Evil Avatar

Evil Avatar (http://www.evilavatar.com/forums/index.php)
-   Totally Off Topic (http://www.evilavatar.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=9)
-   -   Anarcho-capitalism (http://www.evilavatar.com/forums/showthread.php?t=210530)

Anenome 05-12-2014 08:24 PM

Anarcho-capitalism
 
I'm gonna resurrect the libertarianism thread explicitly with ancap ideas.

Let's kick it off with how we get roads in an ancap region sans taxes:


vallor 05-14-2014 12:01 AM

Interesting but I'm not sure it supports your argument. And it makes no case for how we'd fund roads without taxes. Unless you're suggesting the sin and gas tax is actually appropriate in an ancap society which then goes to some "oversight" body to build roads around the nation.

Plus if government would limit themselves to the services mentioned (e.g. building roads), which everyone can take advantage of, why not? The onus is on us to make sure we don't fall for the shell game and they don't start shaking us down for the $600b to fund their worldwide spying program, etc.

That doesn't make people ancaps nor does this video show how ancap actually improves anything, it just points out how dumb, misinformed, and apathetic the majority are. We reap what we sow.

Anemone 05-14-2014 01:40 PM

When you give gov a monopoly on any service, you pay the monopoly price, which is the highest possible price, for monopoly service, which is the lowest possible service they can provide.

This is always the case when you outlaw competition.

In any case, since the first ancap society is likely to be at sea, the "roads" make themselves, in the form of watery-canals.

If you actually did need to pay for roads, it's doable privately. You don't inherently need a government to pay for roads. And if you could do it privately, you can therefore do it cheaper and more high quality.

So, if your goal is roads, having the government provide them is the worst possible solution.

inscribed 05-14-2014 03:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anemone (Post 2302751)
When you give gov a monopoly on any service, you pay the monopoly price, which is the highest possible price, for monopoly service, which is the lowest possible service they can provide.

ObamaCare Processors Getting Paid To Do Nothing

Quote:

Wentzville, MO - An ObamaCare processor operated by Serco with a 1.2 billion dollar contract is paying its employees in a Wentzville, Missouri process center to do nothing, according to a Serco employee and whistleblower.

The whistleblower claims that despite not having enough work for their current employees Serco is still hiring. “They want to hire more people even though we still don’t have work to keep the people we have busy.” He claims that hundreds of employees sit staring into computer screens with little or nothing to do.

“There are weeks that a data entry person would not process an application.”

The whistleblower goes on to say:

“They’re told to sit at their computers and hit the refresh button every ten minutes.”

The goals set for the processors are to handle two applications a month and sometimes they are unable to even do that. The whistleblower claims that throughout several states Serco has 1,800 employees vying for 1 to 30 applications that appear in the database.

Why would Serco have so many employees working on a handful of applications? According to the whistleblower, Serco gets paid based on the number of workers they have employed, which means they want employees to show up even if there is nothing to do.

Serco refused to respond to the whistleblower’s comments.

Anenome 05-15-2014 08:49 AM

A lot of the challenges to my ideals given by people like Venom fall into this intellectual trap of demanding free markets offer a perfect solution to situations that statism doesn't handle well either, whereas I'm fine if free markets handle the situation at least as well. Here's more on that idea:

Pessimistic anarchism
Quote:

I received email recently asking me to respond to an article in the Huffington Post, No Safe Harbor on Gulf Coast; Human Blood Tests Show Dangerous Levels of Toxic Exposure. Questioner’s English wasn’t very good, but the question he was trying to pose was how market anarchists like myself can oppose government action to mitigate disasters like the Deepwater Horizon blowout, and what we have to say about the charge that corporate money is suppressing news of the full toll of the disaster.

What I had to say to him about that follows, slightly edited and expanded. It’s as good an individual case as any to explain why my free-market anarchism is a result not of optimism about the perfectibility of markets but of profound pessimism about the limits of any sort of collective action by human beings.

It does not matter for purposes of answering your question whether or not I think this article is factually accurate, since the situation it describes (environmental disaster followed by insidious long-term health effects that those responsible may be using corrupt means to cover up) represents a possible sort of collective-action problem with which anti-statists have to deal.

Our key insight is a pessimistic one: this is the sort of situation which, though individuals and markets don’t handle it well, isn’t actually handled well by governments either. The fundamental mistake of statist thinking is to juxtapose the tragically, inevitably flawed response of individuals and markets to large collective-action problems like this one against the hypothetical perfection of idealized government action, without coping with the reality that government action is also tragically and inevitably flawed.

The implicit burden of the article, after all, is indignation that the government has been done too little and the wrong things. What the author fails to grasp (because his thinking is warped by the religion of state-worship) is that this sort of dysfunction is not a sporadic accidental failure that could be corrected by sufficiently virtuous thoughts and deeds; it is an essential failure, entirely predictable from the incentives operating on all the actors (including the actors within government).

