciate the time you've taken to respond to my previous posts.

popping my head in to check around as a mod...

Noticing that it is ironic that the claim is that objective values are better than subjective values yet still acknowledging that some societies have better objective values than others.  I would think that would mean that we ought to use our own freedom to evaluate values in order to determine if what society is telling us is right or not...it's the societies that suppress individual values that are still left culturally back in the dark ages. 

Or if that isn't what you meant to say....maybe you could reword it in a less rant-like way keeping in mind that when multiple people can't follow what you are saying it's usually not the audience's fault.

When I said objective values, I meant objective well-being. Things that every human being, when stripped of values, would appreciate. For example, the right to staying alive is an objective value. No rational person would question this, and the evidence is from a biological/evolutionary perspective that organisms have an interest in staying alive. If there were those that did not have such an interest, it would be due to cultural biasing that was implanted in the individual. Being born into a culture that treats you like shit, and brainwashes you to be treated poorly, is objectively bad. Once you are born in that culture, you have become brainwashed to appreciate it.

My overarching point is that all morality should be based on objective well-being because it can be applied to everyone. Subjective values are implanted into you at random by millions of external factors not of your choosing. I didn't choose to be atheist, I had atheist parents who taught me to think critically, and I encountered natural disgust in terms of encounters with other religious people thus bittering my attitude towards them. I didn't choose to play video games yesterday, it is perfectly predictable that *any* human being with the exact same life circumstances as me would exhibit the same behavior. Why? Well I like video games, why is that? Because I was raised an only child (no siblings to interact with, so I had to keep myself company), inherited genes that lend themselves towards being less sociable (I've had this change slightly as I get more exposure, but there's a sliding scale as to how good it can get), and I was given video games at the age of 4 and they were my primary means of staying occupied.

Absolutely ANYONE with that exact same life experience would be destined to exhibit this same behavior. It's rudimentary psychology. A lot of people get hung up on "well that guy did something else and he's just like you." This is not taking into account every possible factor. Real life is absurdly messy and impossible to account for all things. This is the basic premise of Chaos Theory. Everything, in essence, is perfectly predictable. However, because our minds cannot hold zillions upon zillions of facts of a person's history, genetic code, habits, etc. We cannot possibly predict exactly how every person will behave at any given time. But there are clues that are very deterministic. For example, it's almost obligatory during every conversation about "free will" that one person will jump out of their seat and start doing jumping jacks or something that no one could have seen coming. But don't you see how this itself is predictable? They don't exhibit this behavior when they are at their desk during work, thinking hard about what they are doing. They exhibit this behavior to affirm their sense of self control when it is being challenged. People's behavior is utterly predictable and we don't even need to account for that much stuff.

Back to objective well-being versus subjective values. I think it goes without saying that we need security and a clean, caring environment so that we can grow to be self-sufficient people, *before* we need any number of random freedoms that don't change a thing. Keep in mind that this is a cultural thing. Imagine two countries, one is very pacifistic, and the other is just like any other country today. The second country plays a combat sport much like Boxing, MMA, etc. The first country does not have combat sport culture. Is a martial art objectively harmful? Yes it is. Is it a total threat to society at large? Not by a long shot, but it is and can be harmful to the people who partake in it to varying degrees. So I want you to imagine a sliding scale for objective well-being. It starts at 0 and can drop to negative 100 (-100). It cannot be positive, (I would consider happiness to go up to positive 100). Now well-being and security is a must. How can you have freedom in any sense if you are inhibited or dead? Priorities need to be in line. This is where a lot of people get immature because their favorite "whatever" is questionable.

So let's look at our martial art in question. Now pain is pain. Assume that the art in question makes people unconscious and bloodied up on occasion, just like now. How do we rate this on our objective "pain/wellbeing" scale? I think the way to do it is to contrast the "worst possible suffering imaginable" which would be -100, with complete neutrality, which would be 0. I think it's pretty obvious, taking all the different kinds of suffering into account, that getting beat up every other week is pretty darn low on the list. The probability of catastrophe, say a broken arm or getting killed, are exceedingly low. So I'm going to kind of arbitrarily set the "misery index" at -12. It's not that bad at all considering the rarity of extreme pain.

