|
Who What Now posted:I haven't abused alcohol since seeing a new psychiatrist three months ago. But hey, thanks for trying anyway, even if you are a oval office. SedanChair posted:It's no trouble, you can count on me. Just kiss already. You two are adorable and I can't take this will-they-won't-they plot device anymore 
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 00:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 14:20 |
|
|
twodot posted:What sort of question is this? You are in an anarchy, so literally the only thing a hospital can't do is sue you in a government court. What the hospital would choose to do and whether they would be successful depends on a thousand unspecified facts. Uh, pretty sure a hospital in an anarchic society would just hold you until you payed, and proceed to harvest your organs if you refuse. That's what my MeatWagon brand of hospitals would do anyway. No one would complain for fear of admitting to being poor.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 00:37
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Just kiss already. You two are adorable and I can't take this will-they-won't-they plot device anymore Unfortunately I don't think Sedan is even capable of love. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 00:47
|
|
|
paragon1 posted:Uh, pretty sure a hospital in an anarchic society would just hold you until you payed, and proceed to harvest your organs if you refuse. Also if you complain then you could be guilty of defaming the hospital and then their DRO might have to come and extract a fine from you.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 00:48
|
|
|
Helsing posted:Also if you complain then you could be guilty of defaming the hospital and then their DRO might have to come and extract a fine from you. But if the hospital goes after you unreasonably just because you aren't a satisfied customer, then you could complain and their reputation would… wait a second.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 01:21
|
|
|
Fortunately lies, smear campaigns, and other disinformation can be produced at extraordinarily high volume for extremely low cost. You don't even have to convince anyone really, just generate enough static to drown out the signal for the vast majority of people. Or you could go with other methods. "Mighty fine kidneys you have there Mr. Newspaper Man. Be a real shame if they were to be...misplaced."
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 02:22
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Yeah, but the US government doesn't recognize Valhalla DRO or have any arbitration contracts with them, so when the spearmen show up to stab the man who stole from you, the US government is going to arrest them all for breaking and entering and attempted murder. Vigilanteism is illegal, and it's pretty unlikely that another DRO is going to obtain the wealth and power necessary to win a war against the US Government on US soil and actually get recognition from it so in practice just about everyone would keep paying their taxes under this scheme. Actually, I think one time a significant percentage of the country did stop paying taxes to the US government and founded another DRO but I think that ended up being a lost cause somehow or another.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 03:52
|
|
|
twodot posted:Eh, vigilantism is illegal, but not private security. I can't go out and spear someone who stole from me last week, but I generally can spear someone who is currently stealing from me. I think it's unlikely that you could find someone that could provide adequate protection for less than the taxes most people pay, but if taxes were voluntary, I don't see how voluntarists could make a valid complaint. Private security should be illegal. Protecting another person, even for pay, is crypto-altruism. Use your bodyguarding prowess to
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 04:08
|
|
|
I mean, I have a gun, it's right there, and I want it more than the other guy. It should be mine.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 05:11
|
|
|
twodot posted:Eh, vigilantism is illegal, but not private security. I can't go out and spear someone who stole from me last week, but I generally can spear someone who is currently stealing from me. I think it's unlikely that you could find someone that could provide adequate protection for less than the taxes most people pay, but if taxes were voluntary, I don't see how voluntarists could make a valid complaint. In AnCap land there isn't a strong US Government to contest with Valhalla DRO so the point of who has legal enforcement power is moot. paragon1 posted:I mean, I have a gun, it's right there, and I want it more than the other guy. It should be mine. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 13:06
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:In AnCap land there isn't a strong US Government to contest with Valhalla DRO so the point of who has legal enforcement power is moot. We were talking about what would happen if the US government stopped using force to coerce taxes from people and instead used a Libertarian-approved method of, at any hint of a dispute with the IRS, posting your name and address publicly and inviting criminals to do what they wanted. Boom the US government is instantly noncoercive and passes the NAP test while still obviously being able to suppress any vigilante DRO out there initiating force at the behest of courts that the USG doesn't recognize.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 13:22
