May 15, 2024, 02:17:55 PM

Welcome, Guest

News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 27.0 [Torrent]

Bitcoin Forum>Other>Politics & Society

Pages:

Author

Topic: Question for the "anarchists" in the crowd. - page 4. (Read 5822 times)

hazek

legendary

Activity: 1078

Merit: 1002

Quote from: MoonShadow on October 21, 2012, 06:25:54 PM

Quote from: myrkul on October 21, 2012, 06:04:14 PM

Quote from: MoonShadow on October 21, 2012, 05:45:46 PM

Mary would have been arrested by the 'medical establishment', and her own security company would have immediately challenged the quarantine. During negotiotiations, the doctors would have presented their evidence, and made the case that Mary was, against her own belief, a typhoid carrier. A deal would have been struck that permitted Mary's release on the condition that she never work in food service but to be enforced by her own security company, and the medical institution would compensate Mary for her future loss of wages and agree to defend her against liability suits arising from outbreaks prior to her first arrest; all under the condition that if she breaks the terms of the agreement, her own security company will arrest her and keep her quarantined indefinately (making the liability of future events due to Mary's work & hygine habits her own security company's problem).

Again, I don't like this one very much. I was looking for a better one.

What's wrong with it? Seems reasonable to me.

Let's review a bit. I'm a libertarian, not an anarchist. I don't find my own argument above a convincing argument for the abolution of the state. I'm looking for an actual anarchist to either improve my argument, or present a better one, that a government (i.e. an institution with a monopoly on the use of force) is not a requirement. For example, in my own scenario above, how does the medical force get it's funding? It's not a security company in it's own right. In 1907 New York state, the health department was supported by taxation. How would the medical institution in my scenerio above afford to exist much less be able to fund an investigation & arbitration agreement?

How can you expect any one person to give you an answer only an entire market can figure out? Don't you see you are asking for the impossible?

MoonShadow

legendary

Activity: 1708

Merit: 1007

Quote from: myrkul on October 21, 2012, 06:04:14 PM

Quote from: MoonShadow on October 21, 2012, 05:45:46 PM

What's wrong with it? Seems reasonable to me.

MoonShadow

legendary

Activity: 1708

Merit: 1007

Quote from: myrkul on October 21, 2012, 02:41:23 AM

Quote from: MoonShadow on October 21, 2012, 01:58:18 AM

But she was acting. She was seeking employment in the food service industry. That action directly caused harm.

That action may have cause indirect harm. At no point did (prior to her first arrest) had Mary done anything with either the knowledge of possible harm, nor the intent to do so. She was simply trying to seek income in the occupation for which she was trained & most profitable for herself.

Her second arrest was most certainly a different matter, as she had been informed of (at a minimum) the possibility that she was a carrier, and had agreed to refrain from working in food service. But I'm talking about how this all started, not how it ended.

Quote from: MoonShadow on October 21, 2012, 12:11:41 AM

Furthermore, the doctor that hunted Mary down was hired by an owner of a rented villa wherein on of Mary's outbreaks occurred, and his job was to prove that the landowner was not liable. Thus, he most certainly had an economic incentive to find a scapegoat, and a great many of Mary's defenders (during the first quarantine) believed that is exactly what Mary was, a scapegoat. You can't honestly tell me that this event wouldn't have resulted in a challenge from Mary's own security contractor?

It probably would. There would be an arbitration case, which may well bring to light some of the more important medical facts, and might have sped up the acceptance of cleanliness as being key to preventing the spread of disease. We'll never know.

Given the information they had at the time, an AnCap society might have done almost the same thing, but like I said, there would have been an arbitration case. Who knows, maybe Mary was innocent.

Maybe the first time. Doubtful the second time.

Quote from: MoonShadow on October 21, 2012, 02:04:05 AM

Quote from: myrkul on October 21, 2012, 01:57:00 AM

But why do you say Maybury's laws (which I wholeheartedly support) do not require absolute adherence? After all, it says "Do not," not "You should not," or "It would be a bad idea to."

Because Mayberry's laws, if generally followed by any society (regardless of the nature of the government, or lack of government) will prosper. Those that generally fail to do so, will decline. That is exactly why Mayberry's laws are called the Two Laws of Civilization, and not the two laws of individuals. The two laws work as advertised even if a minority of the society refuses to abide by them, just so long as those few are regarded as criminals and treated accordingly.

As does the NAP. If a minority of the society act against the NAP, and those are seen and treated as criminals, the society works just fine, same as with the two laws. I reiterate, the second law is essentially the NAP restated.

