|
Who What Now posted:What did lynch mobs in the south have to gain when they came after defenseless black men and women? What greed and ambition drove them? They got to steal the property of the black men they lynched.
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2015 00:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 05:49 |
|
|
Who What Now posted:What did lynch mobs in the south have to gain when they came after defenseless black men and women? What greed and ambition drove them? Not much and without a state they could just lynch the rich white people instead. Something that would occur to them pretty quickly.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2015 00:58
|
|
|
Muscle Tracer posted:Get rich quick schemes are not how people amass wealth and power. How did the wealthiest country in the history of the world get where it is? By extinguishing one race and subjugating another. [citation needed] America got where it is now by allowing people to innovate and pursue their own dreams and ideas without too much interference. Want to start a search engine? Great, we won't get in your way. Want to found an electric car company? Go for it. Slavery held America back, because the practice of slavery artificially delayed automation and industrialization by making workers too cheap compared to what they would have been in a free society. We would be even wealthier if African Americans and Native Americans had not been held back by government and prevented from learning, achieving, creating and interacting with the marketplace as free men.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2015 01:00
|
|
|
OwlBot 2000 posted:[citation needed] OwlBot 2000, I just wanna say thanks for setting the record straight, I guess everyone else in the world was wrong about this, but you make a great point. About Freedom 
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2015 01:14
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:Not much and without a state they could just lynch the rich white people instead. Something that would occur to them pretty quickly. Rich white people have armed guards and big walls. Poor black families don't. It's a hell of a lot safer and much almost as emotionally satisfying to take out their aggression on those weaker than them, if not more so. You're naive because you think that without a state the rich will be just as defenseless as the weak. Sorry, sport, but that won't be the case. Thugs don't cost much and pay for themselves very quickly.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2015 01:29
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Rich white people have armed guards and big walls. Poor black families don't. It's a hell of a lot safer and much almost as emotionally satisfying to take out their aggression on those weaker than them, if not more so. Are we talking about medeival europe or 2015? I don't think white people or rich people are superior so if society got put in a blender and flipped upside down I don't think they'd automatically come out on top.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2015 02:29
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:White people aren't going to set aside their greed and ambition for a hellbent mission to destroy the Other races. They'll fight each other just as much. Ideology, of which race is just one element (and not the strongest) takes a back seat to practical matters like power and wealth. You're making the same erroneous assumption that Jrod always makes: that all people are primarily motivated by green and ambition. That's true for most people, but most people wouldn't lynch someone on the basis of skin color.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2015 05:25
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:Are we talking about medeival europe or 2015? You think people won't do what some rich a-hole says for the promise of getting paid fat stacks if the government went tits up tomorrow? Because if so I have a bridge and some condos to sell you sight unseen.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2015 05:33
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:You're making the same erroneous assumption that Jrod always makes: that all people are primarily motivated by green and ambition. That's true for most people, but most people wouldn't lynch someone on the basis of skin color. *looks up from reading Rosa Luxemburg's collected works* In other words, JRod and asdf32 might be giving the environmental lobby more power than they deserve? 
