Topic: AnCap is not the end - page 4. (Read 4962 times)

The best part is that you two are saying almost exactly the same thing:



(emphasis mine)

Really? Our closest primate relatives are pacifists and don't fight for sexual dominance? Cites please...

Violence is suboptimal. Competition can occur without violence and contributes more to further development of the human race.

In fact, many species display no violence towards others of that species. These include many plants, aquatic life, and even our closest primate relatives.

I think you are looking at this the wrong way.

Your goal is less violence as an end in itself.  When violence is a means towards any given end.  Maximum total material wealth turns out to be produced by using violence only in defense of private property.

Violence is simply a feature of our physical existence and isn't going anywhere.

Is this better?:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism#History
"Even where the Icelandic legal system recognized an essentially "public" offense, it dealt with it by giving some individual (in some cases chosen by lot from those affected) the right to pursue the case and collect the resulting fine, thus fitting it into an essentially private system."

I notice a lot of people are using the word 'would', as in:

- It would be like this...
- It would be the case that...

What I'm not seeing are statements like this:

- In such and such AnCap society, a study revealed that x percentage of scenarios panned out like...
- Studies demonstrated that...

That tells me two things:

- Everyone is just assuming and hypothesizing.
- AnCap never got off the ground successfully to any meaningful extent.

There also would be less crime in an AnCap society.  No/less taxes & competition would make unemployment low & products/services cheaper.  Crime will never be nonexistent, but an AnCap society would remove a lot of the incentives to commit crimes.  The remainder would probably be handled w/ self-defense and community courts/jails.

+1. Robber would be hunted down and shot, most likely.

True enough, especially in a society where the victims are not disarmed by state decree. But thievery is not the only reason one might need to resort to arbitration. Any dispute, from your neighbor's dog crapping on your lawn, to a "class-action" type case with a large company that dumped waste into the river, would be handled by the same system of arbitration, could you not handle it peaceably between yourselves. You're also looking at it from the wrong direction. It's not forcing you to arbitrate against thieves, it's forcing them to arbitrate with you.

Most likely, it won't be stolen in the first place. There are few thieves compared to non-thieves.

You don't want your stuff back?

I would not purchase a contract that requires me to pay others to arbitrate against thieves. That is excessively expensive insurance, and all it will do is make thieves steal from others. A thief will still steal. This is the way society works today: prison's existence hasn't lowered robbery rates, and the threat of shunning probably isn't either.

Well, consider that an AnCap society would be a considerably more contractual one than even the one we have going here. The "social contract" would be an actual thing, a "general submission to arbitration" with either an independent arbitration agency, or the one your insurance or defense agency uses. Refusal of arbitration would be a breach of that contract, and you would then probably lose all the contracts that depended on that; the insurance agency, the defense agency, etc. Even at McDonalds, if the owner has seen your face on the nightly news, you may be turned away, because he knows that if you and he have a dispute, you will not arbitrate, and he will be left with no recourse.

Consider the hatred here towards "tainted" coins. Not one major theft had the coins returned. Mt. Gox is the only large company that freezes tainted coins. Why would an AnCap society be different?

Don't forget the possibility of the use of economic incentives to get the robber to return the stolen goods. If the thief has been positively identified, then you can identify him to the rest of society, and inform them of the crime that was committed, and that he has not made restitution (given the stuff back). The rest of the society, then, could choose whether or not to deal with this person. I predict he would find many doors closed to him. If the choice is between starve or give back your stolen goods, then I know I would choose to return the goods, or their monetary equivalent, if I had sold them.

We've got a large population of Politics & Society board users very content with anarcho-capitalism, preaching it as the solution to violence. But, after pondering the issue, one can realize that among stateless societies, AnCap might as well be the upper bound for violence.

Imagine a hypothetical scenario as follows. Someone breaks into your house and you catch them stealing your items. What do you do, and what happens after?

In a society with a predominant state, you would call the central police, who would then employ violence to rob them of the items that they stole. This is obviously not optimal; as even when the items are extorted back, the robber is then threatened with further violence to get into a prison cell. All the while, tax collectors threaten violence on taxpayers to pay for the entire process.

AnCap is much, by many orders of magnitude, better than this. Initially, no violence is threatened on the robber; instead, a protection agency attempts to persuade the robber to return the items. But what if the robber refuses? Eventually, the protection agency is forced to use violence once again to reclaim the stolen items. The amount of violence threatened and employed is much lower here, but it is not a violent-free process.

It is difficult to find a society without a predominant state that employs more violence than AnCap, in fact. In true anarchism, where there is a lack of any states (including protection agencies), the robber would simply get away. In a direct democratic anarchist system, violence is only threatened after a vote, which depending on the situation may not pass.

AnCom is in theory even more violent than AnCap, but it isn't a true anarchist system because it is both involuntary and lacking of a central state. It's more like a libertarian socialist society. There are also many issues with it; so many, that it is a leftist's dream that will never work.

As a libertarian myself, I believe AnCap provides an effective way of reducing violence, possibly the most effective way known to mankind at the moment. The free market has demonstrated outstanding ability to regulate and nearly eliminate corruption, as well as boosting charity and total societal wealth. A transition of society to an anarcho-capitalist one is a huge leap forward for all of society, for mankind's future, and even for the planets we may live on. But I remain open to other low-state, multi-state, or anarchist alternatives that may be proposed in the future that enable even further cooperation. Anarcho-capitalism is not yet optimal.

Neither true anarchism (because it would be chaotic and devolve into either a state, AnCap, or AnCom system) nor direct democratic anarchist systems (as it doesn't scale) will work properly in today's society. The sole reason for this post is to affirm the existence of less violent systems, each having their own problems of course. Less violent systems that will still work remain to be invented today. But when they are, they will represent society's next step forward.