Now, the next step is to confound the objective well-being net loss with the subjective gains that come from such a sport. Remember how we had two different countries? Well that country that does not have a value on combat sports is *only* going to see objective losses in the well-being department, but they will not see any sort of values being lost or infringed upon by disallowing it. The other country that values the sport would be outraged to hear that the sport needs banning. Starting to see how this is subjective now?

The objective well-being index applies to every human on the planet, unless for some reason a person was born to not experience pain or something. But I tend to ignore the anomalies because science is more about the overall big picture. Subjective values are just that, subjective. Even within the country that appreciates the combat sport, they would rank the freedom to participate in it in varying degrees. How are we to determine what the true value of the sport really is???

You can kind of see where I'm going with this now. I picked an example that is ridiculously difficult to defend. Most people like to pick the easy examples like "should people be allowed to murder." Anyways, we have the objective net loss of negative 12 on the well-being scale, now we need a subjective happiness scale. There are two sides to the yin yang. Life and the pursuit of happiness is only possible if our well-being and security needs are met. But a life worth living is based around subjective values. Politics is a balancing act of these two sides of the same coin. I value objective well-being more, just like I would rather be a housecat than a cat thrown in the rainforest. Sure, the forest cat is conceptually free, but in reality it is just a bunch of suffering. The housecat may have a multitude of freedoms infringed on, but they are irrelevant if they keep the cat safe. Safety comes first. You can't seek to better your life if you are inhibited by things. Hence: Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. In that precise order.

Back to our example, we now need a sliding scale for subjective happiness. Let's start it at 0, which is just simply existing with nothing going on, and end it at 100, a completely fulfilled life. Now how are we to go about putting a definite quality on the martial art? If we are to ask different people we would get different answers. Someone who makes their living off the sport and would have their entire life turned upside down if it were banned would rate the art as being 100. A casual spectator might rate it as 40-60, etc, etc. And also, the other society would all rate it as 0, completely unnecessary to live a happy life. This illustration is precisely why politics will go on forever. People are unable to distance themselves, for whatever reason, from their subjective perceptions of a life worth living. One person may have very low thresholds for excitement, and just the fact of existing is enough for them to get the most out of life. Another person may have a ludicrously high threshold for excitement, and they would need to engage in all sorts of risky and unnecessary behaviors just to enjoy themselves. These are subjective interests and they cannot be "right" or "wrong." I happen to be much closer on the tame side if you couldn't guess.

So what is the best way to determine what rights people should have? I think it is through societal consensus, or ballparking. Just ask everyone in that society how valuable the right is. Of course, you will get some inflated answers if you do it as so. This is kind of why we tend to vote in the modern world, so only one person counts for one. Otherwise everyone would be piling on the 100's and boxing would seem like a basic necessity to live, much like food and air. By coming to a consensus we can weigh the pro's and con's for the *average* society member. A lot of people don't like this idea, and I didn't either until I got passionate about science. But what is true for one is not true for all. In order to keep things reasonable and under control, we have to look at the general rule, the big picture. Thinking like an individual gets you nowhere because your thoughts are deposited to you by that same general society. They implant the thoughts into you in the first place. You'd be a different individual with even a slightly different society or genetic code.

So anyways, say we ballpark the vote for competitive sports, and it turns out that the value index is something like around 40-60. Keep in mind that even people who care not one bit about the sport generally tend to vote in agreement with it as a right. This is because they don't want to feel outcasted by their surrounding society, or it's just seen as too imposing for most people. The society that has no one engaging in the activity in the first place will likely feel less remorse.