TLM3101 fucked around with this message at 05:49 on Mar 2, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2015 05:39
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:Are we talking about medeival europe or 2015? They will stay on top because they already have all the money and resources and can afford to hire Blackwater. You're a fool if you think the top 1% won't begin to set up defense contracts the day after Libertarians sweep the November elections on their platform of dismantling society. It's not like abolishing the state is something we could do at 3am with no one the wiser so we can storm the mansions of the ultrarich before they know what's going on.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2015 05:57
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:Are we talking about medeival europe or 2015? Who is easier to steal from; an overworked poor guy who care barely afford his rent or a billionaire that can comfortably afford to have a few bodyguards with him at all times? Also note that the disenfranchised poor can't always even get to the super rich. The obscenely rich often have various types of walls around them in better funded neighborhoods that probably have better police. Wealthy areas are just flat out more secure. They're also often a good distance away from where poor people live, often by design. Ever wonder why low-income housing is such a NIMBY thing? Part of the reason the poor tend to steal from each other rather than from the rich is that the police locally are probably not funded very well, there isn't security, nothing is locked in a vault, and they're also way closer. A horde of poor people all moving in the same direction also tends to attract a lot of attention. Richy McMoneypants is probably going to notice and can probably hire more poor people from another group to beat the poo poo out of the poor people marching. Read about the 1800's in America. poo poo like this happened all the loving time and is part of why some of the laws we have exist right now. When workers starting planning strikes or demanding better wages the rich responded by hiring Pinkertons and thugs to beat the poo poo out of the "agitators" or spy on the rest. Anybody that got too uppity was fired, black listed, and told they were not allowed to work anywhere ever again. That promise was kept. Think about that for a moment; is that the kind of world you want to live in? One where the rich can just declare you tainted and literally starve you to death because you didn't keep your head down and make them richer? America already tried a libertarian paradise two centuries ago. The results were loving horrifying.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2015 06:15
|
|
|
Jizz Festival posted:After reading this thread, I'm still confused how property ownership, the bedrock of this whole philosophy, even works in ancapland. So, as has been mentioned before in this thread, Libertarians - or at least JRod - seem to base their notion of property-rights on a mangled, perverted version of the ideas of John Locke. In and of themselves, Locke's ideas are sensible enough: By cultivating a piece of land ( tilling a Field, say ) a person gains a right of ownership of that particular parcel, having invested time and effort and ( most crucially ) labor into that particular piece of property. So, in essence? Yes. In Locke's view, ( and presumably in Libertopia/ancapland ) someone can, in fact, find an 'unused' plot of land, squat there, and claim it as their own, as long as they throw up a shack and put down a vegetable-patch. Now, these ideas make sense, so far as they go, as long as you include the Lockian proviso: that "... there is enough, and as good, left in common for others". Guess what Libertarians do not do? Not only is Libertarian thinking about property-rights based on a 300-year-old definition that is - to put it kindly - somewhat out of date in the modern world, but Libertarians twist it by outright ignoring a crucial part of said definition, namely that there needs to be enough and as good land left over, once you've claimed your share, to be held in common by other people. Only then does Locke allow for this Method of acquiring property... The filthy, filthy loving Statist that he is. Or, as you rightly pointed out. Jizz Festival posted:It's a mess.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2015 09:11
|
|
|
TLM3101 posted:So, in essence? Yes. In Locke's view, ( and presumably in Libertopia/ancapland ) someone can, in fact, find an 'unused' plot of land, squat there, and claim it as their own, as long as they throw up a shack and put down a vegetable-patch. Now, these ideas make sense, so far as they go, as long as you include the Lockian proviso: that "... there is enough, and as good, left in common for others". Well, I meant any plot of land, whether it's used or not. I guess the point I was trying to make is that in a voluntarist ancap utopia, there appears to be nobody with the authority to say who owns what. People can choose to agree to arbitration, but there's nobody with the authority to force them to do so if they don't want to.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2015 10:03
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:Are we talking about medeival europe or 2015? What fundamental difference is there between medieval europe and 2015 that keeps the wealthy and powerful from hiring everything from bodyguards to people to build a fortress to their own private army?
