6 ms·

> If someone doesn't like the political system, then you're acting immorally and violently by forcing them to abide by it. Do you really mean this? It seems co

by nmrm 12y ago

> If someone doesn't like the political system, then you're acting immorally and violently by forcing them to abide by it. Do you really mean this? It seems completely unrealistic, and is just the flip side of the parent's comment. I don't know of a single political system in the entire world which allows residents to opt out of its legal system, and nor should they. Maybe you mean something rather specific by political system and I just don't understand what you're saying?

etherael 12y ago
Anarchocapitalism is a proposed system matching the description offered (polycentric law). Of course if you opt out of every law other people might not want anything to do with you (freedom of choice works both ways), and your life might end up pretty bad, but more likely in practice opting out of all the existing laws except the obvious ones most people won't have a problem with.
- nmrm 12y ago
  > Anarchocapitalism... in practice opting out of all the existing laws except the obvious ones most people won't have a problem with. This sounds, if anything, less realistic than the OP's proposal. It's also completely vacuous... which ones are obvious? The process of finding a sufficiently acceptable set is called politics.
  - etherael 12y ago
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polycentric_law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polycentric_law There is historical precedent. We may be submerged in the fabric of the monolithic state with supreme political power, but it is not the only way. Obvious ones are ones that you personally would feel uncomfortable dealing with someone not bound by. For me those would be assault, murder, theft, fraud, and things of this level. Do I care if you have a moral objection to compulsorily funding the war machine of the state? Most certainly not. How about if you smoke proscribed plant matter? No problem, once again. The vast majority of laws are useless. Also, politics has nothing to do with finding an acceptable set of laws. Politics (from Greek: πολιτικός politikos, meaning "of, for, or relating to citizens") is the practice and theory of influencing other people on a civic or individual level. Making laws is one method of exerting influence, but it will do just as well for the state to resort to plain old thuggery. The point is to maintain and increase their power.
    - nmrm 12y ago
      >There is historical precedent. Of what? The Wikipedia article only indicates that there's a historical precedent of people talking about the idea, not its actual implementation at scale. There is a one sentence mention of ethnic self-rule in Roman times, but it's complete hogwash. We've done exactly the same in the modern era by not doing the whole conquering other ethnic group's land and colonizing it thing. > The vast majority of laws are useless. I agree, but prefer this inefficiency to something which makes exploitation easy. > politics has nothing to do with finding an acceptable set of laws. Politics is the practice and theory of influencing other people on a civic or individual level. These statements are incompatible in democratic societies; in fact, that's the chief innovation of democracy.
      - etherael 12y ago
        > Of what? The Wikipedia article only indicates that there's a historical precedent of people talking about the idea, not its actual implementation at scale. Medieval Iceland, Ireland, Somalian xeer, various merchant law throughout history. I assumed you would actually research things yourself before jumping to incorrect conclusions. No such luck I suppose. > I agree, but prefer this inefficiency to something which makes exploitation easy. Worse than a false dichotomy, this is ignorant of the fact that many of the modern laws we have are what make exploitation easy. > These statements are incompatible in democratic societies; in fact, that's the chief innovation of democracy. And yet, they're true. It is almost as if democracy were not an adequate hedge against the intrinsic exploitation of political authority. Reading your responses, you come across a lot like someone utterly convinced that the present dominant paradigm is the one true path and anyone who thinks different is just throwing poorly thought out ideas around. Keeping in mind how comprehensively the political paradigm under which we currently are enslaved is proving to be not just ineffective, but an instrument of our oppression, you might want to have a long hard think about your biases. If there is one thing you can say for the anarchocapitalists, it is that there is no shortage of literature and discussion about every conceivable edge case which could ever be imagined already discussed in great detail, largely because the reaction you've displayed here is extremely common. Before dismissing it after extremely shallow consideration, actually try doing your own research.
  - zo1 12y ago
    In the anarcho-capitalist "system", there are only two laws and all the others are applications of them. You would be surprised at what a coherent, and fair system only two laws can generate: 1. Private property. Covers ownership. 2. Non-aggression principle. Keeps people from hurting others. And the reason the parent poster said "obvious" is because they are completely agreeable and obvious to most reasonable people. Everyone can agree that their property is their own (assuming they didn't steal it), and that hurting others is bad.
    - nmrm 12y ago
      Right, and I think the parent is being unrealisitic in their assertion that an effective political system of any ideology or size has a steady state of "simple". You can't realistically govern on the basis of "property rights + non-aggression" without a central authority making arbitrary decisions about what each of these means, and most others being okay with that. The OP was criticized as unrealistic. But anarchocapitalism is, if anything, more obviously unrealistic. As soon as you cover all of the common sense questions which arise about just these two public goods you end up a long way away from anarchocapitalism. > Private property This is more of a philosophy than a workable proposal for a legal system. What constitutes property? What do you do when new sorts of property crop up? What's a valid contract? What happens when someone breaks your stuff and can't pay for it? What happens when someone is accused of breaking the non-aggression principle but doesn't have any stuff? Who covers investigative costs etc.? And those are just the very high level and topical things. There are thousands of other side cases where US case law does "the obvious thing" > Non-aggression principle Again, philosophy is not law. What is aggression? What about harm caused to the polity by non-aggressive use of force (drunk driving without regard to other's lives? Reckless taxi driving without regard to other's lives (to make some extra profit)? Dumping deadly chemicals in rivers? Pollution to the point of black-out smog? All the way down to more banal public health things like public smoking and drug use. Every person has a different, and usually passionately held, opinion on each of these. There is no bright line, every issue has to be considered separately and people will always disagree. By the time you answer all these questions, you have substantial government to arbitrate and enforce. Oh, and this is all assuming that private property + non-aggression, if balanced correctly, give rise to a good society. Internal consistency is a pretty low bar, and it's entirely unclear how anarchocapitalism or related positions are consistent without a completely unrealisitic over-simplification of human dynamics.