So basically I took one sample, boxing, and asked the question, should it be a right? The society ballparked the happiness in the mid 50's, let's say, and the objective pain is comparatively miniscule. Not only that, but it is not something imposed on every person in society, but only those that want to do it. Factoring all this together, you have an efficient, albeit a little messy on the subjective side, measurement as for what should and should not be considered "rights." Play around with it a little. Plug "murder" into the equation and it will be universally banned. One thing I need to touch up on, because I know every right winger is pumping their fists, is how I mostly ignored that boxing is a choice. Well, as I will explain in my next paragraph, nothing is really a free choice. You may choose to do something that you think is fun, but why do you think it's fun? It is fun for a million different reasons due to your upbringing, genetics, social factors, etc. These things are ultimately out of our control, and thus so are our "wants," and thus so are our choices. While it is true that for this individual in particular, that they may feel the "urge" to do a certain behavior, we must ask the most quintessential question: Is this freedom NECESSARY? That is, while this individual may feel like their life is ruined by not having a right/freedom, just how bad is it from an objective standpoint? I can cite a thousand examples of just my own life in which I thought it would be the end of the world if I lost a certain something. What am I doing two weeks after losing it? Picking up and loving a new hobby, that's what. Obviously, in some cases this isn't possible for some individuals. People may have developed a physical dependency on something, such as drugs. But what I'm ultimately trying to say is, a great many things in our life may feel quintessential, but after losing them for a while, life goes on. If life, security, and well-being itself is being threatened by whatever it is we are giving up, then it stands to reason that we should get our priorities in line. I may be losing people at this point, but it makes more sense in my head. It's just my principle of the golden rule. If I was born(through upbringing/culture/etc.) into making objective mistakes with serious consequences, even though I enjoyed what I was doing subjectively, I would WANT other people to step in and guide me to a better life. I think anyone should agree with this, with the only exception being a misunderstanding of my "pre-birth" philosophy of choosing. I realize a lot of people simply hate to think of themselves as being "wired" to be certain someones, or that they feel they have control over their actions. The wishes to think so is much like religion, there is plenty of evidence to show that people naturally gravitate towards that line of thinking. We have a tendency to think of ourselves as the primary authors of our thoughts, as Harris says, but the evidence shows quite well that this just simply isn't the case.

But when thinking about any issue, you must make two societies or more. And picture yourself as an overseer that has not a trace of subjective value tied to you. The reason to do this is to cut through the bias. Many things might be rated much higher than they are or should be in reality. In short, people lie when they are immature. And it's indisputable that many people will be immature about losing something they enjoy. Another fun thing to take into account is to assume you aren't born yet, but have all the empirical facts of the cosmos at your disposal. You will be born in either one of the sample countries or the other. Now, knowing all that you know, and not having any subjective bias whatsoever, which country would you like to be born into? Would you like to be born in the middle east, where women have infringed rights? Probably not, because you might be a woman! Would you like to be born in a country where gay people are hated? Probably not, you might turn out to be gay. Taking things even further, it's important to realize, as with my video game example, that you should not consider things that are merely biological. All cognitive events must have a physical basis (Levy, D. Tools of Critical Thinking). There is no evidence for psychological events occurring without a biological basis. Because of this, it's important to think of not only the biological things that may befall you (and thus reject a society that does not respect this) but also consider the probabilities of interests you might develop in certain societies. For example, you're statistically more likely to be a criminal if you are born in an economically disproportionate society. It's strange for many people to think like this for some reason, but for me it's common sense and has neuroscience evidence and statistics to boot. But yes, think of yourself developing into certain characters that could *lead* to objective harm. It would be objectively harmful to be born in a society that produces plenty of criminal intents, because you could be jailed or killed after doing so. There is no free will to resist being a criminal when the circumstances are ripe. You would also appreciate not being born into a society that will teach you to sacrifice yourself for religious reasons. While you may love and enjoy dying for your God after the fact that you are born and brainwashed, when thinking about this from the "pre-birth" perspective, it's obvious that this likely not a positive society to want to be born in given the other options.

I find that not everyone can think critically like this, and the discussion is usually over at that point. It's like "how do you demonstrate the effectiveness, utility, and accuracy of science if the person has no respect whatsoever for science, logic, or critical thinking? How do you convince someone to think big picture when their brain is physically wired to avoid doing that? There's some evidence that people with smaller anterior cingulate cortexes are just destined to only see the small picture of things, holding a magnifying glass to all the problems of society and glossing over the big picture.

Quote from: NatsuTerran on April 11, 2012, 07:35:59 PM
When I said objective values, I meant objective well-being. Things that every human being, when stripped of values, would appreciate. For example, the right to staying alive is an objective value. No rational person would question this, and the evidence is from a biological/evolutionary perspective that organisms have an interest in staying alive. If there were those that did not have such an interest, it would be due to cultural biasing that was implanted in the individual. Being born into a culture that treats you like shit, and brainwashes you to be treated poorly, is objectively bad. Once you are born in that culture, you have become brainwashed to appreciate it.