His sort of fantasy thinking implicitly throws a burden of proof on anarchists to construct a perfect response to something like the Deepwater Horizon disaster in a stateless system, or else have their critique of statism dismissed as heartless and inadequate. But the correct analysis is to notice that we can only do what we can only do, and compare the rationally expectable effectiveness of flawed government action against the rationally expectable effectiveness of flawed individual and market action.

The second level of error, once you get this far, is to require that the market action achieve a better outcome without including all the continuing, institutional costs of state action in the accounting. So, for example, other parts of the continuing costs of accepting state action to solve this individual toxic-exposure problem in the Deep Horizon aftermath is that Americans will be robbed every April 15th of five in twelve parts of their income (on average), and be randomly killed in no-knock drug raids. And it’s no use protesting that these abuses are separable from the “good” parts of government as long as you’re also insisting that the prospect of market failures is not separable from the good behavior of markets!

Irrational anarchists believe that utopia is somehow achievable in a stateless system; they make the exact reciprocal error from statists, believing that all evil proceeds from government. Rational anarchists like myself know that stateless systems will have tragic failures too, but believe after analysis that they would have fewer and smaller ones.

If this seems doubtful to you, do not forget to include all the great genocides of the 20th century in the cost of statism. It was contemplating those that turned me into an anarchist – because that sort of eruption of fire and blood, too, is not accidental but essential given the logic of state collectivism.

VenomUSMC 05-15-2014 08:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anenome (Post 2302918)
A lot of the challenges to my ideals given by people like Venom fall into this intellectual trap of demanding free markets offer a perfect solution to situations that statism doesn't handle well either, whereas I'm fine if free markets handle the situation at least as well. Here's more on that idea:

I don't ask for a perfect solution. This has been stated many times. You think the free markets will rise to meet any demand put forward?

Anemone 05-15-2014 10:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VenomUSMC (Post 2302919)
I don't ask for a perfect solution. This has been stated many times. You think the free markets will rise to meet any demand put forward?

You've criticized my proposed society for the same thing that plagues current societies. As I said before, you've chosen to focus on what's the same as our current society instead of what's different.

You say a free society can't prevent murder, nor child molestation, nor attempts to make people slaves, or any other kind of aggressions--this is true, preventing them entirely is impossible and nowhere have I claimed they could be possible. I claim only that they will be dealt with via a justice system just as they are now, and that a free society makes the situation probably a little bit better by giving you the ability to exclude people via COLAs, something that is largely impossible now in a society of publicly-owned roads.

If you have a sex-offender and you want to prevent them from coming into your town--currently this isn't possible, or at least very difficult to achieve. You have to rely on laws passed usually at the state level which can take years to pass. And then you usually have to wait for a tragedy to occur to give public focus to that issue, things like Megan's law and the like then get passed.

In a COLA you don't have to wait. If you believe that sex-offenders should be excluded from your city, you simply join or start a COLA that believes the same thing. You don't have to wait for a tragedy, you can adopt the law for yourself. You don't have to convince millions of people first via a vote. And you don't have to make compromises, where such laws try to balance the rights of a sex-offender with the rights of ordinary citizens, creating laws that are unenforceable, such as barring the sex-offender from coming within 500 yards of a school, or a child, or w/e. A COLA can bar them from an entire city without creating a civil rights case out of it.

And beyond that, you don't even need to wait for a conviction--this is a massive improvement over the now. If someone is merely a strongly suspected sex-offender not yet convicted, you can blackball him from entry to your COLA and thus protect your children ahead of the event.

And this is true for every other critique you've levelled, from slavery, to Nambla members, to a hundred other objectionable means of living. The answer is separate yourself from them via COLAs, do not associate with them at all, and if they're abusing others then you have the ethical justification to step into their property and save those being abused--which you also critiqued heavily even though it's the exact same rationale we use right now in our own society to save those being abused on private property!

In short your critiques have come across as mere criticalism, without substance, because you do not apply your rubric to our current society, so you have no right to complain. If you're fine with a certain situation in our current society, how can you complain about it my proposed society?

You conflate justice with "forcing a law" on someone, even though justice is higher than law, you refuse to even acknowledge this.

I now await your troll-filled, irrational cheap-shot of a reply, which I'm sure is coming, because that's all we've gotten out of you for weeks now. Why don't you surprise me for once and reply thoughtfully, without obvious venom.

Anemone 05-15-2014 12:19 PM

Things the state won't let you do in the US: Feed the poor edition

"This refrigerator was installed on the street by a very generous Saudi man. He and his friends leave leftovers and other food in there to feed the less fortunate children of his town with nutritious food, and to save them from the "shame" of begging."
https://i.imgur.com/sgl4NQG.jpg
http://gulfnews.com/news/gulf/saudi-...ouse-1.1328931

VenomUSMC 05-15-2014 01:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anemone (Post 2302968)
You've criticized my proposed society for the same thing that plagues current societies. As I said before, you've chosen to focus on what's the same as our current society instead of what's different.

