6 ms·

This is what this conversion always boils down to: use of force. Here's the problem with that 'bedrock' you are standing on: the vast majority of us are not

This is what this conversion always boils down to: use of force. Here's the problem with that 'bedrock' you are standing on: the vast majority of us are not coerced at all. We've happily agreed to this system. Have you convinced yourself that we are all just to stupid to recognize some yolk that only people with your mindset can see? I feel silly that I feel the need to tell you this but we are not stupid and any justification you make for why people embrace a strong governmental structure that is predicated on most people being too dumb to know what is good for them is built on a flimsy foundation at best. Think about it: how can people simultaneously be too dumb to do and see what is best for them under their current system but would be able to function just fine under if under a more pure market force dominated Anarcho-Capitalist framework? I also don't understand the obsession with the market as rigidly defined by Anarcho-Capitalists. Not all human exchange that leads to the benefits of market forces needs to be done through currency and its near analogues. Democracy and Government operate under its own types of markets and mediums of exchange. People still act for their own best interests under those systems. I don't understand why they all have to be homogenized. Having diverse means of exchange seems more robust to me. And the Anarcho-Capitalist idea of Liberty really only seems to function when there is one person in the world. As soon as there are two people and their Rights and Liberties come at odds, it is like starting from scratch every time. Who's Rights and Liberty trumps whos? It is like deciding that all previous decisions are useless...humanity hasn't gotten as far as it has by starting over all of the time. Passing along and even codifying wisdom into effective systems, including government systems, is a big reason we, as a species, has been so successful. Yes, markets are a nice system too, but why limit ourselves to just one?