While I agree that the results would be the same, I don't agree that the context is the same, nor do I believe that the context here is irrelevent. Mayberry's laws, being general laws, can actually be violated as a matter of course by a small minority of people. And these people are the very government agents we have today that regularly violate principles & common decency, and yet the society as a whole persists despite them. Maybery's laws can also violate each other, under specific circumstances, and then those involved must choose which one to abide in each case. The NAP, as a personal moral code, can only be rationally suspended once another person has initiated violence, and as such must be practially dropped altogether in the event that a social breakdown (such as a civil war) were to present the individual with multiple, unidentifiable risks. As Mayberry's Laws are laws of civilizations as a whole, they are only guidelines for the individual.

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

Quote from: MoonShadow on October 21, 2012, 05:45:46 PM

What's wrong with it? Seems reasonable to me.

MoonShadow

legendary

Activity: 1708

Merit: 1007

Quote from: hazek on October 21, 2012, 05:36:51 AM

Quote from: MoonShadow on October 20, 2012, 10:38:08 PM

What would an ancap society have done differently?

Irrelevant.

It's the same as asking how would the cotton be picked if there was no slavery. Do you think 200 years ago someone giving the "Don't worry because we will invent big metal machines running on small explosions that will do all this work for us" would have been taken seriously or could have even made such a prediction?

No. Slavery is bad, so we don't do it, no matter the consequences.

Same goes with a small group of thugs enforcing their private rules through violence - it's bad and we have to evolve out of it.

Nonsense. Really, I would have expected you guys to be able to think a bit more outside of the box. I'm just asking you guys to speculate a little. Hell, I can come up with better responses to my own query than you guys, I just don't like them very much.

Here's one....

Mary would have been arrested by the 'medical establishment', and her own security company would have immediately challenged the quarantine. During negotiotiations, the doctors would have presented their evidence, and made the case that Mary was, against her own belief, a typhoid carrier. A deal would have been struck that permitted Mary's release on the condition that she never work in food service but to be enforced by her own security company, and the medical institution would compensate Mary for her future loss of wages and agree to defend her against liability suits arising from outbreaks prior to her first arrest; all under the condition that if she breaks the terms of the agreement, her own security company will arrest her and keep her quarantined indefinately (making the liability of future events due to Mary's work & hygine habits her own security company's problem).

Again, I don't like this one very much. I was looking for a better one.

ElectricMucus

legendary

Activity: 1666

Merit: 1057

Marketing manager - GO MP

I propose a new sport: It's called let the Anarchists deal with it.
It works by coming up with some incredible rare scenario and ask what would have been done differently in Anarchy. Tongue

People, Anarchy is defined as a society where all authority is justified. Nothing more, nothing less.
There would have been plenty of people who would had the authority to confine her. In Anarchy there is structure, even more than there is in the state... Learn what's the difference between Authority and Power, Anarchy and Hierarchy.

Arto

donator

Activity: 213

Merit: 100

Quote from: hazek on October 21, 2012, 05:36:51 AM

Quote from: MoonShadow on October 20, 2012, 10:38:08 PM

What would an ancap society have done differently?

+1. Not having lived in a stateless society, but only state-dominated ones, it's difficult to speak from personal experience to all the particulars of how various things might function in a free society. Further, it's boring: this thread essentially asks one to think like a central planner. I can't speak for anyone else, but I sure as hell don't intend on a career in central planning; I have a great many better things to do.

So, I think I'll let the people affected by a problem deal with the problem, thank you very much. I'm much more concerned with my own little problems, which presently revolve around a highly-organized crime syndicate calling itself "The Government" running a huge protection racket in my general neighborhood. Priorities, you know.

flynn

hero member

Activity: 728

Merit: 540

1) administer Ampicillin

2) end of problem.

hazek

legendary

Activity: 1078

Merit: 1002

Quote from: MoonShadow on October 20, 2012, 10:38:08 PM

What would an ancap society have done differently?

bb113

hero member

Activity: 728

Merit: 500

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

Quote from: MoonShadow on October 21, 2012, 01:58:18 AM

But she was acting. She was seeking employment in the food service industry. That action directly caused harm. The fact that she didn't think it would (or even might, prior to her first quarantine) is irrelevant to the fact that it did. Once she did know that it might, taking some precautions is prudent, and failing to do so constitutes "depraved indifference." The fact that she disappeared before the health inspectors showed up at the woman's hospital shows a guilty conscience, and that she perhaps finally realized she might be the cause.