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2015 10:11
|
|
Jizz Festival posted:Well, I meant any plot of land, whether it's used or not. I guess the point I was trying to make is that in a voluntarist ancap utopia, there appears to be nobody with the authority to say who owns what. People can choose to agree to arbitration, but there's nobody with the authority to force them to do so if they don't want to. Actually, in this scenario the intended outcome is that the reputational loss to the individual who behaves in this manner will be sufficient to offset his gains - people will discover his conduct and, on the whole, covenant together to act against him or refuse to have dealings with him. A sort of proto-state behaviour, you might say  paragon1 posted:What fundamental difference is there between medieval europe and 2015 that keeps the wealthy and powerful from hiring everything from bodyguards to people to build a fortress to their own private army? Ancaps rest their case on the fact that we are less stupid. However, that sentence should read 'we are marginally less stupid'.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2015 10:39
|
|
|
TLM3101 posted:So, as has been mentioned before in this thread, Libertarians - or at least JRod - seem to base their notion of property-rights on a mangled, perverted version of the ideas of John Locke. In and of themselves, Locke's ideas are sensible enough: By cultivating a piece of land ( tilling a Field, say ) a person gains a right of ownership of that particular parcel, having invested time and effort and ( most crucially ) labor into that particular piece of property. So, in essence? Yes. In Locke's view, ( and presumably in Libertopia/ancapland ) someone can, in fact, find an 'unused' plot of land, squat there, and claim it as their own, as long as they throw up a shack and put down a vegetable-patch. Now, these ideas make sense, so far as they go, as long as you include the Lockian proviso: that "... there is enough, and as good, left in common for others". The biggest snag is that according to those ideas nobody is supposed to prevent anybody from utilizing unused land or worrying about how builds what where. If I found a chunk of "unused land" right next to a huge, very productive farm and decided to use it by dumping industrial waste all over it it is very likely that would affect the production of the farm. How does libertopia prevent that sort of thing from happening? Industrial waste needs to go somewhere.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2015 10:52
|
|
|
Note: the definition of 'unused land' is also going to be very important if you just so happen to turn up on foreign shores and discover a group of non-agricultural people who don't seem to be the owners in the conventional sense.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2015 10:54
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:Ancaps rest their case on the fact that we are less stupid.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2015 11:02
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:Actually, in this scenario the intended outcome is that the reputational loss to the individual who behaves in this manner will be sufficient to offset his gains - people will discover his conduct and, on the whole, covenant together to act against him or refuse to have dealings with him. Well a person could just steal what they needed and if caught claim that they legally own whatever they're stealing and refuse to go to arbitration to settle this dispute over ownership. Of course they'd probably just get killed eventually, but this would violate the sacred non-aggression principle. You could say it doesn't *really* violate the NAP because the person killed was aggressing against the killer by taking their property, but once again there's nobody with the ability to say who *really* owns what. The dispute over ownership was never settled, unless it's possible to settle disputes just by killing the other party. If that's how it works then the non-aggression principle is even more of a joke.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2015 11:12
|
|
Old Kentucky Shark posted:They also tend to ignore the fact that our lack of stupidity (I don't really want to call it superior intelligence) isn't an inherent or even earned trait but is simply encoded in our habituated societal behavior and institutional knowledge. The bulk of said institutional coding being intrinsically bound up in, you guessed it, modern states and their accoutrements. The fact that aggregate institutional memory is a form of advanced technology on par with internal combustion engines and cell phones is one of those things libertarians are real loving stupid about grasping; to dissolve the state without replacing it with a similarly advanced sociotechnological institution would also dissolve all the advantages that a state brings, like getting groups of people larger than a small village to engage in semi-civilized behavior. I completely agree with this, but in principle scientific discoveries and acquired knowledge should extend things further than your formulation: e.g. arguments that women are mentally deficient children in need of male governance are fairly disprovable scientifically. The point here, of course, is that people are not rational, and we should not be relying on just the broken rationality of individuals to guarantee a baseline of civil conduct towards vulnerable groups, but some sort of external arbiter of minimal standards of conduct as well. Jizz Festival posted:Well a person could just steal what they needed and if caught claim that they legally own whatever they're stealing and refuse to go to arbitration to settle this dispute over ownership. I find your argument a little circular and reductive. Ownership is a constructed concept in any society it exists in and always depends upon a variable ability of the owner to enforce his rights. Jrod doesn't not believe in community or systems of justice, effectively he just believes that these should be private concerns, voluntarily contracted with. So again, if you steal, you (1) have a personal right to defend your property and (2) can take this up with a community with which you have covenanted, as well as a private distributor of justice / legal enforcement. There are obviously enormous problems with that, I just don't think they're the problems you're bringing up. This does, however, bring to light the enormous complexities of a potential libertarian jurisprudence, because libertarians have an unfortunate tendency to assume that contractual relations are a sensible way to conduct all human interpersonal affairs. It does strongly indicate that they don't know a lot about the law of contract. Disinterested fucked around with this message at 12:02 on Mar 2, 2015 |
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2015 11:44
|
|
|
I, for one, look forward to picking out the horses that will pull the chariot at my first triumph.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2015 11:49
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:The biggest snag is that according to those ideas nobody is supposed to prevent anybody from utilizing unused land or worrying about how builds what where. If I found a chunk of "unused land" right next to a huge, very productive farm and decided to use it by dumping industrial waste all over it it is very likely that would affect the production of the farm. How does libertopia prevent that sort of thing from happening? Industrial waste needs to go somewhere. This scenario is what the Lockian proviso is supposed to prevent, really... And it becomes relevant because as Libertarians jettison the proviso entirely, in glorious Libertopia private property is the only thing that can exist, so there is absolutely no reason for you not to go through with the scenario you've drawn up. Libertopia/Libertarianism can't prevent that kind of thing from happening at all. It can only make vague noises about how to provide restitution once the damage has been done. Of course, this is not even getting into the fact that their ideas about private property are some 300 years old at this point, and have been replaced by the understanding of property as a social and cultural construct that's constantly evolving and changing along with the rest of our society. Libertarianism is reactionary, masochistic, petit-bourgeoise ideological escapism and apologetics for why the the bourgeoisie haven't deigned to exalt them to the ranks of true power, and you can see it in every manic, slobbering attempt at deepthroating those fat, reeking wads; "If I do it good enough this time, if I only try harder, the Masters will take pity on me!"