I'm just going to stop you right here....obviously those cultures are not objectively bad, otherwise they wouldn't exist as everyone would know that they are bad and would quit supporting them.  They are subjectively bad in the mind of those who are ill treated and by those who are able to have empathy for the out group.  I don't really want to have to define the difference between objective an subjective but I think you aren't using them correctly.

I'll also caution you to stop implying or directly stating that those who don't agree with you must be stupid....it seems to be a common theme in the posts I've read of yours and isn't acceptable at HAF.

Also, if I may politely request this: I really enjoy reading posts in these threads. But if there would be any way for folks in general to break their posts up a little, or maybe limit a post to a few really key thoughts... that would be awesome. I know it's an issue of mine and nobody else's problem, but being faced with a solid wall of text to read can be really daunting. I also know sometimes, I tend to drag on way too long too, so I'll also work on limiting myself. Hope that request is fair enough to make.

Quote from: Whitney on April 12, 2012, 01:44:32 AM

Quote from: NatsuTerran on April 11, 2012, 07:35:59 PM
When I said objective values, I meant objective well-being. Things that every human being, when stripped of values, would appreciate. For example, the right to staying alive is an objective value. No rational person would question this, and the evidence is from a biological/evolutionary perspective that organisms have an interest in staying alive. If there were those that did not have such an interest, it would be due to cultural biasing that was implanted in the individual. Being born into a culture that treats you like shit, and brainwashes you to be treated poorly, is objectively bad. Once you are born in that culture, you have become brainwashed to appreciate it.

I'm just going to stop you right here....obviously those cultures are not objectively bad, otherwise they wouldn't exist as everyone would know that they are bad and would quit supporting them.  They are subjectively bad in the mind of those who are ill treated and by those who are able to have empathy for the out group.  I don't really want to have to define the difference between objective an subjective but I think you aren't using them correctly.

I'll also caution you to stop implying or directly stating that those who don't agree with you must be stupid....it seems to be a common theme in the posts I've read of yours and isn't acceptable at HAF.

I never said another culture itself is objectively bad. I've been saying:

1. well-being is an objective universal that applies to the conscious experience that we all have.
2. Some cultures definitively have more objective harm to their people than others.
3. None of these subjective values that *lead* to this are *necessary* for humans to live good, decent lives.

I don't know how to make it any clearer than that. I'm sorry that you feel I'm making a value judgement on other cultures. What I'm saying is more or less identical to what Sam Harris argues in the talk "Who says science has nothing to say about morality." So you could watch that if you still don't get it.

Again, I'm not trying to appear morally superior in any way. I never said other cultures should be destroyed or anything; I never even said that they were objectively bad so I don't know where you're getting this. All I said is that culture/action A causes B amount of objective distress. Sorry if I used negative terminology like "brainwashed," but I wasn't intending to be negative or feeling morally superior. In the same way I am "brainwashed" for my own subjective values, we all are. I don't see how you think I'm misusing the terms objective and subjective. It's an objective fact if an organism is suffering. It's subjective if you like _______ and it isn't necessary. All I'm saying is that well-being should be the basis for our morality, not glorifying cults that go against human rights. Nor should we go out and destroy them all, I personally just wish to myself for a better society in which people are more logical in their morals, but I do not hold a grudge or anything because I still know morals are relative.

I really don't know how to explain this any more that you can get it; you still seem to misconstrue a lot of my thoughts. The Sam Harris video is more or less me talking though. I was amazed when I watched it because this guy was basically on the same thought-plane as I was from start to finish.

Edit: I think I see the point in question about my post after reading it again. When I said being born into a culture that treats the people poorly, and that it is objectively "bad," what I mean is that this is an example of an infringement on objective well-being: That which can be applied to any human. Morality in my mind should be based around objective facts before we look at subjective values. Sometimes, subjective values will be permitted to override any objective pain (like the boxing example) because the objective pain is small, and the subjective value is overwhelming in comparison. I was simply trying to 1. Illustrate how all things in politics comes down to two sides of the same coin: "objective well-being vs subjective values." and 2. objective well-being is more pragmatic to focus on first, it should be the first priority because what is subjective value without a proper amount of well-being? Also, rules should be based on the commonality of people, what can be applied to everyone. Subjective interests cloud this, but should be weighed against well-being. They are still important, as they are what make life worth living, but when there is a clash of values here, I feel like it's ridiculous to glorify subjective values over objective well-being.