mindcrime 12y ago
Have you convinced yourself that we are all just to stupid to recognize some yolk that only people with your mindset can see? Of course not. I also don't understand the obsession with the market as rigidly defined by Anarcho-Capitalists. The anarcho-capitalist position doesn't define markets particularly rigidly at all. "voluntary exchange" is pretty much it. How much more liberal a definition are you looking for? Not all human exchange that leads to the benefits of market forces needs to be done through currency and its near analogues. Agreed. I'm not sure why you think that position is at odds with anything I've said though. As soon as there are two people and their Rights and Liberties come at odds, it is like starting from scratch every time. Who's Rights and Liberty trumps whos? Again, this is where the optimism comes in. I'm optimistic that most conflicts can be resolved peacefully. Where they can't, there isn't - at the end of the day - any way I can see to prevent someone from using superior force to vanquish someone who possesses less strength. But that doesn't mean that we should institutionalize the use of force as a routine part of how we conduct business with each other.
- clavalle 12y ago
  >The anarcho-capitalist position doesn't define markets particularly rigidly at all. "voluntary exchange" is pretty much it. Then what about the exchange between the organization we call a State and the people? For example: I am more than happy to exchange my freedom to commit violence and for others to commit violence against me in the course of doing business to a heavily regulated monopoly (the State) that is ultimately controlled by the people that constitute that State. That is one less worry I have with every other interaction I have in my life -- violence has been taken off the table except in the case of rules that I've agreed to live by. Seems like a very fair trade to me. I have already volunteered for that exchange. Or how about the agreement that I pool my money with people from all different industries and backgrounds into a fund that we all decide to spend through our representatives that we've voted to appoint? This tends to mean that pool of money is used for the common benefit. I'm happy with that situation as well. It creates a collective power that would be hard to match in any less comprehensive scheme, and some problems call for that approach. In short, I've agreed to exchange time and effort and some freedom of action (that I will never miss) to participate in a system that I think works and works well. This system does not use solely currency as a means for exchange but votes and persuasion. Granted, currency can be spent to nudge votes this way or that but there is no direct exchange. I believe this is the right way to go and that not everything needs to be translated into exchanges of currency which, really, is the heart of my disagreement with anarcho-capitalism. Not everything must be exchangeable with currency. In fact, some things should be impossible to exchange, directly, with currency. >Where they can't, there isn't - at the end of the day - any way I can see to prevent someone from using superior force to vanquish someone who possesses less strength. But that doesn't mean that we should institutionalize the use of force as a routine part of how we conduct business with each other. Violence exists. The best we can do is manage it. Do you not see the contradiction that you would allow freedom of all associations except the one society's currently agreed on?
  - mindcrime 12y ago
    > Do you not see the contradiction that you would allow freedom of all associations except the one society's currently agreed on? I think you're assuming something about my position that isn't accurate. But this is starting to drift way more off-topic than ever, and I find myself thinking that I shouldn't even have replied in this thread, since I'm generally in favor of less political discussion on HN. But sometimes I allow myself to get drawn into it. Anyway, I'm happy to discuss this at length, as long as it's a civil discussion. I'd just rather do it in a different forum. If you're really interested in the rest of my response to this, shoot me an email or something and we can continue the discussion there. If not, I think I'll just stop here.
innguest 12y ago
> Here's the problem with that 'bedrock' you are standing on: the vast majority of us are not coerced at all. We've happily agreed to this system. Just like North Koreans are not coerced at all and they've happily agreed to that system. > Think about it: how can people simultaneously be too dumb to do and see what is best for them under their current system but would be able to function just fine under if under a more pure market force dominated Anarcho-Capitalist framework? Because we know North Koreans would do just fine with less coercion, and we extend that same 'less-coercion' line of thinking to everyone. > Having diverse means of exchange seems more robust to me. Why does the federal government then not allow for competing currencies to the dollar? Why can't my employer pay me in gold (although 2 or 3 states have legalized this now - I wonder why!)? Why does all currency exchange have to be homogenized? You're speaking against ancap without actually having read any of its literature. I can tell by the silly arguments you're using, and the fact you can't see the propaganda you're fed. Get reading.
- clavalle 12y ago
  Gold is a currency. I've read a bit of literature -- I don't know how canonical it was because it was stuff I was pointed to in the middle of chats like this one but I found most of it to be very 'happy path philosophy' which is to say it didn't stand up to much critical reasoning. It seemed like I needed to accept the conclusions before it made sense in any more than a toy world way. It was all also not very surprising. I never had a 'Oh, well now that makes sense' kind of moments. As soon as I see that it may be worth my time, I'll have a look, but if the answer is 'well the market works well in this area it must work well in all areas' and 'we'll know it works when we try.' or 'some Norwegian clans 800 years ago tried it for 75 years and it worked great (ignoring the fact they had clan councils and chiefs that enforced common laws -- 'but they could chose to change clans!'). Anyway, as far as I can tell it is pretty weak sauce on the order of Objectivism. If you have a pointer to something remotely enlightening I'd like to see it. So far the proponents and the literature I've come across has been pretty hollow.
  - innguest 12y ago
    I don't know about your Norwegian example, and it might be because I'm ignorant of it; or you might be confusing it with Iceland 1200 years ago. If so, remember they had that system for 300 years (longer than the US has existed) and that they could not only choose which 'clan' they belonged to but also could literally buy seats in the law-making house. This makes it a voluntary (therefore, anarcho-capitalist) society. I'd point you in the direction of any Austrian Economics literature. I don't come from any "objectivist" thinking as it seems to me most of it comes from fiction, which I don't read. But if you learn how wealth can be created from simple exchange between two people, that's the aha moment. I'd recommend PraxGirl's Praxeology series on youtube, and Schiff's How an Economy Grows and Why it Crashes.

mindcrime 12y ago

Have you convinced yourself that we are all just to stupid to recognize some yolk that only people with your mindset can see? Of course not. I also don't understand the obsession with the market as rigidly defined by Anarcho-Capitalists. The anarcho-capitalist position doesn't define markets particularly rigidly at all. "voluntary exchange" is pretty much it. How much more liberal a definition are you looking for? Not all human exchange that leads to the benefits of market forces needs to be done through currency and its near analogues. Agreed. I'm not sure why you think that position is at odds with anything I've said though. As soon as there are two people and their Rights and Liberties come at odds, it is like starting from scratch every time. Who's Rights and Liberty trumps whos? Again, this is where the optimism comes in. I'm optimistic that most conflicts can be resolved peacefully. Where they can't, there isn't - at the end of the day - any way I can see to prevent someone from using superior force to vanquish someone who possesses less strength. But that doesn't mean that we should institutionalize the use of force as a routine part of how we conduct business with each other.

