5 ms·

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 evidenc

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).

nmrm 12y ago
My claim in this thread, the thing we're ostensibly debating, is this: any reasonable political system will, at some point, have to force someone to do something. Look, this is just true. We can trot out stupid (but valid) pedantic examples of crazy murderer dudes if you want. And you can try to move the goal posts, and I can object that you're trying to make me prove something much stronger than what I actually stated and also that your system stabilizes somewhere near the status quo because the only fair way to define "global harm not permissible across groups" is by democratic vote, and we can both lose an hour of our time over nothing. But ultimately, fundamentally, pedantic games aside, if you want a bunch of people to work together closely, you're eventually gonna have to use some force against some bad actors. This tangent about historical examples is mostly irrelevant, but I'll point out an important concession from your post, which I think underscores our disagreement: > anarchocapitalist systems would be the first example of individuals within the system being able to freely choose between arbitration and security services Exactly. So there is no historical evidence that this is feasible. Which was /exactly/ the claim for which you accused me of ignorance. > Which are effective examples of the concept in history Examples of polycentric law. Absolutely not examples of lower ranking members of society having carte blanc autonomy to join/create new groups. This much you've conceded above. You've been conflating these two, which is why you accused me of being ignorant. I'm not ignorant of the former. Rather, I'm pointing out that it is absolutely absurd to conflate examples of the former with examples of the latter (sans substantial justification, but ultimately I believe any such justification is fundamentally motivated more by ideology than sound, objective scholarship. In general, I am always skeptical history "research" which is both novel and also just happens to validate the author's political ideology.) Regarding the rest of your post, there's a huge difference between not advocating anarchocapitalism and defending the status quo. You are accusing me of being complicit in every systemic injustice of the status quo because I think your specific alternative is unrealistic. Consider your company.
- etherael 12y ago
  > But ultimately, fundamentally, pedantic games aside, if you want a bunch of people to work together closely, you're eventually gonna have to use some force against some bad actors. For starters, Anarchocapitalism isn't really a political system so much as one of the ways which using free market organisation alone, society might end up according to game theoretic principles of mutual self interest of individual actors. Anarchocapitalism is not about elimination of the use of force. It is about the elimination of A) Political authority as a concept, that is, there is no singular party vested with special privileges that all people are supposed to acknowledge and respect and B) Aggression as distinct from force. That is the initiation of force. For example, acting against someone because they don't want to pay a fee you decree by political authority that you owe them, despite the fact that they have no relationship or agreement with you in any way shape or form and have never accepted any form of service from you, which is both force and aggression (taxation). As opposed to forcible self defense from an attacker intent on causing you physical harm, which is force, but not aggression. (self defense) Holders of political authority throughout history have been heavy on the use of aggression as distinct from force, this is what anarchocapitalists mostly take issue with. They are not pacifists, force in self defense is perfectly acceptable. To recap, the original claim you were attempting to refute is; "If someone doesn't like the political system, then you're acting immorally and violently by forcing them to abide by it." Nobody forces anybody to abide by the anarchocapitalist system (even neglecting the whole it's not a political system angle), but that doesn't mean people within that system will not defend themselves when aggressed upon. > Exactly. So there is no historical evidence that this is feasible. Which was /exactly/ the claim for which you accused me of ignorance. Wrong. The claim I accused you of ignorance with regards to was this, exactly; 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. That is, you are ignoring the fact that modern laws make exploitation easy, not that polycentric law is without historical precedent. Polycentric law does have historical precedent, however anarchocapitalism in particular incorporates polycentric law as well as a raft of other ideas, and did not exist as a fully defined concept until around the 1960's iirc. There has not been enough time to actually see it implemented in reality yet, although this is a distinct possibility in the midterm future (Seasteading proposals typically revolve around ancap organisation). Disqualifying an idea as sensible because it has not yet been tried however doesn't make any sense, sticking to that idea we should still be practicing tribal hunter gatherer social organisation alone. That the ideas are well thought out and practical are demonstrated by citing historical precedents that are similar, as well as going into great detail as to all of the potential flaws with the system and how those things may be addressed. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTYkdEU_B4o http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTYkdEU_B4o) > In general, I am always skeptical history "research" which is both novel and also just happens to validate the author's political ideology. Once again, it's not a political ideology, it is an attempt to destroy the entire concept of political ideologies. If it is a political ideology, bald is a hair colour and atheism is a religion. > Regarding the rest of your post, there's a huge difference between not advocating anarchocapitalism and defending the status quo. By all means, I'd be interested to hear your ideas on what you see as superior to the status quo, especially if they don't rely on political authority, the major reason I am ancap is because I will not under any circumstances accept political authority as valid. But it's not wrong to point out that simply shooting down alternatives without offering other systems is de facto support of the status quo. > You are accusing me of being complicit in every systemic injustice of the status quo because I think your specific alternative is unrealistic. Consider your company. Supporting the status quo does make you complicit in the effects of that status quo, this is uncomfortable I know. It is the reason I abandoned it, and a large part of the reason I am now a perpetual traveller. However, you seem to be claiming not to support the status quo, although it's unclear as to what you do support.