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2015 12:35
|
|
|
Yeah all problems of pollution and heavy metal poisoning can be solved with litigation to get monetary compensation once your health has already been ruined to give you a cause of action. With the one exception of mercury compounds in vaccines, since epistemological certainty is an impossibility in this mortal life and who knows they could be bad maybe, so we're justified in proactively empowering people to refuse them. In this and only this instance is restitution unacceptable.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2015 12:51
|
|
|
I feel like with stuff like that, whatever system of government you choose is only ever going to minimise harm, and not abolish these kinds of things. What's clear is that you need a pretty strong, independent third party involved with no vested financial interests, and a justice system that stops people from lying and cheating about it. I don't think libertarian theory as such is inadequate to deal with problems like pollution - it can identify it as a real problem in its ideology very easily. That is not a conceptual problem. The problem is that the libertarian solution utterly unworkable in practice. To me that's always the crucial point the Jrod species - it's never so much what they think so much as what they want to do.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2015 12:57
|
|
|
If a theory isn't inadequate, but it still doesn't work in practice, then that means it actually is inadequate. Nobody says "well Newton's theory isn't really inadequate for predicting the motion of objects at close to the speed of light, it's just that its predictions don't work out in practice"
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2015 13:00
|
|
VitalSigns posted:If a theory isn't inadequate, but it still doesn't work in practice, then that means it actually is inadequate. I just mean to say it's inadequate in another way. Some people say 'well, doesn't Jrod realise [x problem]?!?!?!?!?!'. The answer is yes, usually he does, but he just has an utterly fanciful answer to the problem. E.g.: Jrod: (1) Racism is a problem in our society. (2) (3) Ergo, abolishing the state will get rid of racism. Disinterested fucked around with this message at 13:11 on Mar 2, 2015 |
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2015 13:06
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:I just mean to say it's inadequate in another way. Some people say 'well, doesn't Jrod realise [x problem]?!?!?!?!?!'. Actually jrod has said multiple times that racism is not a problem in our society. He literally and truly believes racism is dead except for a few extremely rare and fringe cases.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2015 13:42
|
|
Who What Now posted:Actually jrod has said multiple times that racism is not a problem in our society. He literally and truly believes racism is dead except for a few extremely rare and fringe cases. Depends what you mean by racism. I'm not sure I've seen him say something quite like what you have just said, although obviously he downplays the racism of his favourite thinkers. I kind of get the vibe that that's more of a personal ego thing for Jrod than anything else. I definitely think he registers that there is severe racial inequality and regards that as being perpetuated by the state (which is why he loves his bipartisan attempts at bringing up the war on drugs).