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:We were talking about what would happen if the US government stopped using force to coerce taxes from people and instead used a Libertarian-approved method of, at any hint of a dispute with the IRS, posting your name and address publicly and inviting criminals to do what they wanted. That idea is passive aggressive as gently caress so probably not in the spirit of the NAP. I'm also pretty sure there's no sense in which a scheme in which the government advertises open season on someone's life and property while simultaneously preventing him from defending himself can be called noncoercive. edit: In your hypothetical world taxation would literally be extortion and AnCaps would actually have a point. wateroverfire fucked around with this message at 14:01 on Oct 15, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 13:59
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:That idea is passive aggressive as gently caress so probably not in the spirit of the NAP. Libertarians have shown time and time again that they only care for the letter of laws/contracts, so I don't see any issue there. wateroverfire posted:edit: It's no more extortion than any other DRO who would do the exact same things. VitalSigns isn't pulling these hypotheticals out of his rear end, these are real suggestions that AnCaps themselves put forward on how DROs should deal with people who don't pay their dues. All Vital did was swap out 'DRO Accounting Department' with 'IRS'.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 14:09
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:That idea is passive aggressive as gently caress so probably not in the spirit of the NAP. Oh passive-aggressive "do what I say or you starve/freeze/die horribly" is definitely in the spirit of the NAP Stephen Molyneaux posted:But let's say that only the murderous husband — planning to kill his wife — opted out of his DRO system without telling her. Well, the first thing that his wife's DRO system would do is inform her of her husband's action — and the ill intent it may represent — and help relocate her if desired. If she decided against relocation, her DRO would promptly drop her, since by deciding to live in close proximity with a rogue man, she was exposing herself to an untenable amount of danger (and so the DRO to a high risk for financial loss!). Now both the husband and wife have chosen to live without DROs, in a state of nature, and thus face all the insurmountable problems of getting food, shelter, money and so on. "Hey your husband canceled his contract with us ma'am, we're here to take you somewhere safe so you never have to risk your contract with us by talking to him again, what no you can't call him and ask why, he's an unperson. Look bitch, you can get in this van right-the-gently caress-now and never see your husband again, or you can join him in unpersonhood and wonder whether starvation or the criminals who check our RSS feed will get you first." wateroverfire posted:In your hypothetical world taxation would literally be extortion and AnCaps would actually have a point. Yeah, that's the joke. Libertarians are super-paranoid about a court system that tends to respect some form of constitutional rights (especially if like most Libertarians, you're white), so they propose alternate voluntary systems that are insanely tyrannical and oppressive but technically don't initiate force so that's okay. Because they'll be the savvy customers you see.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 14:31
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Look bitch, you can get in this van right-the-gently caress-now and never see your husband again, or you can join him in unpersonhood and wonder whether starvation or the criminals who check our RSS feed will get you first." "YOUR JOB IS TO SAY YES OR NO, THAT'S ALL IT IS"
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 14:34
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:That idea is passive aggressive as gently caress so probably not in the spirit of the NAP. I'm also pretty sure there's no sense in which a scheme in which the government advertises open season on someone's life and property while simultaneously preventing him from defending himself can be called noncoercive. Have you read any of jrodefeld's posts? This is exactly the kind of poo poo that he proposed would happen in his glorious ancap utopia, except he was phrasing it as a good thing
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 18:00
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:That idea is passive aggressive as gently caress so probably not in the spirit of the NAP. I'm also pretty sure there's no sense in which a scheme in which the government advertises open season on someone's life and property while simultaneously preventing him from defending himself can be called noncoercive. I agree, AnCaps are stupid and their ideas are loving terrible to imagine in practice.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 18:45
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:Have you read any of jrodefeld's posts? This is exactly the kind of poo poo that he proposed would happen in his glorious ancap utopia, except he was phrasing it as a good thing It always amuses me when people who play Devil's Advocate for AnCaps look at actual nigh word for word presentation of their ideas and say "Well that's just silly, no AnCap would say that!"