Security is more necessary than freedom. Person A may not like it, but at least they are alive. Person B doesn't mind, and of course they enjoy being alive. Freedom over security is self-defeating because you cannot seek a better life without basic security needs met. Freedom in and of itself is a *construct* that does not exist in objective reality. Some have argued in this very thread how an-cap makes a country seem "free" in name only, but it actually turns people into slaves. I couldn't agree more. The amount of free time a person has to waste from their lives to support a free market is absurd. It's the whole glass ceiling: People up top say "look at us! We made it!" But you simply can't get where they are due to circumstances. It's an illusion of freedom much like free will. You can make a case that *anything* is free, because freedom doesn't exist. For example, you can say that traffic laws, lights, stop signs, speed limits, etc etc are an infringement on your freedoms to drive how and where you want. But you could also say that you are more free with these in place because you are free to not need to worry about other dangerous drivers. If it was a hodgepodge of chaos on the road, we would need to drive slowly and be extremely vigilant of all things going on, perhaps need to purchase vehicles more prone to withstand crashes, it would be a paranoid mess. Freedom is violated in many facets of life no matter what or how you do things. It's the type of freedom that gets debated. I'd prefer the freedom from having to live my life to just go to work every day, make my money like a worker ant, return home and get like 2 hours of relaxing before I have to repeat the whole process, all to put bread on the table. This is an illusion of freedom. This is not a life worth living. Without free time, life is meaningless. Someone else might disagree, and claim that working is life itself. I think education is what life is all about. These are all subjective interests. As with the traffic example, you can make the case that any given thing is liberating or infringing on freedoms, just on what angle you choose to look at it.

So what are we to do? Focus on objective well-being as our basis. We obviously can't arbitrarily choose subjective values to be heralded. I feel like a life where people are forced to work far more than they have free time is not a life worth living. Having the public sector step in and regulate things is liberating to me for not needing to do a load of research into things I have no expertise or interest in. I have the freedom to more time thanks to this. I don't believe individuals should be responsible for being self-sufficient in every aspect of their life. We are a species of specialists, we each do our one thing that we can and are best at. It sickens me to even dwell on a "frontier" lifestyle where people have a variety of skills and need to do everything themselves. While you may feel greater self-efficacy from this, I certainly don't. Furthermore, it is simply impractical to expect most people to be a jack of all trades kind of person. It just goes against our nature, our brains can only do so much at a time. We all must rely on each other in a myriad of ways to get through life.

So basically, we can't focus on freedom as a rallying cry. It's subjective and means something different to everyone. I was just giving my take on freedom and how I would be less free in a multitude of ways in a "more free society." The construct as a whole does not exist, it's all inside our heads. What's left is objective well-being, which is the basis for most morals already.

Quote from: NatsuTerran on April 12, 2012, 04:25:54 AM
I really don't know how to explain this any more that you can get it

Is that really necessary to add?

Perhaps you should keep your posts shorts, as a previous poster suggested, what you just posted made more sense than your long posts.

So you are arguing that well-being of everyone in society ought to be the basis for morality...that's great and all, and I agree that it ought to be that way.  But I don't think it's objective because you have to subjectively decide where to draw the line on who/what is distressed....the whole issue of if morality should be extended to the rest of the natural world comes to mind.

Quote from: Whitney on April 12, 2012, 04:56:53 AM

Quote from: NatsuTerran on April 12, 2012, 04:25:54 AM
I really don't know how to explain this any more that you can get it

Is that really necessary to add?

Perhaps you should keep your posts shorts, as a previous poster suggested, what you just posted made more sense than your long posts.

So you are arguing that well-being of everyone in society ought to be the basis for morality...that's great and all, and I agree that it ought to be that way.  But I don't think it's objective because you have to subjectively decide where to draw the line on who/what is distressed....the whole issue of if morality should be extended to the rest of the natural world comes to mind.