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2015 13:43
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:I find your argument a little circular and reductive. Ownership is a constructed concept in any society it exists in and always depends upon a variable ability of the owner to enforce his rights. Ancaps would probably disagree with this, actually. Disinterested posted:Jrod doesn't not believe in community or systems of justice, effectively he just believes that these should be private concerns, voluntarily contracted with. Yes and there's a serious issue if there's a dispute between people who don't voluntarily contract with the same community or system of justice. Disinterested posted:So again, if you steal, you (1) have a personal right to defend your property and (2) can take this up with a community with which you have covenanted, as well as a private distributor of justice / legal enforcement. Do you mean if I'm stolen from? What if I'm defending property that I myself stole? Do I have a right to defend it? Also, what can my community do to someone who isn't covenanted with them? What can people I hire do to someone I accuse of being a thief? What proof do they require before being able to aggress against the accused? Everything I've heard from ancaps suggests that both parties need to agree before any action can be taken, usually by both agreeing to an arbitrator they both think is fair. This is why they push the idea of DROs so much. If everyone is forced by circumstances to be covenanted with a DRO (because otherwise they'd starve to death), then most disputes between people can be handled using whatever the DRO's rules are, or if the two parties are from different DROs, the DROs will work out rules between themselves.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2015 13:51
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:The biggest snag is that according to those ideas nobody is supposed to prevent anybody from utilizing unused land or worrying about how builds what where. If I found a chunk of "unused land" right next to a huge, very productive farm and decided to use it by dumping industrial waste all over it it is very likely that would affect the production of the farm. How does libertopia prevent that sort of thing from happening? Industrial waste needs to go somewhere. ??? But if industrial waste is inconvenient, then the market will eliminate it by definition. Alternate answer: some violence, like pollution, is fine and acceptable because we live in the modern world, and it would drastically inconvenience me if it went away. Note this does not apply to taxes or equality before the law or paying a living wage or suffering people of the wrong type to live near me, because reasons.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2015 14:25
|
|
Jizz Festival posted:Ancaps would probably disagree with this, actually. I'm not arguing that they wouldn't, just that it's not a problem that is magically solved by other forms of organisation. In fact, Marxists would have similar snags. I do think that people who set up property rights as absolute values are just embarking on a hilarious adventure in being wrong. Jizz Festival posted:Yes and there's a serious issue if there's a dispute between people who don't voluntarily contract with the same community or system of justice. Well, that's not necessarily the case, since it's common commercial practice to contract in a particular jurisdiction, although typically the stronger party forces the weaker party to contract in a jurisdiction favourable to them; modern private courts of arbitration are used for this reason, so that large multinational corporations can secretly litigate against weak parties in the developed world. That's a story you can expect in the ancap universe ad infinitum. As for the wandering individual who trespasses on your land without a pre-existing contractual relationship - well, I imagine such an individual will be treated as a peregrinus or similar - an alien subjected to the covenanted rules of the locality. His agreement is held to be a constructive consequence of his trespass / movement in to the jurisdiction. Jizz Festival posted:Do you mean if I'm stolen from? What if I'm defending property that I myself stole? Do I have a right to defend it? Also, what can my community do to someone who isn't covenanted with them? What can people I hire do to someone I accuse of being a thief? What proof do they require before being able to aggress against the accused? Eventually there becomes a story about coercion - someone here is going to be coerced into restitution. But that isn't a problem with the ancap story per se, since the only form of violence relevant to them is initiatory violence. But, of course, you are immediately forming ordinary societal concepts of law and order at this point - you have simply privatised the services. Jizz Festival posted:Everything I've heard from ancaps suggests that both parties need to agree before any action can be taken, usually by both agreeing to an arbitrator they both think is fair. This is why they push the idea of DROs so much. If everyone is forced by circumstances to be covenanted with a DRO (because otherwise they'd starve to death), then most disputes between people can be handled using whatever the DRO's rules are, or if the two parties are from different DROs, the DROs will work out rules between themselves. This is basically how modern insurance companies work today. (Note: I don't intend for that to be fully pejorative, since US insurance companies are worse than the average).