Quote from: MoonShadow on October 21, 2012, 12:11:41 AM

Quote from: MoonShadow on October 21, 2012, 02:04:05 AM

Quote from: myrkul on October 21, 2012, 01:57:00 AM

But why do you say Maybury's laws (which I wholeheartedly support) do not require absolute adherence? After all, it says "Do not," not "You should not," or "It would be a bad idea to."

MoonShadow

legendary

Activity: 1708

Merit: 1007

Quote from: myrkul on October 21, 2012, 01:57:00 AM

Quote from: MoonShadow on October 21, 2012, 01:38:03 AM

This is one reason that I have trouble with the absolutes of ancap theories. The NAP is an absolute, but it applies to an individual who must choose to abide it, or not. Maybury's two laws of civilization are similar to the NAP, but they don't require an absolute adherence. The ability to recognize, and manage, contradictions are a sign of maturity. So I have to say that IMHO, ancap isn't really a mature political ideology.

Well, as political ideologies go, it is pretty young. It's only about 40 years old, at least in the "finished" state it is now, though aspects have popped up since antiquity, and the final piece was available as early as 1849.

As to Maybury's laws, the second one essentially is the NAP. "Do not encroach on other persons or their property" and "no one has the right to initiate force, the threat of force, or fraud" are effectively the same, since those three things are "encroaching on other persons or their property."

But why do you say Maybury's laws (which I wholeheartedly support) do not require absolute adherence? After all, it says "Do not," not "You should not," or "It would be a bad idea to."

MoonShadow

legendary

Activity: 1708

Merit: 1007

Quote from: myrkul on October 21, 2012, 01:02:38 AM

Quote from: MoonShadow on October 21, 2012, 12:11:41 AM

Whether or not she had violated the ZAP by the mere act of accepting a food service job is dependent upon her state of mind concerning the accuracy of the doctors' claims that she was a carrier. Keep in mind that she was the first example in recorded medical history of a completely asymtomatic carrier, and medical science was even less respected at that time than it is today. How many people whole-heartedly believe that the medical institutions have suppressed the cure for cancer or the risks of vaccines in order to sell drugs and vaccines? It's not at all unreasonable to believe that Mary believed she was being unfairly persecuted, and perhaps even without cause. She was neither the only typhoid carrier at the time (once it was known, many were identified, roughly 3% of survivors were asymtomatic carriers) nor the only one to break the terms of their quarantine release, but the only one to spend the rest of her life in quarantine. She wasn't even the most deadly in that same decade.

Some of the most heinous actions in history have been perpetrated by people thinking they were doing good, or even that it was god's will that they do what they did. Intent to do wrong is not necessary to do wrong.

Even in the case of the well intended tyranny, the actors must (by definition) act. When are the unaware ever responsible for failing to act?

Quote from: MoonShadow on October 21, 2012, 12:11:41 AM

And restitution for what, exactly? She may have caused harm, but again only passively. A judgement of restitution, even if it were just to impose upon Mary for the events prior to her first encounter with the public health agents, would effectively be a form of slavery. She literally had no knowledge or control over the harm caused, at least prior to her first arrest. It's a leap of logic to presume that she intended to cause harm, certainly befor the first incarceration, which lasted for about five years IIRC. Even showing harm caused was difficult at the time.

Again, intent is not necessary for you do to harm. If you do harm, you're liable for the damages. You may not have meant for the baseball to go through your neighbor's window, but it happened, and you still owe him a window.

But that still requires that I committed an action. I may not have intended to break the window, but I intended to hit the baseball, and if I can hit the baseball I can't really not be aware of the risks of breaking a window within my ballistic reach.

Quote from: MoonShadow on October 21, 2012, 12:11:41 AM

You can make the argument that a heroin addict can be held responsible for the harm he causes others while high, or for the crimes he might commit in persuit of his addiction. But how can you make the argument that the heroin addict should pay restitution to the stupid kid that sees the heroin addict and thinks it can't be that bad, and then gets addicted himself?

This would make sense if she had not directly caused the harm that she did. She spread disease not only by being a carrier, but by not washing her hands before prepping food.

Handwashing was not widely regarded as a preventative of infection at this point. It was, in fact, this very case that impressed upon the common people that very datapoint; and has much to do with why Americans are more concerned with cleanliness (in general) than their European counterparts.