Well there are obviously going to be holes to pick at. You're right in that it isn't as set in stone as I'd like it to be. For example, in my boxing example I picked (-12) as being the amount of pain that it generates. It's likely open to interpretation. But the gist of it is that pain is pain, but values are messy. Well-being is a universal thing, values aren't. And of course, it gets very tricky when the objective well-being scale shows a negative 50, and the subjective value scale shows something around 50-60. What I'm arguing is that objectivity should be our main rule of thumb, not to outright exclude feelings and emotions and live like robots. I arrive at these conclusions through reasoning them out by using science as a basis. This is the kind of "objective morality" that Dawkins and Harris talk about. You are correct in that it isn't truly objective because it requires *some* sort of reasoned justification. But I think it is the closest we can get to objective if you think of it along a continuum. And I think glorifying the natural state of nature and changing nothing is quite simply going to cause more harm than attempting to correct things where we can and by what is practical.

As for the second point, about why am I not extending this to the rest of the natural world. It's a common philosophical rebuttal. There really isn't an answer to that other than "humans are biologically predisposed to care more about humans, and then mammals, and last insects." It sounds subjective, but it's a fact as well. Humans are obviously going to be naturally biased in favor of their species. Collectivism draws the line somewhere. For example, in ww2 the Japanese were collectivist in a way that drew the line between ingroup and outgroup along Japanese and non-Japanese. They were quite imperialistic at this point and saw other Asian groups as lower than human status. This is subjective collectivism, because it fails to realize that humans are humans and that we could have been born as anyone. Japanese today are completely different. They tend to view humanity as the ingroup and non-humanity as the outgroup. You could argue that this is just as subjective as before, but life is literally impossible to just take that mentality to such an extreme that you glorify all life equally. It's going to seem inconsistent obviously.

But imagine a universe with no life at all. Clearly, there is no right or wrong at all in existence. Once you assume consciousness, that is when morality emerges. I suppose you could argue that our morality should cut the ingroup line at humans because humans have the most developed sense of morality as compared to most other animals. But in all honesty, there really is no objectively justifying drawing the line at humanity and not the natural world. I'm not much bothered by it though. People are still mostly moral towards other species when they can help it. I shoved a large spider out the door with a shoe just this evening because it was right there already. We also tend to avoid causing largescale suffering to the food animals we eat. At least, their mass production deaths aren't any more harmful than if they were to die in nature.

Edit: So sorry for my long posts. No one has to read them. I think I've explained myself quite well however. This isn't a black or white, right or wrong thing. Morality is a fuzzy, grey area. But I still think objective morality exists along a continuum with the "worst possible suffering for everyone" lying on one end and the best case scenario on the other. It is Sam Harris' idea so credit goes to him, although I had the same thoughts in my head. Basically, I think we should push our way up that spectrum instead of just glorifying where we stand in nature and throwing your arms in the air with callous towards things that can and should be controlled. Like the naturalistic fallacy goes: We can and should differentiate between was "is" and what "ought." We can either do something or do nothing, but we can't do everything. While collectivism will seem inconsistent because a line needs to be drawn, purebred 100% individualism in which no one does anything is an absolute nightmare to me. We have consciousness and we should attempt to make it as best as possible. We cannot reach the perfect end of the moral sliding scale: the best possible case for everyone. But we certainly can try to get closer to it. Perfection isn't necessary, but shrugging shoulders and being content with callousness is pretty sickening to me.

Quote from: Amicale on April 12, 2012, 03:03:59 AM
Also, if I may politely request this: I really enjoy reading posts in these threads. But if there would be any way for folks in general to break their posts up a little, or maybe limit a post to a few really key thoughts... that would be awesome. I know it's an issue of mine and nobody else's problem, but being faced with a solid wall of text to read can be really daunting. I also know sometimes, I tend to drag on way too long too, so I'll also work on limiting myself. Hope that request is fair enough to make.

No you may not.  :) But out of curiosity does my breaking it up into quotes help your eyes? I'm just curious if it's a issue with only a solid wall or a lot of text in general. Personally, I'm "long fingered..." would that be the correct term for long winded on forum? I doubt that will ever change. The quotes break the points up for my eyes nicely though. I'm asking out curiosity.