You say a free society can't prevent murder, nor child molestation, nor attempts to make people slaves, or any other kind of aggressions--this is true, preventing them entirely is impossible and nowhere have I claimed they could be possible. I claim only that they will be dealt with via a justice system just as they are now, and that a free society makes the situation probably a little bit better by giving you the ability to exclude people via COLAs, something that is largely impossible now in a society of publicly-owned roads.

If you have a sex-offender and you want to prevent them from coming into your town--currently this isn't possible, or at least very difficult to achieve. You have to rely on laws passed usually at the state level which can take years to pass. And then you usually have to wait for a tragedy to occur to give public focus to that issue, things like Megan's law and the like then get passed.

In a COLA you don't have to wait. If you believe that sex-offenders should be excluded from your city, you simply join or start a COLA that believes the same thing. You don't have to wait for a tragedy, you can adopt the law for yourself.

You're merely falling victim to your own selective hearing. I haven't stated ANY system can get rid of sex-offenders, etc. What I HAVE been saying - many times - is that your system legally enables such activity as it absolutely opens the door to such actions being perfectly "legal" if someone makes it up in their COLA.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anenome
And beyond that, you don't even need to wait for a conviction--this is a massive improvement over the now. If someone is merely a strongly suspected sex-offender not yet convicted, you can blackball him from entry to your COLA and thus protect your children ahead of the event.

Uhhhh you can do this in the United States too. Home Owners Associations, local government, State gov, Federal gov.

Never mind the obvious problem. If you "merely suspect" someone - as you put it - then they're guilty. Awesome, sounds fun.

This is actually a very common practice in places such as Iraq and Afghanistan. People accuse others that they dislike of some sort of crime - a mere accusation - and justice is served by blowing their doors in and dragging them out. SWATting is becoming a bigger thing in the United States. Apparently you're a fan of this. Bring on the seasteading crusades!


Quote:

Originally Posted by Anenome
And this is true for every other critique you've levelled, from slavery, to Nambla members, to a hundred other objectionable means of living. The answer is separate yourself from them via COLAs, do not associate with them at all, and if they're abusing others then you have the ethical justification to step into their property and save those being abused--which you also critiqued heavily even though it's the exact same rationale we use right now in our own society to save those being abused on private property!

Is this a joke? First, making something illegal doesn't save you from it. You use this fact to support your desire to legalize all drugs, etc. Magically declaring something illegal saves you in your dystopia. Second, ethics - once again - are not universal. The world proves this. If someone acting unethically enables me to ignore all of their laws, on their own private property, at a time and place of my choosing, then that sounds horrible. As the world proves - the reality we actually live in - there is a WIDE, WIDE range of what deemed ethical behavior. Declaring it's okay to go onto someone else's property to enforce your ethics merely justifies such things as Sharia Law. Some cultures "honor killings" are perfectly ethical. It's perfectly ethical in some cultures to kill people who do not abide by their ethical standards. It's an abuse to a higher being - in their eyes - to not ethically behave by their standard. You're advocating this action. Disgusting.

This is absolutely not the same rationale as used in our present society. Our present society as umbrella laws that apply to all - ancap doesn't. Laws ultimately come as a result of people voting in the United States. Your dystopia simply creates a free-fire zone of a person or group's own ethical standard enforcement. Even then, what are we limiting abuse to? Physical? Emotional? Fiscal? I'm sure the Occupy Wallstreet types would love to burn down the 1%'s sweet dwellings because they're "abusing the people".

Even your premise posted here is contradictory. One one hand, you say produce a COLA, separate yourself, live by your own rules. On the other hand, if you think someone's unethical actions is causing harm - delivery swift justice (what "justice" is depends completely on the individual delivering it). It's like saying "run and hide from everyone", while also advocating "seek and destroy."

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anenome
In short your critiques have come across as mere criticalism, without substance, because you do not apply your rubric to our current society, so you have no right to complain. If you're fine with a certain situation in our current society, how can you complain about it my proposed society?

I've stated I don't like our society - many times.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anenome
You conflate justice with "forcing a law" on someone, even though justice is higher than law, you refuse to even acknowledge this.

... You conflate justice with ethical. Look at many acts of "justice" carried out around the globe. Honor killings is seen as serving justice by many. Honor killings are seen as ethical by many.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anenome
I now await your troll-filled, irrational cheap-shot of a reply, which I'm sure is coming, because that's all we've gotten out of you for weeks now. Why don't you surprise me for once and reply thoughtfully, without obvious venom.

As soon as you realize the straw you're looking through to see the world isn't the reality of the world we all live.

VenomUSMC 05-15-2014 01:12 PM

I guess you still believe the ancap society will simply step-up to meet any demands placed on it by consumers?

the acid attacks or honor killings of women in Muslim countries who refuse to cover their faces. Remember to wear your Burqa if you happen to be born with a vagina before someone delivers "justice" on a completely "ethical" basis in their views.

