Comments by "bakters" (@bakters) on "Turns out, Anarcho-Capitalism ISN'T "Anarchy" (RE: LiquidZulu)" video.

@panzerofthelake506 " ends at the private level, with voluntary association " Have you ever seen animals? Hierarchies are usually established by very direct confrontations Just in case you were not aware of that thing called "reality".
14
@panzerofthelake506 " show me the state that stray dogs on our streets have " Packs have hierarchies. I don't know much about stray dogs, but I'm absolutely sure they do fight for status. And die trying to get more. Every each day. " there's not much an animal can do to keep it's underlings in check " Killing does work, though. " They can all always just leave " Packs form for a reason. If being an outcast was the best idea, nobody would bother with a pack. " More usually " Couldn't you weaken your positions some more? Because I'm not satisfied yet.
13
" I assosciate myself strongly with Voluntaryism " What are you planning to do with people who do not share your views?
9
@colebehnke7767 " depends, there are a million ways " No negative consequence for misbehavior in any of them, I hope. That would be coercion ! Big no, no! For an ancap, at least...
8
" humans originated as an unorganised species " Who said that? Do you even biology, bro?
8
@tiagoandreguerra2950 " You let they live in their space and do the associations they seem fit " Like forming a merry band of robbers? " You can stablish commerce " Well, not too much of it, with all those robbers running around...
7
" What it was not, is coercive. However, that does not mean there weren't rules. " It's just that breaking those rules came with no negative consequences? Because that would be coercive... Do you even logic, bro?
6
@doomsdaybro8290 " going after a criminal wouldn't be coercion " That's a neat trick. It never occurred to me, that we can simply redefine coercion in such a way, that prisons are places of voluntary confinement. Respect! ;-) " they're stopped from being able to argue for their own rights " Trouble is, he says you attacked him first and caused damages. He simply helped himself to whatever was lying around to cover the costs. Now you are the criminal, maybe both of you are, so nobody can argue anymore. Problem solved, I guess. ;-) Anyway, "stopped" by whom? " unjustifiable acts " How do we know which acts are justifiable or not? Say, I caught the rapist and did him "justice", according to how I felt at the moment. Then I even dumped his ashes into the gutter, which accidentally clogged it, but whatever. How do we know if I had rights to do it? BTW - His family says he dindu, since he was studying at the library at the time. They have three witnesses who confirm their story. How do we solve this conundrum? I assume that "innocent until proven guilty" approach does not work in this case, since it requires a working system of justice, based on coercion, authority and other anathemas.
6
@UmaROMC " you STOP THEM " Wild West style? You mean, I hire a gunslinger who threatens them? Well, what if they have more resources, and what if I run out of money to pay my gunslinger, and they offer him a job? " permanent ban " He's got my herd of mustangs, my cattle, my wife even, but I will never talk to him anymore. That will learn him!
6
@doomsdaybro8290 " aggressors are viewed as criminals " Criminals? That implies law. " dealt with proportionately in anarcho-capitalism/voluntarism " How do you deal with crime without a form of coercion? " free market and profit grease the wheels " Well, robbery can be quite profitable. It's almost always cheaper to steal than to produce the same goods. Why would a "free market entrepreneur" invest in production instead of crime?
5
@colebehnke7767 " if you take someone’s rights you leave yourself open to having your own rights taken " How would you take away my rights, if you are hypothetically not even alive?
5
@UmaROMC " Authority means: someone whose word overrules yours. That cannot be voluntary. " You guys never do anything, do you? Because I can't imagine someone writing nonsense like this, who actually did stuff that required more than one person to accomplish. Anyway, voluntary hierarchies and authority which comes with them are normal for humans. " the only way to get money is through people voluntarily giving it to you either in trade or charity? " You really never do anything. Well, slacking off and still claiming the rewards is both the most usual and the least offensive way of being a social parasite. There are other ways, though. Becoming toxic, by lying, scheming and abusing others is quite popular too. And so forth. Humans are really good at being bad. " right to defend yourself and your property " Just like you have a right to defend your lunch money from a bunch of bullies? I mean, seriously. If you guys can't stand reality and absolutely need to believe in some fantasy paradise, just believe in God. We know it works! We tested it!
5
@doomsdaybro8290 " If someone [does me a wrong] , you are justified in pursuing justice " Who defines what's justified and what's not? For example, some dude I don't like might simply flirt with my daughter. Am I justified to stop him? I mean, it's all "wishy-washy" with you guys. It all kinda works in your heads, but it's simply because you seem to never analyse any practical details. While humans who built uncountable amounts of sophisticated societies did engage in all those details, day-to-day, and they found extremely similar solutions to solving all those problems. Those common solutions look nothing like ancap nonsense!