Quote from: ThinkAnarchy on April 12, 2012, 07:02:21 AM

Quote from: Amicale on April 12, 2012, 03:03:59 AM
Also, if I may politely request this: I really enjoy reading posts in these threads. But if there would be any way for folks in general to break their posts up a little, or maybe limit a post to a few really key thoughts... that would be awesome. I know it's an issue of mine and nobody else's problem, but being faced with a solid wall of text to read can be really daunting. I also know sometimes, I tend to drag on way too long too, so I'll also work on limiting myself. Hope that request is fair enough to make.

No you may not.  :) But out of curiosity does my breaking it up into quotes help your eyes? I'm just curious if it's a issue with only a solid wall or a lot of text in general. Personally, I'm "long fingered..." would that be the correct term for long winded on forum? I doubt that will ever change. The quotes break the points up for my eyes nicely though. I'm asking out curiosity.

:) Quotes tend to make it a LOT more readable for me, personally. Maybe it's the slight colour change, or that it's in segments, or both. I tend not to lose track that way. I never used to have an issue with this until I started on meds that give me an attention span/lack of focus my 4 year old beats.  :D

*puts on technical writer hat* Large chunks of texts are harder for pretty much everyone to read. When your brain sees that much text without any defining breaks, it goes "uh-oh, that's a lot of work" and it doesn't want to tackle it. Whereas, if it's in smaller chunks, has sub-headings or more whitespace, it seems more manageable, even if it contains the same amount of information. *takes off technical writer hat*

Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on April 12, 2012, 02:15:42 PM
*puts on technical writer hat* Large chunks of texts are harder for pretty much everyone to read. When your brain sees that much text without any defining breaks, it goes "uh-oh, that's a lot of work" and it doesn't want to tackle it. Whereas, if it's in smaller chunks, has sub-headings or more whitespace, it seems more manageable, even if it contains the same amount of information. *takes off technical writer hat*

:D I love your technical writer hat. It becomes you the way Pudding's hats become him.

Quote from: Amicale on April 12, 2012, 02:19:32 PM

Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on April 12, 2012, 02:15:42 PM
*puts on technical writer hat* Large chunks of texts are harder for pretty much everyone to read. When your brain sees that much text without any defining breaks, it goes "uh-oh, that's a lot of work" and it doesn't want to tackle it. Whereas, if it's in smaller chunks, has sub-headings or more whitespace, it seems more manageable, even if it contains the same amount of information. *takes off technical writer hat*

:D I love your technical writer hat. It becomes you the way Pudding's hats become him.

And this is a compliment? :D

Quote from: Tank on April 12, 2012, 05:45:07 PM

Quote from: Amicale on April 12, 2012, 02:19:32 PM

Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on April 12, 2012, 02:15:42 PM
*puts on technical writer hat* Large chunks of texts are harder for pretty much everyone to read. When your brain sees that much text without any defining breaks, it goes "uh-oh, that's a lot of work" and it doesn't want to tackle it. Whereas, if it's in smaller chunks, has sub-headings or more whitespace, it seems more manageable, even if it contains the same amount of information. *takes off technical writer hat*

:D I love your technical writer hat. It becomes you the way Pudding's hats become him.

And this is a compliment? :D

Yes! Pudding's hats are an essential, quirky, awesome part of his persona here on HAF. I enjoy them very much.  ;D

Quote from: Tank on April 12, 2012, 05:45:07 PM

Quote from: Amicale on April 12, 2012, 02:19:32 PM
:D I love your technical writer hat. It becomes you the way Pudding's hats become him.

And this is a compliment? :D

Quote from: Amicale on April 12, 2012, 06:32:51 PM

Yes! Pudding's hats are an essential, quirky, awesome part of his persona here on HAF. I enjoy them very much.  ;D

Nasty Tank person.
I stand and face West North West, place my thumb on my nose, wiggle my fingers and chant ner ner ner ner nerrrrr.
Turn, face East South East and repeat.

The weather is cooling, it will be soon time for a change.
I'm not doing it here though, not with those shifty Anarcho Capitalists lurking about.

That hats becoming me thing, I wonder if that explains my lacking recollection of things people say I did?