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 18:51
|
|
|
How would AnCaps What will happen to the people who inevitably think that having a government is preferable to DROs? Ship them to islands in the Pacific? Concentration camps? Death camps? Who gets the nuclear weapons/nuclear technology after a state is dissolved? Who keeps a group of people/DROs from leveraging this technology to form their own How are research funds allocated? Will only things that are potentially profitable be given money? Would I have to form my own DRO to fund things like astronomy that have minor or rare economic impact? It would seem that science purely for knowledge/discovery would be at the mercy of a population's fickle interest/donations. Edit: Not trying to set a trap or score points; these are just some questions right off the top of my head that would seem to make AnCap a very difficult, if not impossible, system to implement with good results. BadOptics fucked around with this message at 12:45 on Oct 16, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2014 12:43
|
|
|
Stephen Molyneux is a despicable and unimaginably stupid human being. This DRO poo poo is an incredibly ill-conceived and thoughtless scheme. Though, I guess it fits in well with the vast bulk of libertarian thinking, which is mostly reductionism and sophistry.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2014 13:24
|
|
|
BadOptics posted:How would AnCaps People won't violate the NAP because violation of the NAP would be an act of aggression in itself, which would violate the NAP. QED.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2014 13:30
|
|
|
Igiari posted:People won't violate the NAP because violation of the NAP would be an act of aggression in itself, which would violate the NAP. QED. And if anyone does, it would be highly profitable and within one's own self interest to assassinate the military leaders. And once they are dead the soldiers drop down to Leadership score 7 and lose their initiative and To-Hit bonuses and become susceptible to charges.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2014 14:00
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Oh passive-aggressive "do what I say or you starve/freeze/die horribly" is definitely in the spirit of the NAP You keep drawing analogies between these things that are not of a kind. I am not going to spend one single line defending Molyneux because meh, but the scenario isn't the same as your government scenario. One is the DRO going "a dangerous situation has developed and we'd like to protect you from that by removing you. If you want to stay instead, that's on you, what we can do for you is remove you from the situation". That is not extortion. The other is the government going "Send us some money or a dangerous situation will be developed by us and we won't let you protect yourself. Wouldn't that be a shame?" That's straight-up extortion. VitalSigns posted:Yeah, that's the joke. Libertarians are super-paranoid about a court system that tends to respect some form of constitutional rights (especially if like most Libertarians, you're white), so they propose alternate voluntary systems that are insanely tyrannical and oppressive but technically don't initiate force so that's okay. Because they'll be the savvy customers you see. Unfortunately your analogies don't work. =( Listen to Helsing. QuarkJets posted:Have you read any of jrodefeld's posts? This is exactly the kind of poo poo that he proposed would happen in his glorious ancap utopia, except he was phrasing it as a good thing Without the added "but we'll prevent you from defending yourself" part.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2014 14:13
|
|
|
If the mindcrime of states had never been perpetrated, the NAP would naturally flourish inside of every man. Except for those who spurned it and would therefore be either traded as a free good or controlled as a pest.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2014 14:14
|
|
|
StandardVC10 posted:But if the hospital goes after you unreasonably just because you aren't a satisfied customer, then you could complain and their reputation would… wait a second. The hospital would just send a messenger to your designated heir and hand over a bucket with the disputed/wrongfully harvested innards, and you would then be free to realise a handsome profit on the open parts market to recoup the inconvenience.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2014 14:47
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:One is the DRO going "a dangerous situation has developed and we'd like to protect you from that by removing you. If you want to stay instead, that's on you, what we can do for you is remove you from the situation". That is not extortion. The other is the government going "Send us some money or a dangerous situation will be developed by us and we won't let you protect yourself. Wouldn't that be a shame?" That's straight-up extortion. Yeah I'm sure that an organization that takes the law into its own hands to protect its members and enforce contracts and debts would never find it profitable to create a dangerous situation as an incentive to resolve disputes in its favor. What a fantastically inventive mind you have, VitalSigns.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2014 14:59
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Yeah I'm sure that an organization that takes the law into its own hands to protect its members and enforce contracts and debts would never find it profitable to create a dangerous situation as an incentive to resolve disputes in its favor. What a fantastically inventive mind you have, VitalSigns. No, see, you just aren't arguing under the same parameters that wateroverfire is. You have to always assume the best of DROs, that they will always be kind, forgiving, and benevolent, and you must always assume the worst in governments, that they will always be cruel, merciless, and malevolent. If you assume those things then his arguments make perfect sense!