Don't worry, Muslims aren't the only culture taking part in honor killings. Hindu vs. Muslim Honor Killings. Completely ethical in these eyes of many, unfortunately.

Anemone 05-15-2014 02:09 PM

Listen, here's why allowing invasions when there is someone being oppressed isn't forcing my morality on them. Because there's a human being in their property bounds who does not consent to what's being done to them. It's THEIR moral sense that's being protected, not my moral sense being forced. That complaint is a legitimation of invasion. Absent that complaint, I don't legitimate invasion.

As I said, all people reject their own victimization, and consensual activity, regardless of its type, is prima fascie legitimate.

If someone is on your property and wants to escape it, anyone can ethically invade to help them escape.

So you say various cultures have different ethical standards. Fine. If the people on their property do not complain about how they're being treated, no one will invade them.

And after the invasion the result is dispute resolution for damages. That's influence by local custom too, but that's the nature of the beast. Each visitor should agree to the legal basis on which they will settle any dispute that arises before setting foot on that property, then there's no issue, since each has agreed ahead of time how to deal with a dispute. Voluntarism remains.

Going on to cite honor killings and acid attacks is ridiculous. The victims of acid attacks do not defend their attackers or forgive them (and if they did, who could complain), they seek justice for these attacks. These are not accepted or legitimated even in their own countries.

Same for honor killings, the women whom are the victims of the killings do not accept their own murder, even if everyone else turns a blind eye. A libertarian society would seek to save such people and remove them from that situation.

Just because my society has a different way of dealing with these problems you assume there's no way of dealing with them. This is not a reasonable assumption.

You again say that a pedophile could make pedophilia legal on their property. Didn't I already say that this would be the greatest favor they could do us, to publicly announce their intent to molest children so that everyone would avoid them? Why are you avoiding that obvious consequence?

Seems you can't respond to the realities that go against your complaints, you outright ignore them.

VenomUSMC 05-15-2014 04:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anemone (Post 2303033)
Listen, here's why allowing invasions when there is someone being oppressed isn't forcing my morality on them. Because there's a human being in their property bounds who does not consent to what's being done to them. It's THEIR moral sense that's being protected, not my moral sense being forced. That complaint is a legitimation of invasion. Absent that complaint, I don't legitimate invasion.

Oppression can be in the eye of the beholder. You cannot escape that. You've stated that forced taxes - which you're subject to in the United States and California specifically - are immoral. Does that give someone to the right to invade the United States to free you? You've already stated that it's unacceptable to ask someone to move.... of course you've advocated moving too.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anenome
As I said, all people reject their own victimization, and consensual activity, regardless of its type, is prima fascie legitimate.

You've opened the door to the enforcement of what a person or group believes is ethical treatment. How about anarchists "freeing" the oppressed people who are too blind to see the state is oppressing them? Or do you have to wave a white flag declaring that you're a victim? I'm sure there is some magic requirement of forcing private property owners to allow their slaves to interact with visitors to complain. Do they get union breaks as well? Remember, those that suffer from Battered wife syndrome are not to be "saved" unless they formally complain. Watch an episode of cops for heaven's sake.... it's not uncommon for a person to be abused to outright refuse to go against the abuser.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anenome
If someone is on your property and wants to escape it, anyone can ethically invade to help them escape.

Sounds great, but ultimately unrealistic and out of touch with many cultures that exist in the world today. If someone comes onto your property they are consenting to your COLA. As you've conveniently continued to ignore, there is no legally required way in which a property owner must display their COLA - just ways you hope will become standard.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anenome
So you say various cultures have different ethical standards. Fine. If the people on their property do not complain about how they're being treated, no one will invade them.

I'd say reality proves various cultures have different very different ethical standards. I'll make sure to tell the slaves, the people locked up, etc to file a complaint.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anenome
And after the invasion the result is dispute resolution for damages. That's influence by local custom too, but that's the nature of the beast. Each visitor should agree to the legal basis on which they will settle any dispute that arises before setting foot on that property, then there's no issue, since each has agreed ahead of time how to deal with a dispute. Voluntarism remains.

... After invading Sharia Island they'll go to the people's court? Give me a break. If it's influenced by local customs many of these abuses will be declared absolutely legal and ethical. You do know many people are born into their circumstances, right? Again, the idea that people will meet at the docks and go over the COLA seems far from realistic. Never mind merely going to the wrong floating Sharia fortress can lead to consenting to imprisonment.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anenome
Going on to cite honor killings and acid attacks is ridiculous. The victims of acid attacks do not defend their attackers or forgive them (and if they did, who could complain), they seek justice for these attacks. These are not accepted or legitimated even in their own countries.