4
@kamikaze5528 " there are no real consequences for such behaviour in a game " Oh, that's why there are no functional Minecraft servers out there? Wait... Most of them actually do work. How come? " When you get your life and livelihood on the line, the tendency is for people to behave " Obviously, unlike in Minecraft, in real life there are no thieves, bandits and robbers. That'd be way too dangerous of an occupation...
4
@colebehnke7767 " I paid a group of people to protect my rights " A group? For that you need to be rich. How do you get rich in a world with no property protection before you can afford a private army?
4
@tiagoandreguerra2950 " If they rob you, you shot them " Oh, I got it now! And when a bunch of bullies tries to get the lunch money from a scrawny five-grader, he simply beats all of them up? So simple!
3
@kamikaze5528 " you aren't necessarily exempt from the consequences " What consequences? I'll give you a practical example. A sociologist on YT setup a Minecraft server. Voluntary and all! Most people participated, worked, built and traded. However , inevitably (because he tried it many times), there appeared some griefers, who found it more funny and profitable to steal and destroy other's work. Just a very few of those people, always destroyed the whole community. No exceptions! (remote isolated islands do not count for much) So, what kind of consequences do you have in mind in this case?
3
@UmaROMC " what if, what if, what if " I only pretend it's a hypothetical situation, since stuff like that happened. On the Wild West of America, and on the less commonly known "Wild East" of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. " Are you honestly expecting a clear-cut answer on how to handle any hypothetical? " Not any, obviously. This one though? Sure, since a clear cut answer exists. " The philosophy of liberty is about the best, most consistent system we can have " That assumes that such a system will practically work in reality. So, how do you propose to practically deal with psychopathic "outlaws"?
3
@UmaROMC I used "owtlaws" in quotes, simply as an illustration. " noone will ever put themselves outside of it " The actual outlaws were taken outside the protection of the law. It was a form of punishment. Anyway, how do you propose to deal with such people in your nonsensical utopia?
3
@doomsdaybro8290 " kicked out of the Minecraft server " Sure, that's how it's usually done. Now, that's coercion. Then, the tricky question - How do you kick someone out of the server without having authority to do so? " non-aggression principle and the right of self-ownership are required " How do you enforce the said right without a form of aggression?
3
@doomsdaybro8290 " access to be shut off. This is the right of the property owner " So, if some rascal rapes my daughter, I'm free not to talk to him ever again? I'm sure he's trembling in fear at the very thought of it happening...
3
@juliancate7089 " conditions for continued employment " That's a long term transaction. Once a week or once a month deal. Still, many people were screwed up at the end... " you can either accept them as conditions for continued employment, or you can say, "no thanks" " How about I sell my produce (I'm a farmer, BTW), they load it onto the truck, and them I'm left with promises instead of money? How do you deal with that? Cash on the spot? Well, we need to weigh the produce, at the very least, so it's not always possible to know how much do they owe me. So, how do you deal with a recurrent problem of being screwed up? " No one is forced to accept the rules. " Then there are no rules , period.
1
@snex000 " If your girlfriend dumps you, has she coerced you? " Yes. The threat of a breakup is what attenuates people's behavior in a relationship. Coercion is maybe too strong of a word, but the mechanism is the same. " you are a stranger who hears this story " Being a stranger implies I don't know those people or the situation. If all I know is that "some people gave some kid a licking and took his money" I wouldn't know who was at fault. If the kid stole the money, some corrective action was likely warranted. If he was robbed, then he's the victim. How would I know what to think, if I'm a stranger?
1
@Somberdemure " [So what you are saying is...] " No, that's not what I'm saying, and you very well know that too.
1
@Somberdemure " So you DON'T actually care about the original meaning of words " Well, it's kinda interesting. But the meaning of words drifts over time, so it's not all that important how people used to understand them. " just like the marxist " That's not what they do. If the meaning of the original word drifts, then we need to find another word, to cover the original meaning. There is nothing particularly wrong with that, it happens whether we like it or not anyway. The practice I oppose is different. It smears the meaning according to the current need, while trying to keep the original meaning intact. That's pure sophistry. All it does is it allows for people skilled in that practice to confuse others and achieve their personal or political goals. Through confusion.
1
@Somberdemure " early 15c " That's Chaucer's times. I can hardly understand his language. In the language we are currently communicating with each other, violence is the use of force aimed at causing harm. Which is what you do, when you exercise your right for self-defense. Just to be clear - it is the right to harm others under certain circumstances. " c. 1400, from Old French " You are grasping at straws.
