Topic: The transition to AnCap - page 2. (Read 6697 times)

Why would you go on people's land uninvited?

Pointless question, as it does not pertain to my claims. If you need a reminder, my claims are not about patronizing establishments which invite customers. Again, you make too many assumptions.

Would you eat a restaurant that let people shit on the tables?

I'm not making a statement one way or another about that. What I'm saying is the McDonald's in your world is something we know nothing about because it doesn't exist, so I suggest you stop hypothesizing about it.


We know nothing about how just things are in your world. Most likely, things are neither consistent nor just.


The most traveled roads would be the ones that are most profitable. Anywhere else, and you're going to get zero consistency with regard to quality, price, reliability, closures, or even if they exist.

You make so many assumptions, it's ridiculous. I suggest you go watch a movie. Have you seen Woman in the Dunes?

So you're saying that if the food safety laws in a country allowed it, McDonalds would let you shit on the tables?

Why is consistent preferable to just? Would not the roads with the best rules be the most traveled, and thus the most profitable, and thus, the most copied?

McDonald's operates within the context of the laws of the nation that hosts its restaurants.

1) Not consistently to all.

2) An utterly desperate and pointless statement. Didn't we just go over this? A resident does not have control over his neighbors, but at least in a governed society, he can expect some consistencies in rights of access from his residence to nearly anywhere else in the nation. In your world, there's no guarantee that a resident can rely on getting anywhere effectively over time from his residence. See 1, above.

Yes, isn't it so horrible, that when you go into a McDonalds, they don't let you shit on the tables?

1)People don't want you to be trapped in your home. If you were trapped in your home, you could not purchase their goods or services. Freedom of travel is necessary for freedom of trade. Ergo, in a society built on free trade, there would necessarily be freedom of travel.

2) And once again, it's not coercion if you voluntarily agree to it, and can avoid it. Since you can avoid going into a person's property, it's not coercion if they ask you to follow their rules, or leave.

I knew you'd respond so unimaginatively, entrenched within your fervent belief in the goodness of your idea.

1) How is it different? I'm guaranteed that where ever I live, I have access points that let me go essentially anywhere with consistent rules, and freedom of access.

2) Regarding coercion - how blind can you be to your own statement? It is so ridiculous! Look at what you just said. You're stating that I need only remain a prisoner of my own property if I don't wish to be coerced. Pathetic.

1) How is that different from now, with the exception that they come on to your property and enforce those, and 2) That's not coercive, because you don't have to step on to their property if you don't want to.

Every time I step off my property (assuming I'm lucky enough to own property in your world), I'm at the mercy of the landowner's property I'm on, and his taxes, fees, rules, regulations, guards, stipulations, and who knows what else. It is not a place I would want to live in.

Name one instance. Just one. Any one.

...and that's what pure, undiluted evil looks like.

Unfortunately for our aspiring O'Brian there is no room 101 yet.

Your moral argument is a pure contrivance. That's the problem. You seem to think that there actually exists the concept of ownership outside the boundaries of a society which acknowledges it. Whatever society you are in might acknowledge that concept within the context of its own paradigm. Within the context of, say, the United States, or perhaps Germany, or some other nation, ownership has one meaning, and it might have another in your fairy tale world.

This violence you speak of, which weakens your case considerably because it demonstrates a lack of critical analysis, is no different than the violence you would speak of if in your fairy tale land, if you choose not to abide by the various contracts that exist, as per the method of living within your fairy tale world.

I personally would not want to live in your fairy tale world precisely because of all the potential coercive violence. My suggestion to you is to use the other half of your brain and realize how silly and weak your use of the term coercive violence is with regard to your rants. It's not original at all, and doesn't indicate any critical thinking on your part.

the easiest transition to AnCap is for people to opt-out of the state system.  use private arbitration, do as absolutely much business as possible in the gray market for cash/barter/metals/bitocins, etc., withhold as much of your resources as possible from the state and just watch it shrivel up and die.

I think Pennsylvania is one of the greatest studies in peaceful transitions to AnCap.  Penn thought he was getting on the easy train by imposing his taxes and such, but the Quakers would have none of it.  They didn't forcibly resist, just laughed at his attempts to impose violence, and for all intensive purposes just ignored what he asked and went on with their lives.  It was the beginning of an era of great prosperity, and hardly a drop of blood was shed to get it there, and Penn (the current governor) ended up going completely bankrupt.  Beautiful.

The mathematics are already in on this thing.  Decades of the future have been mortgaged away, and there is absolutely no avoiding the collapse that always, without exception, ensues from it.  We libertarians and ancaps are lucky in a few ways that not many are - we understand morality and economics better than 99% of the population, and therefore we can see it coming and no why it's coming, and we have NOTHING to do with it, so we are one of the few parties that any blame could possibly be assigned to (we have been dead opposed to virtually everything that has led up to this moment, right from the get go).  We can position ourselves as what people will turn to during the coming years and decades, but it won't be easy.  We are eventually looking at a hyperinflation (or at least a "mini" one, as temporary reprieve for the greatest con-artists in mankind's history), and virtually all hyperinflations are followed by severe tyranny - THAT is what we have to try to avoid, otherwise humanity gets set back not a generation or two, but a century or two.

Statists and their damned crazy religious zealotry get all of the credit for what is to come.  All of it.  I will make sure they f**king know it in their bones.

In other words, "The solution to a feared concentration of power is not a concentration of power."

Do you know a system that prevents this? I mean, other than "if you have what we want, even if you justly acquired it, we'll take it from you".

It is extremely difficult to build a monopoly without using force. If you used force to get it, nobody disputes that others can take it away from you by force. If you somehow do manage to build it without force, it's going to be very temporary. And the more you leverage it, the more incentive others have to find some resource that replaces it.

In any event, who cares? I'd gladly trade the remote possibility of some temporary blackmail for living under those conditions permanently where the government has an eternal monopoly on a long list of things.

Any society that attempts to guarantee a minimal living standard for everyone becomes barbaric and inefficient. The only way to do so is through force (barbarism) and government programs (inefficiency). Private charities can help, but as they are voluntary, there's no guarantee that they will provide for everyone.


Which resource?

get the monopoly of an essential resource, then blackmail your society.

in my opinion, a society that doesnt guarantee a minimal living standard for everyone is both barbaric and inefficient. all moral arguments aside, i just wouldnt want to live there.


how that power is aquired has really nothing to do how it is used. specificly, the harmful effects you can cause with your wealth dont need to have any proportion with the supposed good you did when you aquired it.

I don't see how this invalidates the moral argument. Once people accept the moral argument, the transition is just a matter of implementation.

I don't see what you mean by it being "dishonest"?

The moral argument is extremely effective. Whatever pragmatic argument someone wants to make for violence, all you have to do is point out the violence. Most people reject violence, but don't make the connection between the state and violence.

"We need a social safety net for the disadvantaged". You want to point a gun at me and force me to give money to poor people? Ultimately they are forced to admit that they advocate violence or that charity should be voluntary.