clavalle 12y ago
>The anarcho-capitalist position doesn't define markets particularly rigidly at all. "voluntary exchange" is pretty much it. Then what about the exchange between the organization we call a State and the people? For example: I am more than happy to exchange my freedom to commit violence and for others to commit violence against me in the course of doing business to a heavily regulated monopoly (the State) that is ultimately controlled by the people that constitute that State. That is one less worry I have with every other interaction I have in my life -- violence has been taken off the table except in the case of rules that I've agreed to live by. Seems like a very fair trade to me. I have already volunteered for that exchange. Or how about the agreement that I pool my money with people from all different industries and backgrounds into a fund that we all decide to spend through our representatives that we've voted to appoint? This tends to mean that pool of money is used for the common benefit. I'm happy with that situation as well. It creates a collective power that would be hard to match in any less comprehensive scheme, and some problems call for that approach. In short, I've agreed to exchange time and effort and some freedom of action (that I will never miss) to participate in a system that I think works and works well. This system does not use solely currency as a means for exchange but votes and persuasion. Granted, currency can be spent to nudge votes this way or that but there is no direct exchange. I believe this is the right way to go and that not everything needs to be translated into exchanges of currency which, really, is the heart of my disagreement with anarcho-capitalism. Not everything must be exchangeable with currency. In fact, some things should be impossible to exchange, directly, with currency. >Where they can't, there isn't - at the end of the day - any way I can see to prevent someone from using superior force to vanquish someone who possesses less strength. But that doesn't mean that we should institutionalize the use of force as a routine part of how we conduct business with each other. Violence exists. The best we can do is manage it. Do you not see the contradiction that you would allow freedom of all associations except the one society's currently agreed on?
- mindcrime 12y ago
  > Do you not see the contradiction that you would allow freedom of all associations except the one society's currently agreed on? I think you're assuming something about my position that isn't accurate. But this is starting to drift way more off-topic than ever, and I find myself thinking that I shouldn't even have replied in this thread, since I'm generally in favor of less political discussion on HN. But sometimes I allow myself to get drawn into it. Anyway, I'm happy to discuss this at length, as long as it's a civil discussion. I'd just rather do it in a different forum. If you're really interested in the rest of my response to this, shoot me an email or something and we can continue the discussion there. If not, I think I'll just stop here.

innguest 12y ago

> Here's the problem with that 'bedrock' you are standing on: the vast majority of us are not coerced at all. We've happily agreed to this system. Just like North Koreans are not coerced at all and they've happily agreed to that system. > Think about it: how can people simultaneously be too dumb to do and see what is best for them under their current system but would be able to function just fine under if under a more pure market force dominated Anarcho-Capitalist framework? Because we know North Koreans would do just fine with less coercion, and we extend that same 'less-coercion' line of thinking to everyone. > Having diverse means of exchange seems more robust to me. Why does the federal government then not allow for competing currencies to the dollar? Why can't my employer pay me in gold (although 2 or 3 states have legalized this now - I wonder why!)? Why does all currency exchange have to be homogenized? You're speaking against ancap without actually having read any of its literature. I can tell by the silly arguments you're using, and the fact you can't see the propaganda you're fed. Get reading.

clavalle 12y ago
Gold is a currency. I've read a bit of literature -- I don't know how canonical it was because it was stuff I was pointed to in the middle of chats like this one but I found most of it to be very 'happy path philosophy' which is to say it didn't stand up to much critical reasoning. It seemed like I needed to accept the conclusions before it made sense in any more than a toy world way. It was all also not very surprising. I never had a 'Oh, well now that makes sense' kind of moments. As soon as I see that it may be worth my time, I'll have a look, but if the answer is 'well the market works well in this area it must work well in all areas' and 'we'll know it works when we try.' or 'some Norwegian clans 800 years ago tried it for 75 years and it worked great (ignoring the fact they had clan councils and chiefs that enforced common laws -- 'but they could chose to change clans!'). Anyway, as far as I can tell it is pretty weak sauce on the order of Objectivism. If you have a pointer to something remotely enlightening I'd like to see it. So far the proponents and the literature I've come across has been pretty hollow.
- innguest 12y ago
  I don't know about your Norwegian example, and it might be because I'm ignorant of it; or you might be confusing it with Iceland 1200 years ago. If so, remember they had that system for 300 years (longer than the US has existed) and that they could not only choose which 'clan' they belonged to but also could literally buy seats in the law-making house. This makes it a voluntary (therefore, anarcho-capitalist) society. I'd point you in the direction of any Austrian Economics literature. I don't come from any "objectivist" thinking as it seems to me most of it comes from fiction, which I don't read. But if you learn how wealth can be created from simple exchange between two people, that's the aha moment. I'd recommend PraxGirl's Praxeology series on youtube, and Schiff's How an Economy Grows and Why it Crashes.