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2014 15:07
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Yeah I'm sure that an organization that takes the law into its own hands to protect its members and enforce contracts and debts would never find it profitable to create a dangerous situation as an incentive to resolve disputes in its favor. What a fantastically inventive mind you have, VitalSigns. "DROs are dumb and a bad idea", while true, is another issue.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2014 15:36
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:That idea is passive aggressive as gently caress so probably not in the spirit of the NAP. I'm also pretty sure there's no sense in which a scheme in which the government advertises open season on someone's life and property while simultaneously preventing him from defending himself can be called noncoercive.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2014 15:41
|
|
|
It's not in anyone's rational self-interest to be conquered by a foreign power so the free market will come to the most effective and efficient solution after a period of open competition during which money from satisfied customers flows to those most adept at resisting conquest and away from those who are least adept. The question of "what if people want a state" is irrelevant because once the state is abolished, its all-encompassing system of indoctrinating a love of the state into children via public education will be gone. From then on, only a small minority of the insane or animalistically stupid would fail to recognize that state coercion is in no one's interest. These few are no threat to anyone and will naturally be set to work as livestock or mined for organs along with the other small criminally insane populations of communists, democrats, homosexuals, Christ-deniers, infidels, slatterns, race-mixers, and so forth.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2014 15:55
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:"DROs are dumb and a bad idea", while true, is another issue. No, it's the same issue. The point I am making is that Libertarians object to the state because in principle it initiates force against you, but in practice there all all sorts of obstacles in the way of becoming tyrannical like constitutional rights, checks and balances, an independent judiciary, democratic accountability and so on. But Libertarians wish to replace it with a system that in principle bans the initiation of force but in practice offers few obstacles (and in fact many incentives) to become tyrannical and overbearing. twodot posted:I agree that "while simultaneously preventing him from defending himself" would break the analogy, but as far as I can tell you are the person who introduced that condition. You'd still be allowed to defend yourself from immediate threats. It's also worth mentioning that DROs don't just cancel your contract and say "have a nice day, good luck!" They order all of their customers not to do business with you, inform all your counterparties you're in breach of contract, and tell other DROs so they may do the same. It would take some impressive sophistry to say that "ordering your eviction from your apartment and barring you from moving along roads or fields or buying food" is not "a dangerous situation developed by us." It'd also be pretty naïve not to consider that making your non-protected status public knowledge for this purpose wouldn't also attract criminals and thieves even if the DRO doesn't say so specifically like Obama does in my example.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2014 16:55
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Unfortunately I don't think Sedan is even capable of love. Oh so it's like a Buffy/Spike thing? 
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2014 17:36
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:You keep drawing analogies between these things that are not of a kind. I am not going to spend one single line defending Molyneux because meh, but the scenario isn't the same as your government scenario. One is the DRO going "a dangerous situation has developed and we'd like to protect you from that by removing you. If you want to stay instead, that's on you, what we can do for you is remove you from the situation". That is not extortion. The other is the government going "Send us some money or a dangerous situation will be developed by us and we won't let you protect yourself. Wouldn't that be a shame?" That's straight-up extortion. You forgot the part where they cancel the wife's coverage if she chooses to stay in the "dangerous" situation. Threatening someone with becoming a social outcast if they don't do what you say sounds exactly like extortion, but it's actually even worse than that since you're no longer able to do business with anyone, leaving you unable to travel, purchase food, etc. The wife choosing to stay is essentially a death sentence. "Do what we say or die" is what the DRO is saying. Surely you'd agree that this is extortion
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2014 18:20
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:The wife choosing to stay is essentially a death sentence. And wasn't the initial idea proposed as some means of ensuring the wife's safety?
