Topic: AnCap is inherently unstable, would immediately fail, and could never last.... - page 3. (Read 8957 times)

If you view my point as a logical fallacy I have nothing to say to you about this subject. (I think it's not and you can't change my mind)

Have fun debating with yourself or clones of yourself  

Game theory supports the Non-aggression principle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace_war_game

And at least Austrian economics aren't based on a fake math system from a sci-fi book.

You are kind of tossing game theory out the window in this assessment. How do you justify this? Is noncooperative game theory just a bunch of hokum in your book?
You only accept economics in so far as it supports your vision of the free market.

Oh, come on, at least make me work a little to get the right one...

Your logical fallacy is...

People agree to do something voluntarily because it's in their best interest, or at least, what they see as their best interest at the time.

Are we at the point of name calling again ?

I may have not come up with the best analogy to state my point ok. And I am probably least of a statist.
Whats my problem is that there is a slippery slope between a "voluntary" agreement under which somebody might have a slight disadvantage and straight out coercion. Some of those problems occur specifically in "AnCap" like contracts, employment and class. That is because well, it's part of good captialism.

I have no problem with a system of differnt schools of thought, on the contrary I am all for it. But you have to think those parts out where differnt ideas disagree with each other to make it work. Libertarians take the easy route and state that free market capitalism already is a subgroup of anarchism which it isn't. Classic anarchists simply disagree with this assessment and with good reason: The above reference to voluntarism is just not good enough to ensure justification of authority.

Yeah, he's falsely equating agreement and surrender there.  Had you been discussing rape instead of robbery, he would have insisted that rape-at-gunpoint victims who didn't want to be shot "agreed" to have consensual sex.

That is the level of mad absurdity that passes for "reasoning" in staazis' corrupted, malevolent minds.  Either he is doing this to provoke others, or he is doing this because he truly can't think.  In any case, through his behavior, he didn't just forfeit the argument, he also ruined his own reputation.

So, people, make his reputation stick.  Let it be widely known that ElectricVomit is a scumbag, who likes to play with words, equating armed robbery with consensual exchange, just so that he doesn't "lose" an argument (which he already lost days ago).  For best effect, continually remind him on every thread that he vomits into, and refuse to engage him any further.  Let people know that they are interacting with a first-grade asshole who will steal from them (or defend theft against them) and then pretend that said theft was "agreed upon" by the victim.

A simple sentence "You're the guy who considers that being the victim of armed robbery equals agreeing to give something to someone, so you're not getting any attention from me" should suffice.  If he is already in your ignore list, you can say something like "I did not read what ElectricVomit said because he is in my ignore list since that day he claimed armed robbery equals agreeing to give something to someone".

We can't make idiots think straight, but we sure as hell can curb their idiocy by shining a light on what they do.

Nope, you coerced me. I didn't agree to give you my belongings, you took them by force.

If I rob you at gun point and you agree to give me your belongings and I agree not to shoot you we both agreed didn't we?

-_-

Voluntary means the participants agreed.

See my post above mentioning substuation of structure for hierarchy.
Also only because you call something voluntary or even all participants call something voluntary doesn't really mean it is voluntary.

Ever were apporached by the police requiring you to sign a "voluntary" agreement? Ever got to "choose" on a "elective" subject for a uni exam?
The world is full of pseudo-choices and made-belief freedoms. You might say they are just because of the state, but if we ever succumb to accepting something as voluntary just because the participants agreed on something we would be no better...

Unless you mean debt as in "obligation," no, contracts do not necessarily involve debts. And a voluntary obligation is no more than doing what you agreed to. Oh, look, there's that word again, agreement.


Hierarchy:
Don't see "involuntary" or "forced" or any of those other words in there. "Voluntary ranking system" is not an oxymoron.

I disagree, crypto-anarchy can and does exist within a world of governments.  The purpose of using cryptography is to hide a person's identity in the real world.  Crypto-anarchists just need to start organizing.

Ok we might be using differnt definitions for the same thing.

No I'm not a contract involves debt but and agreement doesn't have to. I dare you to tell me any business transaction which absolutely requires debt. (Except profiting from debt itself).

Of course, I never wrote anything else. But "voluntary hierarchy" is an oxymoron.
The (modern) English language complicates this because autority is usually substidzed for power and hierarchy for structure.

I'd say it is nessecary in a civilized society for justified authority because of profession but this justification ends when it comes to power and wealth. For a society to be called anarchistic, by my definition it would only have structure established from authority in terms of profession. (And maybe other justifiable means) In a hierarchic society there would not be such distinction.
Also see: http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Anarchist_FAQ/What_is_Anarchism%3F/2.8

AugustoCrappo, Mr. Dictionary Definition himself.

Contracts are nothing more than formalized agreements. if you think agreements are unnecessary for civilized society, you are dead wrong.

Voluntary subjection to authority, voluntary hierarchy, call it what you will, it's a voluntary acceptance of a leader/follower relationship. Sometimes (not always, nor possibly even most times) this is the most efficient way to handle things. We can do without it, but there are times when it comes in handy.

Having cited sources to original source documents is important.   I just can't take someones word for it, especially when in the final 2 mins he stated his stance on the issue that just reinforces your argument.  What I am saying is he wasn't a disinterested historian or researcher. 

But I have a treat for you about this time period, read "Debt: The first 5,000 years" by Dr. David Graeber.  A portion of the book talks about exactly this time period and the bibliography has a bunch of sources that might enforce or enlighten your use of this example.

No, I understood the rephrasing of what you said. What you said was gibberish. And your agruments re: the video were all conjecture and "i guess". Those aren't arguments, they're imagination. try again.

Debate is a formal method of attack against an idea (or defending it).  I tried to give actual reasons on why I do not support this idea and some of its flaws. 

I see all the people in my ignore list came here to attack the ideas in the original post. Attack, not debate.

Par for the course.

@ Myrkul - It is funny I am being called an "Asshole" when I watched the video requested and actually went over the content involved.   I see no response to that.

You tell me I am blowing hot smoke when I asked you to actually say it out loud, after a couple replies you mentioned that you actually understood what I am saying.  You just didn't like my grammar.

What it signals to me when you do not respond to comments that are directed at you even per your instructions (watch the video and comment) for this debate, is that you don't have a real response or just have personal attacks on how someone words something or that you just think they are an:  asshole, idiots, numb-nuts, etc....   It really discredits what your main point it overall, which I believe deserves a real debate.

Now you threaten to "ignore" me because you don't like what I am saying, even though I am not insulting you personally.  That furthermore shows how weak your original argument.   But like I messaged you in private, I respect your opinion, just disagree with it.    You don't seem to want to reciprocate that respect back.  

After reading other comments on this thread, I am not the only one that is mentioning similar issues.  If you are that dug in to this position, just state it and then we can mark your posts are propaganda for a specific point of view and not actual debate.


Signed,
Dalkore

Who?
You know my take on contracts, unnecessary for a civilized society.

I'd call it voluntary subjection to authority. But I'm not sure if that should apply to an employment contract, since I think employment is a relic of the state and we could do without it. We are so accustomed to serfdom that it may be difficult to think of the possibility of having it any other way.