1
@Somberdemure " Define violence " "the use of physical force so as to injure, abuse, damage, or destroy" From Webster. " then there is self-defense " Usually being violent is forbidden, but there are exceptions. Self-defense is one of those. " which the state does " So whenever the state uses a threat of physical force, it's violence, even if it rarely goes that far? However, when a citizen uses actual physical, or even deadly force, it's a non-violent self-defense? You guys are as bad as marxists in smearing the meaning of words until they fit your agenda. " reaching for straws and trying to over complicate rebuttals " Unfortunately I had to dig deep, in more ways than one. I mean, I literally had to bury my dog this month. He was killed in a pack dispute. I wish I was wrong about how dogs settle their disagreements, but unfortunately I was correct.
1
@ceee338 " his " Who was him? Anyway, I don't think that traditions and hierarchies are purely materialistic, so I might have "conceded" the position I never held.
1
@ceee338 Give me examples. Like "he" (whoever "he" is) said so and so, and "answered" the problems I bring up, but then I somehow conceded my position by saying this and that. Honestly, I looked through my posts in this thread and I can't see where I conceded anything.
1
@panzerofthelake506 " We have inherited a hierarchy from the days when we were primitive " Primitive societies are relatively egalitarian. " We want a state " That's largely true. We do want them, because they work better than primitive or disorganized collections of individuals. Just like an actual team will always win a match against a disorganized group of individuals. " animal hierarchies (younger members follow the older " That's incorrect. Mature adults compete against each other. " they believe leaving this collective would be bad for them " Packs form for a reason. A bunch of reasons, even. " if no one believed that this collectivism is needed, [...] there would be no group " That's correct. If no one in a team believes in a team, there is no team. And then they get beat by comparatively weaker players, who cooperate toward a common goal. Anyway, the third reason for why hierarchies form is because hierarchies are self emergent. For example, some primitive people have cultures which prevent them from developing, because they believe that a more egalitarian society is beneficial for them. They are likely correct. Considering that their societies evolved over many millenia, it'd be very strange if their structure was not well suited to the conditions of their lives.
1
@UmaROMC " arguing in bad faith " Nonsense. I show a very practical problem, with which many societies had to deal somehow. Just tell me how do you propose to do it. " presuppositions " BS. That's what I think about sophistry of this type. " while mine are explicit " Good. That means it's gonna be extremely easy to show some practical solutions to a recurring problem. Of banditry, robbery, and other types of parasitic behavior.
1
@panzerofthelake506 " eldest members are at the top and the youngest at the bottom, that's what I meant " That can be true, but very often it isn't. A simple example of a younger stag dethroning his own father should tell you that it's not always the case. What does it change anyway?
1
How can you enforce anything without coercion? By asking kindly? Dear TIK, just grow up.
1
@panzerofthelake506 " Hierarchies in the animal world are based on families " What do you mean by that? That a dominant stag is somehow allowed to rule, because he's a son of someone? That wouldn't be true. He's dominant, because he dethroned the previous stag. Likely his father. So, what do you mean? " have no enforcement " No enforcement? You live in a city, don't you? You read about the animal world in books about politics, that's all you know. Am I right? " don't have hierarchies at all like Tigers " Packs have hierarchies. Animals who don't form packs will still fight for dominance, but a strict hierarchy is hard to form. Because they rarely meet each other. " There is no "structure" " That's not true! Hyenas, for example, have a very strict structure. Okay, I've no time. In a nutshell, humans are animals and our social structures are nothing special in the animal world. What distinguishes us from them is how big our societies can get. But that's a new thing, in evolutionary timeframe. Thousands of years only.
1
@ctrlaltdebug " you have never thought about it working " That's very untrue. Anarchy and the effects it brings on the society is a major part of the shared cultural heritage of my country. I wish the best pieces were translated into English. You guys really need to read at least some of it. " The theories " Theories? Like in the theory of gravity? Well, not exactly. So they aren't theories. You guys read narratives , not theories. With an untested hypothesis thrown in here and there for spice. " State refers to the monopoly on violence " What do you mean by that? Criminals do violence, law abiding citizens do violence too. When you think of it, the state does very little violence in comparison. Even when the state resorts to it, by violently squashing a rebellion, or what not, the body count can rarely even be seen on the yearly statistics. (rarely does not mean never, just to clarify)
1
How would this"authority" would deal with parasitic behavior?
1