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2014 19:20
|
|
|
I Am The Scum posted:And wasn't the initial idea proposed as some means of ensuring the wife's safety? Yes, in theory. AnCaps aren't good at critical thinking, probably because most of their principles preclude it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2014 20:29
|
|
|
I Am The Scum posted:And wasn't the initial idea proposed as some means of ensuring the wife's safety? Yeah. The initial idea was that the husband is homicidal and cancels his DRO subscription as a prelude to murder and the woman's DRO, which she contracted to see to her safety and such, offers to remove her from the situation and relocate her. She says "no, I'm good, I'd rather stay with my homicidal husband who is making plans to kill me" so they drop her. Goons are incapable of parsing motivation or context so we end up in this argument. QuarkJets posted:"Do what we say or die" is what the DRO is saying. Surely you'd agree that this is extortion "Do what we say or we'll kill you" is extortion. "Do what we say or we'll allow you to come to some harm we have the duty and power to prevent" is extortion. This is neither of those things. The DRO can't preemptively kill her husband. It can't detain him. It can't really actively prevent him from doing anything since that wouldn't be AnCapish (which is dumb, but that's not relevant to this hypothetical). What it can do is move her out of harm's way, so it offers to do that. She refuses and they drop her, because wtf else are they going to do? That's "Do what we say or fend for yourself (and maybe die) because we can't do other than what we offered to do for you," which is not extortion. twodot posted:I agree that "while simultaneously preventing him from defending himself" would break the analogy, but as far as I can tell you are the person who introduced that condition. You'd still be allowed to defend yourself from immediate threats. It's true you wouldn't be allowed to violently resolve not-immediate threats, but this doesn't appear to be different from an ancap society where someone had a protection agency. It doesn't matter that I stole your TV last week, if you try to forcefully recover it, without attempting some sort of mediation, my bodyguards/police are going to stop you. It's probably true that for non-immediate threats the US government would be a vastly more effective protection agency than anything you could find privately, but that just means that paying taxes is a smart choice. Even dealing with immediate threats your ability to respond is highly curtailed by the government unless we're using Texas rules. AnCap land is just pretty different. If I don't want to pay a given DRO I can contract a different one. If I don't want to pay the US Government I have no alternative.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2014 20:47
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:AnCap land is just pretty different. If I don't want to pay a given DRO I can contract a different one. If I don't want to pay the US Government I have no alternative.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2014 20:54
|
|
|
I Am The Scum posted:And wasn't the initial idea proposed as some means of ensuring the wife's safety? The start of that bit says it's addressing the hypothetical situation "what if a husband quits his DRO so he can murder his wife without repercussion", but then the rest of it is just the punishments inflicted on the wife if her husband chooses to not have a DRO. It basically assumes that the only reason you would want to not have a DRO is if you're trying to commit a crime, which flies right in the face of the NAP and allowing people to voluntarily choose what companies and services they want to pay for, but somehow I suspect people who write out masturbation aids like that aren't really interested in non-aggression.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2014 21:25
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:That's "Do what we say or fend for yourself (and maybe die) because we can't do other than what we offered to do for you," which is not extortion. The problem with this argument is that in AnCap land "fend for yourself" comes with the additional challenge of the DRO actively prohibiting any of its subscribers from associating or doing business with you and likely notifying the neighboring DROs to do the same. You can't even buy food from the grocery store because they are barred from doing business with you, assuming you managed to get there without being arrested for trespassing on privately owned streets. There is a big difference between "will will no longer provide the services you have not paid for" and being turned into some Orwellian Unperson.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2014 21:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 14:20 |
|
|
Ancap land is also impossibly stupid and will never happen.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2014 22:16
|
|