nmrm 12y ago

My claim in this thread, the thing we're ostensibly debating, is this: any reasonable political system will, at some point, have to force someone to do something. Look, this is just true. We can trot out stupid (but valid) pedantic examples of crazy murderer dudes if you want. And you can try to move the goal posts, and I can object that you're trying to make me prove something much stronger than what I actually stated and also that your system stabilizes somewhere near the status quo because the only fair way to define "global harm not permissible across groups" is by democratic vote, and we can both lose an hour of our time over nothing. But ultimately, fundamentally, pedantic games aside, if you want a bunch of people to work together closely, you're eventually gonna have to use some force against some bad actors. This tangent about historical examples is mostly irrelevant, but I'll point out an important concession from your post, which I think underscores our disagreement: > anarchocapitalist systems would be the first example of individuals within the system being able to freely choose between arbitration and security services Exactly. So there is no historical evidence that this is feasible. Which was /exactly/ the claim for which you accused me of ignorance. > Which are effective examples of the concept in history Examples of polycentric law. Absolutely not examples of lower ranking members of society having carte blanc autonomy to join/create new groups. This much you've conceded above. You've been conflating these two, which is why you accused me of being ignorant. I'm not ignorant of the former. Rather, I'm pointing out that it is absolutely absurd to conflate examples of the former with examples of the latter (sans substantial justification, but ultimately I believe any such justification is fundamentally motivated more by ideology than sound, objective scholarship. In general, I am always skeptical history "research" which is both novel and also just happens to validate the author's political ideology.) Regarding the rest of your post, there's a huge difference between not advocating anarchocapitalism and defending the status quo. You are accusing me of being complicit in every systemic injustice of the status quo because I think your specific alternative is unrealistic. Consider your company.

etherael 12y ago
> But ultimately, fundamentally, pedantic games aside, if you want a bunch of people to work together closely, you're eventually gonna have to use some force against some bad actors. For starters, Anarchocapitalism isn't really a political system so much as one of the ways which using free market organisation alone, society might end up according to game theoretic principles of mutual self interest of individual actors. Anarchocapitalism is not about elimination of the use of force. It is about the elimination of A) Political authority as a concept, that is, there is no singular party vested with special privileges that all people are supposed to acknowledge and respect and B) Aggression as distinct from force. That is the initiation of force. For example, acting against someone because they don't want to pay a fee you decree by political authority that you owe them, despite the fact that they have no relationship or agreement with you in any way shape or form and have never accepted any form of service from you, which is both force and aggression (taxation). As opposed to forcible self defense from an attacker intent on causing you physical harm, which is force, but not aggression. (self defense) Holders of political authority throughout history have been heavy on the use of aggression as distinct from force, this is what anarchocapitalists mostly take issue with. They are not pacifists, force in self defense is perfectly acceptable. To recap, the original claim you were attempting to refute is; "If someone doesn't like the political system, then you're acting immorally and violently by forcing them to abide by it." Nobody forces anybody to abide by the anarchocapitalist system (even neglecting the whole it's not a political system angle), but that doesn't mean people within that system will not defend themselves when aggressed upon. > Exactly. So there is no historical evidence that this is feasible. Which was /exactly/ the claim for which you accused me of ignorance. Wrong. The claim I accused you of ignorance with regards to was this, exactly; 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. That is, you are ignoring the fact that modern laws make exploitation easy, not that polycentric law is without historical precedent. Polycentric law does have historical precedent, however anarchocapitalism in particular incorporates polycentric law as well as a raft of other ideas, and did not exist as a fully defined concept until around the 1960's iirc. There has not been enough time to actually see it implemented in reality yet, although this is a distinct possibility in the midterm future (Seasteading proposals typically revolve around ancap organisation). Disqualifying an idea as sensible because it has not yet been tried however doesn't make any sense, sticking to that idea we should still be practicing tribal hunter gatherer social organisation alone. That the ideas are well thought out and practical are demonstrated by citing historical precedents that are similar, as well as going into great detail as to all of the potential flaws with the system and how those things may be addressed. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTYkdEU_B4o http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTYkdEU_B4o) > In general, I am always skeptical history "research" which is both novel and also just happens to validate the author's political ideology. Once again, it's not a political ideology, it is an attempt to destroy the entire concept of political ideologies. If it is a political ideology, bald is a hair colour and atheism is a religion. > Regarding the rest of your post, there's a huge difference between not advocating anarchocapitalism and defending the status quo. By all means, I'd be interested to hear your ideas on what you see as superior to the status quo, especially if they don't rely on political authority, the major reason I am ancap is because I will not under any circumstances accept political authority as valid. But it's not wrong to point out that simply shooting down alternatives without offering other systems is de facto support of the status quo. > You are accusing me of being complicit in every systemic injustice of the status quo because I think your specific alternative is unrealistic. Consider your company. Supporting the status quo does make you complicit in the effects of that status quo, this is uncomfortable I know. It is the reason I abandoned it, and a large part of the reason I am now a perpetual traveller. However, you seem to be claiming not to support the status quo, although it's unclear as to what you do support.