by nmrm 12y ago

etherael 12y ago

Anarchocapitalism is a proposed system matching the description offered (polycentric law). Of course if you opt out of every law other people might not want anything to do with you (freedom of choice works both ways), and your life might end up pretty bad, but more likely in practice opting out of all the existing laws except the obvious ones most people won't have a problem with.

nmrm 12y ago
> Anarchocapitalism... in practice opting out of all the existing laws except the obvious ones most people won't have a problem with. This sounds, if anything, less realistic than the OP's proposal. It's also completely vacuous... which ones are obvious? The process of finding a sufficiently acceptable set is called politics.
- etherael 12y ago
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polycentric_law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polycentric_law There is historical precedent. We may be submerged in the fabric of the monolithic state with supreme political power, but it is not the only way. Obvious ones are ones that you personally would feel uncomfortable dealing with someone not bound by. For me those would be assault, murder, theft, fraud, and things of this level. Do I care if you have a moral objection to compulsorily funding the war machine of the state? Most certainly not. How about if you smoke proscribed plant matter? No problem, once again. The vast majority of laws are useless. Also, politics has nothing to do with finding an acceptable set of laws. Politics (from Greek: πολιτικός politikos, meaning "of, for, or relating to citizens") is the practice and theory of influencing other people on a civic or individual level. Making laws is one method of exerting influence, but it will do just as well for the state to resort to plain old thuggery. The point is to maintain and increase their power.
  - nmrm 12y ago
    >There is historical precedent. Of what? The Wikipedia article only indicates that there's a historical precedent of people talking about the idea, not its actual implementation at scale. There is a one sentence mention of ethnic self-rule in Roman times, but it's complete hogwash. We've done exactly the same in the modern era by not doing the whole conquering other ethnic group's land and colonizing it thing. > The vast majority of laws are useless. I agree, but prefer this inefficiency to something which makes exploitation easy. > politics has nothing to do with finding an acceptable set of laws. Politics is the practice and theory of influencing other people on a civic or individual level. These statements are incompatible in democratic societies; in fact, that's the chief innovation of democracy.
    - etherael 12y ago
      > Of what? The Wikipedia article only indicates that there's a historical precedent of people talking about the idea, not its actual implementation at scale. Medieval Iceland, Ireland, Somalian xeer, various merchant law throughout history. I assumed you would actually research things yourself before jumping to incorrect conclusions. No such luck I suppose. > I agree, but prefer this inefficiency to something which makes exploitation easy. Worse than a false dichotomy, this is ignorant of the fact that many of the modern laws we have are what make exploitation easy. > These statements are incompatible in democratic societies; in fact, that's the chief innovation of democracy. And yet, they're true. It is almost as if democracy were not an adequate hedge against the intrinsic exploitation of political authority. Reading your responses, you come across a lot like someone utterly convinced that the present dominant paradigm is the one true path and anyone who thinks different is just throwing poorly thought out ideas around. Keeping in mind how comprehensively the political paradigm under which we currently are enslaved is proving to be not just ineffective, but an instrument of our oppression, you might want to have a long hard think about your biases. If there is one thing you can say for the anarchocapitalists, it is that there is no shortage of literature and discussion about every conceivable edge case which could ever be imagined already discussed in great detail, largely because the reaction you've displayed here is extremely common. Before dismissing it after extremely shallow consideration, actually try doing your own research.
- zo1 12y ago
  In the anarcho-capitalist "system", there are only two laws and all the others are applications of them. You would be surprised at what a coherent, and fair system only two laws can generate: 1. Private property. Covers ownership. 2. Non-aggression principle. Keeps people from hurting others. And the reason the parent poster said "obvious" is because they are completely agreeable and obvious to most reasonable people. Everyone can agree that their property is their own (assuming they didn't steal it), and that hurting others is bad.
  - nmrm 12y ago
    Right, and I think the parent is being unrealisitic in their assertion that an effective political system of any ideology or size has a steady state of "simple". You can't realistically govern on the basis of "property rights + non-aggression" without a central authority making arbitrary decisions about what each of these means, and most others being okay with that. The OP was criticized as unrealistic. But anarchocapitalism is, if anything, more obviously unrealistic. As soon as you cover all of the common sense questions which arise about just these two public goods you end up a long way away from anarchocapitalism. > Private property This is more of a philosophy than a workable proposal for a legal system. What constitutes property? What do you do when new sorts of property crop up? What's a valid contract? What happens when someone breaks your stuff and can't pay for it? What happens when someone is accused of breaking the non-aggression principle but doesn't have any stuff? Who covers investigative costs etc.? And those are just the very high level and topical things. There are thousands of other side cases where US case law does "the obvious thing" > Non-aggression principle Again, philosophy is not law. What is aggression? What about harm caused to the polity by non-aggressive use of force (drunk driving without regard to other's lives? Reckless taxi driving without regard to other's lives (to make some extra profit)? Dumping deadly chemicals in rivers? Pollution to the point of black-out smog? All the way down to more banal public health things like public smoking and drug use. Every person has a different, and usually passionately held, opinion on each of these. There is no bright line, every issue has to be considered separately and people will always disagree. By the time you answer all these questions, you have substantial government to arbitrate and enforce. Oh, and this is all assuming that private property + non-aggression, if balanced correctly, give rise to a good society. Internal consistency is a pretty low bar, and it's entirely unclear how anarchocapitalism or related positions are consistent without a completely unrealisitic over-simplification of human dynamics.