4 ms·

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"

by 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.

zo1 12y ago
Wow, you really want me to expound on an entire philosophical system in a few short paragraphs? I'm not trying to cop out of this discussion, it's just that these are all things that have been covered numerous times. There are a lot of very smart people spending a great deal of time enumerating all the complications you seem to think are deal-breakers. I'll address you more generally, then, and pick a few big ones to respond to. Anarcho capitalism, and the two rules I mentioned. They don't just encompass a legal system, but a philosophical system as well (like you mentioned). The idea being that if we can come up with basic set of rules that are moral, and we don't break them, then we have come up with a moral/fair judicial system that is grounded in fairness for all because the same rules apply to everyone. "What's a valid contract?" Anything that you voluntarily enter into and whoever you've chosen to help you arbitrate disputes with the other contractees. You're free to do so, even if you enter into a contract to do bad things. The contract is valid between you two, but you will no-doubt get in to trouble for the things you end up doing. Again, a big implementation-specific question. No morals here. But if you must know: most arbitration committees/courts/whatever you want to call them will probably not look kindly on contracts that break the basic tenets of harm/property. "What about harm caused to the polity by non-aggressive use of force (drunk driving without regard to other's lives?" First of all, in a free society, there is no "polity". Second, reckless driving is handled by private property. Whoever owns the road you drive on sets the rules; if you don't abide by them, you can't drive on that road because it's private property. It's already that way, really, it's just that you don't notice it because you see the state. If someone wishes to create a set of roads where people can drive recklessly, then others are free to use other roads that agree to their sense/level of security. "What happens when someone breaks your stuff and can't pay for it?" Insurance, on either side. Look past the state, and you will see ingenious solutions to remedy and dampen risk/loss. I'm on my third one, and it seems you're just trying to come up with contrived/weird scenarios. Solutions to these problems are just endless, but remember, they must not behave in an immoral way (by breaking the two basic rules mentioned in my previous post). Perhaps if you have a taste, you might be curious to read up some more. "There is no bright line, every issue has to be considered separately and people will always disagree." People disagree now. It's just that you have no choice in it at all. We're all forced to "agree" on a certain set of arbitrarily and "consistently" chosen set of rules that only a majority of us supposedly agree on. On a side note, I look forward to the day when free-minded individuals can come up with solutions to all these problems in a peaceful and non-coercive manner. Until then, we'll be stuck coming up with utilitarian solutions. If you're curious, I can point you to some resources/books regarding anarcho-capitalism and related topics. There are some nice introductions out there; some of which detail all the possible combinations of problems you can think of.
- nmrm 12y ago
  Let me remind us of the original claim I was refuting: "If someone doesn't like the political system, then you're acting immorally and violently by forcing them to abide by it." This is the claim we're discussing (to the extent we're not off topic). You've agreed several times in the post above that this claim is hogwash. You'd just prefer individuals to be setting rules about their property (e.g. roads) instead of the government setting similar rules. But at some point, any reasonable system allows someone to force someone else to do (or not do) something. >If you're curious, I can point you to some resources/books regarding anarcho-capitalism and related topics. There are some nice introductions out there; some of which detail all the possible combinations of problems you can think of. Maybe. Here's a problem I want the answer to. I believe it's inevitable that tons of power will become concentrated in a few hands. When this centralization of power happens, it's always abused and lots of people get screwed. It seems that democratically elected governments are easier to exert pressure on than privately held corporations. Therefore, I prefer for vital resources -- water, food and the energy/transportation networks necessary for providing them -- be owned or at least heavily regulated by a democratically elected government. I'm only willing to entertain something like anarcho-capitalism if it prevents centralization of power and/or considers itself subservient to democracy. I believe that the former case is impossible and that the latter case is incompatible because most people prefer significant government involvement for lots of reasons, mostly based on self interest (see status quo). If you have resources addressing this problema which are well-grounded in behavioral or social science research methodology, I'd be interested in reading them. (p.s. thanks for the civility)

