3 ms·

>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 act

by 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.
- nmrm 12y ago
  My original point in this thread is that it is impossible to have a political system where someone doesn't force someone else to do something. None of these historical examples of polycentric law disprove that claim, and in none of these examples did the least powerful members of society have the right to choose their legal system. These are all basically just examples of decentralized governance over a large set of clans/ethnic groups. The Roman Empire example is particularly flawed as a piece of evidence toward the question of whether a political system without force is possible. Flawed to the point of extreme intellectual laziness and blatant disregard for historical truth. Also, some other notes about your last reply: 1. Not everyone who disagrees with you is an "ignorant" tool of the "dominant paradigm" and "incapable of research". If you believe your political opinions to be that infallible, you're extremely niave. 2. Our societies today have real, systemic problems. These problems are important. But your current rhetorical approach (domination! exploitation! slavery!) is very ineffective. It makes you sound like a crack-pot. This isn't intended as an insult or meant to discredit you. I'm simply describing my perception -- one I'm sure many people share -- and offering some advice regarding rhetoric. You don't have to change your claims, just tone it down and be more specific. (edit: organization and typos)
- etherael 12y ago
  Whoah whoah whoah. > Not everyone who disagrees with you is an "ignorant" tool I never said you were an ignorant tool, I said a statement you made was evidence that you were ignorant of a single fact. It was. > of the "dominant paradigm" You are debating in favor of the current dominant paradigm, I don't think you're an "ignorant tool" of it, but the fact that you're in favor of it despite your objections to some of the symptoms of it seems to be completely true? If that's not the case by all means enlighten me. > and "incapable of research". I didn't say you were incapable of research, I said you clearly had not researched the answers to the questions you raised, and simply jumped to the conclusion that they must not exist. Then I recommended that you perhaps shouldn't do that. > If you believe your political opinions to be that infallible, you're extremely niave. The state of your position, regardless of how weak or strong that is, has no influence on the fallibility of my position. All I've ever claimed is that I am certain that political authority needs to be destroyed, it is a completely corrupt concept and utterly beyond redemption. (See Michael Huemer; The Problem with Political Authority) Note in particular that this is not a positive claim, it is a negative claim. In much the same way as atheists don't accept the proposition that god exists due to lack of evidence for the proposition, I do not accept the proposition the political authority is valid, also due to lack of evidence for the proposition. It can be no more "fallible or infallible" than any other negative claim, it doesn't seek to prove anything, it just rejects the attempts at proof for something else. Similarly, this is not a "political position" any more than atheism is a "religious position". As for what comes after political authority is dispensed with I have no belief at all in the infallibility of. From what I have seen, anarchocapitalist systems seem like the best candidate for a post political system. I hold no illusions of it being "infallible". If it really was the absolute most perfect system for social organisation in the entire universe going forward, that would be extremely surprising. > My original point in this thread is that it is impossible to have a political system where someone doesn't force someone else to do something. To the extent you're right, that is one of the reasons why we should not have political systems, and reliance on political authority is invalid. > None of these historical examples of polycentric law disprove that claim, and in none of these examples did the least powerful members of society have the right to choose their legal system. On the contrary, that is entirely the point of polycentric law, anarchocapitalist systems would be the first example of individuals within the system being able to freely choose between arbitration and security services, that doesn't alter the fundamental structure of a polycentric legal system, it just adds competitive incentive to the entities therein to be attractive to potential subscribers. > These are all basically just examples of decentralized governance over a large set of clans/ethnic groups. Which are effective examples of the concept in history, and adding the ability for participants to freely choose amongst providers in a competitive marketplace is not a long stretch. > The Roman Empire example is particularly flawed as a piece of evidence toward the question of whether a political system without force is possible. The citation is for the concept of polycentric law, not the complete absence of political authority (read: force).

by nmrm 12y ago

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.

nmrm 12y ago
My original point in this thread is that it is impossible to have a political system where someone doesn't force someone else to do something. None of these historical examples of polycentric law disprove that claim, and in none of these examples did the least powerful members of society have the right to choose their legal system. These are all basically just examples of decentralized governance over a large set of clans/ethnic groups. The Roman Empire example is particularly flawed as a piece of evidence toward the question of whether a political system without force is possible. Flawed to the point of extreme intellectual laziness and blatant disregard for historical truth. Also, some other notes about your last reply: 1. Not everyone who disagrees with you is an "ignorant" tool of the "dominant paradigm" and "incapable of research". If you believe your political opinions to be that infallible, you're extremely niave. 2. Our societies today have real, systemic problems. These problems are important. But your current rhetorical approach (domination! exploitation! slavery!) is very ineffective. It makes you sound like a crack-pot. This isn't intended as an insult or meant to discredit you. I'm simply describing my perception -- one I'm sure many people share -- and offering some advice regarding rhetoric. You don't have to change your claims, just tone it down and be more specific. (edit: organization and typos)
etherael 12y ago
Whoah whoah whoah. > Not everyone who disagrees with you is an "ignorant" tool I never said you were an ignorant tool, I said a statement you made was evidence that you were ignorant of a single fact. It was. > of the "dominant paradigm" You are debating in favor of the current dominant paradigm, I don't think you're an "ignorant tool" of it, but the fact that you're in favor of it despite your objections to some of the symptoms of it seems to be completely true? If that's not the case by all means enlighten me. > and "incapable of research". I didn't say you were incapable of research, I said you clearly had not researched the answers to the questions you raised, and simply jumped to the conclusion that they must not exist. Then I recommended that you perhaps shouldn't do that. > If you believe your political opinions to be that infallible, you're extremely niave. The state of your position, regardless of how weak or strong that is, has no influence on the fallibility of my position. All I've ever claimed is that I am certain that political authority needs to be destroyed, it is a completely corrupt concept and utterly beyond redemption. (See Michael Huemer; The Problem with Political Authority) Note in particular that this is not a positive claim, it is a negative claim. In much the same way as atheists don't accept the proposition that god exists due to lack of evidence for the proposition, I do not accept the proposition the political authority is valid, also due to lack of evidence for the proposition. It can be no more "fallible or infallible" than any other negative claim, it doesn't seek to prove anything, it just rejects the attempts at proof for something else. Similarly, this is not a "political position" any more than atheism is a "religious position". As for what comes after political authority is dispensed with I have no belief at all in the infallibility of. From what I have seen, anarchocapitalist systems seem like the best candidate for a post political system. I hold no illusions of it being "infallible". If it really was the absolute most perfect system for social organisation in the entire universe going forward, that would be extremely surprising. > My original point in this thread is that it is impossible to have a political system where someone doesn't force someone else to do something. To the extent you're right, that is one of the reasons why we should not have political systems, and reliance on political authority is invalid. > None of these historical examples of polycentric law disprove that claim, and in none of these examples did the least powerful members of society have the right to choose their legal system. On the contrary, that is entirely the point of polycentric law, anarchocapitalist systems would be the first example of individuals within the system being able to freely choose between arbitration and security services, that doesn't alter the fundamental structure of a polycentric legal system, it just adds competitive incentive to the entities therein to be attractive to potential subscribers. > These are all basically just examples of decentralized governance over a large set of clans/ethnic groups. Which are effective examples of the concept in history, and adding the ability for participants to freely choose amongst providers in a competitive marketplace is not a long stretch. > The Roman Empire example is particularly flawed as a piece of evidence toward the question of whether a political system without force is possible. The citation is for the concept of polycentric law, not the complete absence of political authority (read: force).