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2015 14:39
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:Depends what you mean by racism. I'm not sure I've seen him say something quite like what you have just said, although obviously he downplays the racism of his favourite thinkers. I kind of get the vibe that that's more of a personal ego thing for Jrod than anything else. jrodefeld posted:I think the VAST majority of people in this country are committed anti-racists. I don't think hardly any businesses will post "whites only" signs and expose themselves to the ire of the public who, in 2015, won't stand for such open bigotry. Yes we believe that the right to discriminate is a right that is inherent in the concept of private property rights but I don't expect businesses especially to discriminate based on race, sex or religion. Businesses are trying to earn a profit and it would be foolish to artificially limit your potential pool of customers. No, he actually believes that there wouldn't be hardly any, if any at all, racism or racial discrimination because he doesn't think that anyone is racist anymore.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2015 14:49
|
|
|
I think he's probably right that a majority of people don't really regard themselves as racist and that most people wouldn't shop in places that openly put up 'no blacks' signs, but VAST MAJORITY is such a farcical claim. It also doesn't deal with the fact that racism is pretty clustered in certain communities where people would love to start doing that poo poo tomorrow if possible - the ones that want to secede, again! I sometimes forget the things Jrod comes out with. It's easier for me to try to defend a slightly idealised version of Jrod. I may attempt to turn myself in to a libertarian posting AI just so this thread has something meatier to argue with.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2015 14:56
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:As for the wandering individual who trespasses on your land without a pre-existing contractual relationship - well, I imagine such an individual will be treated as a peregrinus or similar - an alien subjected to the covenanted rules of the locality. His agreement is held to be a constructive consequence of his trespass / movement in to the jurisdiction. The DRO might claim I've agreed to their rules by entering their land, but I could just as easily claim that it's my land which follows my rules and so I've actually agreed to nothing, creating a dispute that needs to be arbitrated before any action can be taken without violating the NAP. There's no higher authority the DRO can turn to to say "this is ridiculous, everyone knows this is the DRO's land and he's the trespasser, just kick him out." There's only arbitration between the two parties. Of course if anything like this happened in reality the NAP would be broken left and right, but please keep in mind I'm talking about imaginary ancapland here.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2015 15:31
|
|
Jizz Festival posted:The DRO might claim I've agreed to their rules by entering their land, but I could just as easily claim that it's my land which follows my rules and so I've actually agreed to nothing, creating a dispute that needs to be arbitrated before any action can be taken without violating the NAP. Likely outcomes: (1) The two individuals agree to a third party arbitrator because it is usually in their interest so to do. (2) They each apply to their different DRO's for justice and the DRO's come to an accomodation, which is probably necessary for their mutual continued operation, much like two different insurance companies make settlements with eachother when two insured people have a car accident. Or, contra that, your DRO regards your claim as being without merit and leaves you to your own devices, probably resulting in you having justice imposed upon you. (3) You don't have a DRO, in which case the other guy who does will probably have leverage over you. (4) Neither of you have a DRO, in which case shoot mans. (5) You both have DRO's who are irreconcilable - they shoot mans against eachother on your behalf. Effectively the first 2 are indicative of how modern commercial life in the west already works. The final 3 are pretty much an example of what could happen in ancapland - property relations between individuals become like international relations, with all the mess that involves. Which just goes to show there is always coercion, no matter what sort of state or non-state you live in. In a community of persons people will always have to accept the imposition of rules or decisions that not every individual likes - there is no escape from that in a Libertopia, quite obviously. -- However, I don't think the State is the deus ex machina you take it to be. States more or less just impose conduct by coercion. By saying 'There's no higher authority the DRO can turn to' just shifts the same problem up the chain one level - what's to stop the state from loving you in the same way a DRO might? The point to make isn't that the state isn't coercive, it's that relations in anarchy are more coercive.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2015 15:45
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:However, I don't think the State is the deus ex machina you take it to be. States more or less just impose conduct by coercion. By saying 'There's no higher authority the DRO can turn to' just shifts the same problem up the chain one level - what's to stop the state from loving you in the same way a DRO might? The point to make isn't that the state isn't coercive, it's that relations in anarchy are more coercive. I'm not claiming that the state is perfect, obviously it works by compelling everyone in its territory to follow the rules it sets up, there's coercion etc. All I'm saying is that in a state when someone owns a piece of land it's recorded in an official register. If you want to know who owns a piece of land, you just go look it up. That's not possible in ancapland. Nobody officially owns anything. I brought it up because from what I've seen this isn't apparent to a lot of ancaps. They still think of things as if they were living in a state when thinking of utopia, and they forget that this thing they take for granted would not be available. Jizz Festival fucked around with this message at 15:59 on Mar 2, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2015 15:57