by nmrm 12y ago

zo1 12y ago

Wow, you really want me to expound on an entire philosophical system in a few short paragraphs? I'm not trying to cop out of this discussion, it's just that these are all things that have been covered numerous times. There are a lot of very smart people spending a great deal of time enumerating all the complications you seem to think are deal-breakers. I'll address you more generally, then, and pick a few big ones to respond to. Anarcho capitalism, and the two rules I mentioned. They don't just encompass a legal system, but a philosophical system as well (like you mentioned). The idea being that if we can come up with basic set of rules that are moral, and we don't break them, then we have come up with a moral/fair judicial system that is grounded in fairness for all because the same rules apply to everyone. "What's a valid contract?" Anything that you voluntarily enter into and whoever you've chosen to help you arbitrate disputes with the other contractees. You're free to do so, even if you enter into a contract to do bad things. The contract is valid between you two, but you will no-doubt get in to trouble for the things you end up doing. Again, a big implementation-specific question. No morals here. But if you must know: most arbitration committees/courts/whatever you want to call them will probably not look kindly on contracts that break the basic tenets of harm/property. "What about harm caused to the polity by non-aggressive use of force (drunk driving without regard to other's lives?" First of all, in a free society, there is no "polity". Second, reckless driving is handled by private property. Whoever owns the road you drive on sets the rules; if you don't abide by them, you can't drive on that road because it's private property. It's already that way, really, it's just that you don't notice it because you see the state. If someone wishes to create a set of roads where people can drive recklessly, then others are free to use other roads that agree to their sense/level of security. "What happens when someone breaks your stuff and can't pay for it?" Insurance, on either side. Look past the state, and you will see ingenious solutions to remedy and dampen risk/loss. I'm on my third one, and it seems you're just trying to come up with contrived/weird scenarios. Solutions to these problems are just endless, but remember, they must not behave in an immoral way (by breaking the two basic rules mentioned in my previous post). Perhaps if you have a taste, you might be curious to read up some more. "There is no bright line, every issue has to be considered separately and people will always disagree." People disagree now. It's just that you have no choice in it at all. We're all forced to "agree" on a certain set of arbitrarily and "consistently" chosen set of rules that only a majority of us supposedly agree on. On a side note, I look forward to the day when free-minded individuals can come up with solutions to all these problems in a peaceful and non-coercive manner. Until then, we'll be stuck coming up with utilitarian solutions. If you're curious, I can point you to some resources/books regarding anarcho-capitalism and related topics. There are some nice introductions out there; some of which detail all the possible combinations of problems you can think of.

nmrm 12y ago
Let me remind us of the original claim I was refuting: "If someone doesn't like the political system, then you're acting immorally and violently by forcing them to abide by it." This is the claim we're discussing (to the extent we're not off topic). You've agreed several times in the post above that this claim is hogwash. You'd just prefer individuals to be setting rules about their property (e.g. roads) instead of the government setting similar rules. But at some point, any reasonable system allows someone to force someone else to do (or not do) something. >If you're curious, I can point you to some resources/books regarding anarcho-capitalism and related topics. There are some nice introductions out there; some of which detail all the possible combinations of problems you can think of. Maybe. Here's a problem I want the answer to. I believe it's inevitable that tons of power will become concentrated in a few hands. When this centralization of power happens, it's always abused and lots of people get screwed. It seems that democratically elected governments are easier to exert pressure on than privately held corporations. Therefore, I prefer for vital resources -- water, food and the energy/transportation networks necessary for providing them -- be owned or at least heavily regulated by a democratically elected government. I'm only willing to entertain something like anarcho-capitalism if it prevents centralization of power and/or considers itself subservient to democracy. I believe that the former case is impossible and that the latter case is incompatible because most people prefer significant government involvement for lots of reasons, mostly based on self interest (see status quo). If you have resources addressing this problema which are well-grounded in behavioral or social science research methodology, I'd be interested in reading them. (p.s. thanks for the civility)