While such actions are ridiculous in my view, they're quite ethical in some people's views. It doesn't matter if the victims complained or not. The attackers carried out such actions per their ethical code, many believing these women were harming others by simply not wearing a burqa. Many of these attacks are considered accepted and legitimate in their own countries. Never mind the many smaller communities that support such action, which is more aligned with the dystopia you hope to build - small communities.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anenome
Same for honor killings, the women whom are the victims of the killings do not accept their own murder, even if everyone else turns a blind eye. A libertarian society would seek to save such people and remove them from that situation.

Sounds pretty hawkish to me. "would save such people and remove them from that situation" is a huge presumption. Even some of the doctrines that the United States follows forbids taking that course of action (the Powell Doctrine for example).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anenome
Just because my society has a different way of dealing with these problems you assume there's no way of dealing with them. This is not a reasonable assumption.

No, I don't. Again, you're unable to understand anything but your own view. I've expressed that your "solutions" simply result in opening the door to people to go on their own crusades. In fact, you've expressly removed the presumption of innocence from people. Mere rumor can apparently result in swift "justice" - such an ambiguous term - that displaces and isolates people.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anenome
You again say that a pedophile could make pedophilia legal on their property. Didn't I already say that this would be the greatest favor they could do us, to publicly announce their intent to molest children so that everyone would avoid them? Why are you avoiding that obvious consequence?

Sure, if he's required to post his COLA online, on the docks, or whatever. There are no umbrella laws in your dystopia - thus no requirement of such action to be taken. Why are you avoiding that many people would obviously hide this? Why are you avoiding that they would simply put their floating pedophile world outside of the some community to be a pedophile getaway? A Dream Vacation for Pedophiles - Child Sex Tourists in Southeast Asia

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anenome
Seems you can't respond to the realities that go against your complaints, you outright ignore them.

Haha, as you ignore the questions posted in your direction and reality we live in. Look at this insanity:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anenome
you don't even need to wait for a conviction--this is a massive improvement over the now. If someone is merely a strongly suspected sex-offender not yet convicted, you can blackball him from entry to your COLA and thus protect your children ahead of the event.

Don't wait for convictions - you're already guilty! Rape Culture is a ‘Panic Where Paranoia, Censorship, and False Accusations Flourish’ - false accusations? You're already guilty!

I thought about posting a pic of Judge Dredd in regards to your ideas about justice... but, in reality, people are far more empowered than Judge Dredd in your society. Judge Dredd - from the latest movie - enforces the laws via judging and punishing, but he does not create them. In your world, a person can not only "legally" enforce laws by judging and punishing but create them as well!


Also, do you still believe the completely free market will meet any demand put forth?

VenomUSMC 05-15-2014 05:19 PM

Two little girls are 'lost' in a busy shopping centre and asking for help - watch what happens next -This video reveals the shocking truth of heartless 'busy Britain' as Uma and Maya took turns to 'be lost' in the concourse next to crowded Victoria Station

Shooting victim's body ignored by convenience store customers in disturbing video
"When they told me people were still coming in that gas station, stepping over my child in the doorway, I couldn't believe it; I couldn't believe it," says victim's mother.


India in shock over footage showing crowds ignoring accident victim's pleas
Outrage and introspection greet video of drivers passing bloodied father and son as wife and baby bleed to death in road


Jaipur: Accident victim cries for help, ignored by all

Alexandra Kovacs trial: Murder victim's cries for help were ignored by flatmates

This is unfortunately all too common. Apparently that magically stops in your sea-world. Funny how people that are escaping the state - largely so they can be allowed to mind their own business - will suddenly be expected to stop minding their own business and spring into action.

Maybe you had the foresight to sign on this guy to save the people? :

http://ts4.mm.bing.net/th?id=HN.6080...630596&pid=1.7

VenomUSMC 05-15-2014 05:29 PM

Sudan judge sentences Christian woman to death for apostasy.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Article
Meriam Yahia Ibrahim Ishag, 27, is married to a Christian and eight months pregnant, human rights activists say.

"We gave you three days to recant but you insist on not returning to Islam. I sentence you to be hanged," Judge Abbas Mohammed Al-Khalifa told the woman, addressing her by her father's Muslim name, Adraf Al-Hadi Mohammed Abdullah.

Khalifa also sentenced Ishag to 100 lashes for "adultery". Under Sudan's interpretation of sharia, a Muslim woman cannot marry a non-Muslim man and any such relationship is regarded as adulterous.


Anemone 05-15-2014 05:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VenomUSMC (Post 2303083)
Oppression can be in the eye of the beholder.

This has been answered. When someone claims they're being oppressed in another's property the reasonable thing to do is to separate the two, invading the one's property if need be to do so, and then engage in dispute resolution, ala a court. Their cry of oppression is legitimation for invasion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by VenomUSMC (Post 2303083)
You cannot escape that. You've stated that forced taxes - which you're subject to in the United States and California specifically - are immoral. Does that give someone to the right to invade the United States to free you?