Quote from: MoonShadow on October 21, 2012, 12:11:41 AM

In hindsight, there was many things that Mary had done to earn her quarantine. But that's exactly the problem that I see. We have the benefit of both that hindsight and the common knowledge gained from those events. But what if we didn't? What if New York state was an ancap society in 1907? How could the actions that were taken have been justified at the time? (retroactive justifications are always false arguments, if you can't make the claim at the time then you can't make the argument later) If such actions cannot be justified under an ancap society, and I can't see how they could, what would an ancap society have been able to do to respond to the (general) threat of unaware & passive carriers of infections, and still remain an ancap society? If a special medical institution had the special power to incarcerate people under the charge of being a passive threat to society, wouldn't that same institution then have the monopoly on force that defines a modern government?

No. They would have the ability to use force, but not a monopoly. And that's the key factor.

Once the presence of the typhoid bacteria is proven, continuation of her actions is not a "passive threat to society," it's a direct attack. Regardless of whether she thinks she's doing it or not, she's directly harming anyone she cooks for, because she refused to take simple health precautions.

Yes, we know this now. Such a position was not common knowledge at the time, and was held only by a minority of doctors in 1907. Once again, prior to this case an asymptomatic carrier was only theoretical, and many doctors (much less the medically untrained public) believed that an asymtomatic survivor remaining contagious for years was impossible. Up until relatively recently, most doctors believed that ulcers were caused by stress; right up until one doctor finally proved it was a persistent bacterial infection. And this was 90+ years following the Typhoid Mary case, which was the very one that proved that asymtomatic & cronic infection was possible. Furthermore, the doctor that hunted Mary down was hired by an owner of a rented villa wherein on of Mary's outbreaks occurred, and his job was to prove that the landowner was not liable. Thus, he most certainly had an economic incentive to find a scapegoat, and a great many of Mary's defenders (during the first quarantine) believed that is exactly what Mary was, a scapegoat. You can't honestly tell me that this event wouldn't have resulted in a challenge from Mary's own security contractor?

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

Quote from: MoonShadow on October 21, 2012, 01:38:03 AM

MoonShadow

legendary

Activity: 1708

Merit: 1007

Quote from: bb113 on October 21, 2012, 12:21:12 AM

I think you are right moonshadow, the thing to do is work towards increasing the flow and accuracy of information so that we can have an AnCap society not dependent on the use of force to deal with these outlier situations.

No matter how good the future of the Internet may be, the general availability of important information will always be imperfect and/or localized. If there is no way for an ancap society to respond to an unintentional and unaware domestic threat, (as the example of Typhoid Mary represents) then there is no way that an ancap society could ever be stable, for it will always have that kind of weakness that, sooner or later, must undermine it. Although it certainly wouldn't be typhoid to do it with all of our modern medical knowledge, any new or unknown infection would have a similar effect; at least temporarily. Yellow fever had devastating effects upon the social structure of all the cities that had outbreaks prior to the development of a vaccine against it. Because an infected person was contagious days before any signs of same, locals would regularly treat poor travelers (and those who worked on traveling riverboats, regardless of their status) rather harshly to say the least, and completely without regard to their constitutional rights, or oftentimes even any human decency.

Quarantining people on the word of any government expert is no different than Minority Report style 'pre-crime', so if we can't come up with an ancap answer to Typhoid Mary (or a modern equivalent), then how can we object to the TSA's use of no-fly lists other than on matters of implementation? (as opposed to ideology or justification) How then could we object to border checkpoints that require us to identify ourselves upon entry into, or even exiting, our own country? We need an answer for this even as a minimalist/libertarian perspective, or all our logic and reason as to why the state is an immoral and/or unnecessary institution fail; for only one exception to the premise is required to defeat the theory. Granted, we here all understand that the reality is that government agents often screw up anyway, even the experts. And thus, it was about as likely that Typhoid Mary would never had been caught. (How many typhoid carriers worked in food service prior to 1907? We will never know) And society was not likely to break down due to a lack of understanding regarding the infection vector of typhoid, otherwise it would have already. Still, once the passive threat had been identified, an active response was required of the doctors; for no expert trained in his field could discover such a problem and morally choose not to attempt to solve it if he could.

This is one reason that I have trouble with the absolutes of ancap theories. The NAP is an absolute, but it applies to an individual who must choose to abide it, or not. Maybury's two laws of civilization are similar to the NAP, but they don't require an absolute adherence. The ability to recognize, and manage, contradictions are a sign of maturity. So I have to say that IMHO, ancap isn't really a mature political ideology.

Atlas

jr. member

Activity: 56

Merit: 1