|
|
Jizz Festival posted:I'm not claiming that the state is perfect, obviously it works by compelling everyone in its territory to follow the rules it sets up, there's coercion etc. All I'm saying is that in a state when someone owns a piece of land it's recorded in an official register. If you want to know who owns a piece of land, you just go look it up. That's not possible in ancapland. Nobody officially owns anything. Registration systems are only a form of mitigation of these kinds of problems, but you still can have pretty complicated disputes about who owns what in a modern state, believe it or not. A register isn't magical though. It's still just your right to x land written on a piece of paper. The only difference between that and the DRO scenario is that there's a monopoly on force in the jurisdiction with the register that imposes what it says on its citizens. So again, what it comes down to is - do you want legal disputes about land being settled by court orders backed up by men in uniform with guns, or do you want legal disputes settled between different groups of men with guns? Seems to me there's less carnage in the first instance. The actually significant thing is not what the register says or reflects, but the conditions in which people make the agreements reflected in a register or agreement. The land registries of the world encapsulate and protect transactions entered in to inequitably. However, it's nothing compared to the inequity of the contracts people will be entering in to in ancapland without consumer protections etc.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2015 16:08
|
|
|
Someone on my Facebook feed just posted this article. My libertarian vacation nightmare: How Ayn Rand, Ron Paul & their groupies were all debunked posted:Last month, I spent my final vacation night in Honduras in San Pedro Sula, considered the most dangerous city outside of the war-torn Middle East. I would not have been scared, except that I traveled with my wife and our four children, aged 5, 7, 14 and 18. On our last taxi ride, we could not find a van to fit us all, so we rode in two taxis. Mine carried me and my two daughters, aged 5 and 14, while the driver blasted Willie Nelson singing “City of New Orleans” (a city that is also considered very dangerous). -edit- vvvv haha, sniped Who What Now fucked around with this message at 16:26 on Mar 2, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2015 16:15
|
|
|
EDIT: Curse you WWW  My libertarian vacation nightmare quote:There’s a lot of American cowboy culture in Honduras, but along with silly hats, Honduras has also taken one of our other worst ideas—libertarian politics. By the time I’d made it to San Pedro Sula, I’d seen much of the countryside and culture. It’s a wonderful place, filled with music, great coffee, fabulous cigars and generous people, but it’s also a libertarian experiment coming apart. quote:In America, libertarian ideas are attractive to mostly young, white men with high ideals and no life experience that live off of the previous generation’s investments and sacrifice. I know this because as a young, white idiot, I subscribed to this system of discredited ideas: Selfishness is good, government is bad. Take what you want, when you want and however you can. Poor people deserve what they get, and the smartest, hardworking people always win. So get yours before someone else does. I read the books by Charles Murray and have an autographed copy of Ron Paul’s “The Revolution.” The thread that links all the disparate books and ideas is that they fail in practice. Eliminate all taxes, privatize everything, load a country up with guns and oppose all public expenditures, you end up with Honduras. quote:The greatest examples of libertarianism in action are the hundreds of men, women and children standing alongside the roads all over Honduras. The government won’t fix the roads, so these desperate entrepreneurs fill in potholes with shovels of dirt or debris. They then stand next to the filled-in pothole soliciting tips from grateful motorists. That is the wet dream of libertarian private sector innovation. quote:For our last meal in San Pedro Sula, my family walked a couple blocks from our fortress-like bed and breakfast to a pizza restaurant. It was the middle of the day and we were the only customers. We walked through the gated walls and past a man in casual slacks with a pistol belt slung haphazardly around his waist. Welcome to an Ayn Rand’s libertarian paradise, where your extra-large pepperoni pizza must also have an armed guard. quote:Honduras has problems but people should go visit anyway and soon. The dangers are fleeting, and there are coffee plantations to tour, ruins to see, cigars to smoke and fish to catch. The people need your tourism dollars. As a bonus, it’s important for Americans to see the outcome when the bad ideas of teenage boys and a bad Russian writer are put into practice.  In before "This is obviously not an example of a libertarian experiment because <reasons>"
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2015 16:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 05:49 |
|
|
Thaaaaaaat double post though.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2015 16:21
|
|