By destroying the US gov? No, since that would also be aggression against those who pay taxes willingly. The situation is not that simple. And I am no being held against my will, but rather stolen from consistently. Not the same thing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by VenomUSMC (Post 2303083)
You've opened the door to the enforcement of what a person or group believes is ethical treatment. How about anarchists "freeing" the oppressed people who are too blind to see the state is oppressing them?

This has been answered. You're not reading me if you can ask this. I said all people reject their victimization and the cry of the victim makes invasion ethical, and if there's no complaint then invasion cannot be condoned. So if there's a group that doesn't think they're being oppressed, then no, invasion is not ethical. We would instead endeavor to dialogue with them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by VenomUSMC (Post 2303083)
Remember, those that suffer from Battered wife syndrome are not to be "saved" unless they formally complain. Watch an episode of cops for heaven's sake.... it's not uncommon for a person to be abused to outright refuse to go against the abuser.

Yes, exactly. The abused must have the courage to complain, but partly that's a function of whether or not they believe the interceder has the power to actually save them from the abuser long-term.

Quote:

Originally Posted by VenomUSMC (Post 2303083)
If someone comes onto your property they are consenting to your COLA. As you've conveniently continued to ignore, there is no legally required way in which a property owner must display their COLA - just ways you hope will become standard.

This has been answered. I explained this to you already.

Question, would you be part of a COLA that doesn't require display? Why do you think other people would then? The first law you accept for yourself is to become part of the COLA framework, and the framework has a statement of rules that effect how the COLA system itself works. Part of this would be the requirement that laws must be accepted before entry is granted.

While it's theoretically possible that a COLA could be built without the requirement, you have not offered any compelling reason why anyone ever would, since it would go both ways.

Quote:

Originally Posted by VenomUSMC (Post 2303083)
I'd say reality proves various cultures have different very different ethical standards. I'll make sure to tell the slaves, the people locked up, etc to file a complaint.

It's an epistemological problem more than anything, Venom. If they don't tell someone they've been enslaved, how can anyone help them. Only they know.

Quote:

Originally Posted by VenomUSMC (Post 2303083)
... After invading Sharia Island they'll go to the people's court? Give me a break. If it's influenced by local customs many of these abuses will be declared absolutely legal and ethical.

This has been answered.

In a COLA system either participant in the suit gets veto power over which court is chosen until one is found acceptable to both of them. And if one never is, they agree on a 3rd party who will choose one for them. Under this system, victims can be sure to choose a court that will not simply rubber stamp their victimization due to cultural acceptance of such practices--they can demand a court outside their culture.

Quote:

Originally Posted by VenomUSMC (Post 2303083)
You do know many people are born into their circumstances, right? Again, the idea that people will meet at the docks and go over the COLA seems far from realistic. Never mind merely going to the wrong floating Sharia fortress can lead to consenting to imprisonment.

This has been explained. Simply stepping on another's property is not consent. Quit acting as if it is. It's trespassing. You would not have permission to enter until you've sign an entry agreement. The remedy is removal from the premises until becoming a signee.

Quote:

Originally Posted by VenomUSMC (Post 2303083)
While such actions are ridiculous in my view, they're quite ethical in some people's views.

Unless the victim thinks so too, it's a non-point.

Quote:

Originally Posted by VenomUSMC (Post 2303083)
It doesn't matter if the victims complained or not.

It doesn't now perhaps; it would in a COLA.

Quote:

Originally Posted by VenomUSMC (Post 2303083)
The attackers carried out such actions per their ethical code, many believing these women were harming others by simply not wearing a burqa. Many of these attacks are considered accepted and legitimate in their own countries.

Don't you realize that in a COLA system, those with extremist views would automatically be separated from those without them. They wouldn't even have opportunity for an acid attack.

Quote:

Originally Posted by VenomUSMC (Post 2303083)
Sounds pretty hawkish to me. "would save such people and remove them from that situation" is a huge presumption. Even some of the doctrines that the United States follows forbids taking that course of action (the Powell Doctrine for example).

It is hawkish. We plan to one day liberate entire people groups from nation states if we gather that kind of power.

Quote:

Originally Posted by VenomUSMC (Post 2303083)
you're unable to understand anything but your own view. I've expressed that your "solutions" simply result in opening the door to people to go on their own crusades.

Just ebcause you think it likely doesn't mean I have to think it likely. Considering that I actually understand my proposal and you both don't understand it fully and haven't taken the time to ask me questions about it, 95% of your challenges are due to ignorance about what I'm proposing, and not thinking critically about your own challenges. Classic example: your acid attacks scenario--people would separate into COLAs of either extremist Islam or moderate Islam and never the twain would meet.

Soon the people radical enough to do acid attacks would find they don't have any women to attack in the first place. Then that culture would finally die its natural death.

Quote:

Originally Posted by VenomUSMC (Post 2303083)
In fact, you've expressly removed the presumption of innocence from people. Mere rumor can apparently result in swift "justice" - such an ambiguous term - that displaces and isolates people.

You're presuming things. If you had asked me under what circumstances I would support invasion, it would be after evidence presented in a public hearing and a court issuing an invasion reasonable based on the evidence. Only excepting cases of obvious imminent harm would that be avoidable in my preferred scenario.

Quote:

Originally Posted by VenomUSMC (Post 2303083)
Sure, if he's required to post his COLA online, on the docks, or whatever.

A COLA that doesn't publish its laws is also unvisitable.

Quote:

Originally Posted by VenomUSMC (Post 2303083)
There are no umbrella laws in your dystopia - thus no requirement of such action to be taken.

This has been explained.

Quote:

Originally Posted by VenomUSMC (Post 2303083)
Why are you avoiding that many people would obviously hide this?

What you also don't understand is that entrants to any COLA can also demand certain provisions be included, including tings against child molestation--I'm sure that would be a standard clause everywhere for obvious reasons. Thus if the owner hid it, didn't declare a law about child molestation, then they'd be convicted of child molestation based on agreeing to the visitor's visitation agreement.

Quote:

Originally Posted by VenomUSMC (Post 2303083)
Don't wait for convictions - you're already guilty! Rape Culture is a ‘Panic Where Paranoia, Censorship, and False Accusations Flourish’ - false accusations? You're already guilty!

This has been explained.

Quote:

Originally Posted by VenomUSMC (Post 2303083)
I thought about posting a pic of Judge Dredd in regards to your ideas about justice... but, in reality, people are far more empowered than Judge Dredd in your society. Judge Dredd - from the latest movie - enforces the laws via judging and punishing, but he does not create them. In your world, a person can not only "legally" enforce laws by judging and punishing but create them as well!

If you'd bothered to ask instead of assuming you wouldn't look like a moron right now.

Quote:

Originally Posted by VenomUSMC (Post 2303083)
Also, do you still believe the completely free market will meet any demand put forth?

Define "demand" in this context, and provide an example.

Here's what I know: government is just a group of people. And if you're trying to tell me that government can do things that other people cannot do, then you're saying that people can do what people cannot do, and that's obviously wrong.

Anything one group of people can do another group of people can do, quite obviously.

Anything government can do, the market can do--both are just groups of people acting.

Anemone 05-15-2014 05:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VenomUSMC (Post 2303089)
Two little girls are 'lost' in a busy shopping centre and asking for help - watch what happens next -This video reveals the shocking truth of heartless 'busy Britain' as Uma and Maya took turns to 'be lost' in the concourse next to crowded Victoria Station

Shooting victim's body ignored by convenience store customers in disturbing video
"When they told me people were still coming in that gas station, stepping over my child in the doorway, I couldn't believe it; I couldn't believe it," says victim's mother.


India in shock over footage showing crowds ignoring accident victim's pleas
Outrage and introspection greet video of drivers passing bloodied father and son as wife and baby bleed to death in road


Jaipur: Accident victim cries for help, ignored by all

Alexandra Kovacs trial: Murder victim's cries for help were ignored by flatmates

This is unfortunately all too common. Apparently that magically stops in your sea-world. Funny how people that are escaping the state - largely so they can be allowed to mind their own business - will suddenly be expected to stop minding their own business and spring into action.

Maybe you had the foresight to sign on this guy to save the people? :

Again, you're acting as if I suggest such things aren't possible in a seastead. I have not claimed this. And they're dealt with the same way.

Why you think this is a challenge to my idea at all is completely mystifying to me, except that you must not understand it very well. Lord knows you don't ask me a thing about it and just assume every time.

Anemone 05-15-2014 05:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VenomUSMC (Post 2303092)

Had they had COLAs, she could've moved to a christian region and not been under the power of someone like this.

You're making a case for COLA law, not against it. This is also a case against all law that forces itself on people geographically rather than allowing each person to accept what laws they prefer. She would never have accepted a law saying non-muslims must be executed or w/e.

She is a victim of statism. Religious statism but statism nonetheless. Anyone who says you should be able to force laws on people has, in part, helped kill this woman.

SpectralThundr 05-15-2014 06:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anemone (Post 2303097)
Had they had COLAs, she could've moved to a christian region and not been under the power of someone like this.

You're making a case for COLA law, not against it. This is also a case against all law that forces itself on people geographically rather than allowing each person to accept what laws they prefer. She would never have accepted a law saying non-muslims must be executed or w/e.

She is a victim of statism. Religious statism but statism nonetheless. Anyone who says you should be able to force laws on people has, in part, helped kill this woman.

Says the guy who's society will indeed force personal laws on people. This comedy almost writes itself at this point. :rolleyes:

VenomUSMC 05-15-2014 06:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anemone (Post 2303097)
Had they had COLAs, she could've moved to a christian region and not been under the power of someone like this.

Sure, it's that easy. They'd probably help her pack her bags... :eek:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anenome
You're making a case for COLA law, not against it. This is also a case against all law that forces itself on people geographically rather than allowing each person to accept what laws they prefer. She would never have accepted a law saying non-muslims must be executed or w/e.

She never would have? How do you know? First, you don't. Second, this is a wonderful illustration of how silly your beliefs are versus reality.


Quote:

AnenomeShe is a victim of statism. Religious statism but statism nonetheless. Anyone who says you should be able to force laws on people has, in part, helped kill this woman.
She's a victim of Sharia Law. That isn't bound by any state. You helped kill this one by your own statements. This same sort of thing can and would likely exist in an ancap water world. You've stated you should be able to force your own laws on people via invasion. Congrats.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anenome
Again, you're acting as if I suggest such things aren't possible in a seastead. I have not claimed this. And they're dealt with the same way.

Why you think this is a challenge to my idea at all is completely mystifying to me, except that you must not understand it very well. Lord knows you don't ask me a thing about it and just assume every time.

You're enabling such actions. It's mystifying to you because you believe your dsytopia to be a perfect vision with any "chinks in your armor". Hubris.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anenome
This has been answered. When someone claims they're being oppressed in another's property the reasonable thing to do is to separate the two, invading the one's property if need be to do so, and then engage in dispute resolution, ala a court. Their cry of oppression is legitimation for invasion.

Reasonable? Ha! Once again, you're inserting your view of what is reasonable. Look not further than your own views to see that "reasonable" can take many forms. Their cry to oppression? Again, look at the victims of reality. Then again, you do advocate guilt and punishment based entirely upon presumption.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anenome
By destroying the US gov? No, since that would also be aggression against those who pay taxes willingly. The situation is not that simple. And I am no being held against my will, but rather stolen from consistently. Not the same thing.

You've stated it's not realistic for you to be able to simply leave the United States - a land of oppressing you. Aggression against slave holders is also aggression against those that agree to live with that individual and deal with him by the same logic.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anenome
This has been answered. You're not reading me if you can ask this. I said all people reject their victimization and the cry of the victim makes invasion ethical, and if there's no complaint then invasion cannot be condoned. So if there's a group that doesn't think they're being oppressed, then no, invasion is not ethical. We would instead endeavor to dialogue with them

Yes, you did say this. The idea that all people reject their victimization is, of course, not true. Enabling people to invade based others - based on what they deem to be unethical treatment of others - is simply opening the door to crusades. Continuing to invoke the false belief that "all people" reject their victimization only serves as evidence of how out of touch with reality you are.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anenome
Yes, exactly. The abused must have the courage to complain, but partly that's a function of whether or not they believe the interceder has the power to actually save them from the abuser long-term

What a disgusting outlook. Yes, child, you must have the courage (never mind understanding) that you are being abused.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anenome
Question, would you be part of a COLA that doesn't require display? Why do you think other people would then? The first law you accept for yourself is to become part of the COLA framework, and the framework has a statement of rules that effect how the COLA system itself works. Part of this would be the requirement that laws must be accepted before entry is granted.

While it's theoretically possible that a COLA could be built without the requirement, you have not offered any compelling reason why anyone ever would, since it would go both ways

This has been answered many times.
Absolutely. My own. Why would other people? Necessity. It's simple. Your inability to understand this illustrates you naive you are.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anenome
It's an epistemological problem more than anything, Venom. If they don't tell someone they've been enslaved, how can anyone help them. Only they know.

This would make a lot of sense in your system of allowing for pedophilia.


Quote:

Originally Posted by Anenome
Simply stepping on another's property is not consent. Quit acting as if it is. It's trespassing. You would not have permission to enter until you've sign an entry agreement. The remedy is removal from the premises until becoming a signee.

Sweet, then I'm able to go onto anyone's property without their consent. What legal basis do they have to remove me from premises in which I didn't recognize as sovereign? Are they enforcing their COLA - which I didn't "sign" - on me?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anenome
Unless the victim thinks so too, it's a non-point.

People enforcing their own ethical standards are "allowed" to punish those not convicted of crimes. You've openly stated this. Therefore, it's not a non-point. It's a crusade.


Quote:

Originally Posted by Anenome
It doesn't now perhaps; it would in a COLA.

Weird, the COLA says that if you complain death is your punishment. Thanks, COLA.


Quote:

Originally Posted by Anenome
Don't you realize that in a COLA system, those with extremist views would automatically be separated from those without them. They wouldn't even have opportunity for an acid attack.

This is amazingly ignorant. Boko was separated from the schools girls. Welcome to reality. There is no such thing as "automatic". Invoking some false belief that automatically - CONVENIENTLY - extremists views are separated is outright stupidity.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anenome
It is hawkish. We plan to one day liberate entire people groups from nation states if we gather that kind of power.

Welcome to the crusades. Make sure to start a reality show: "When Fedoras attack!".

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anenome
ust ebcause you think it likely doesn't mean I have to think it likely. Considering that I actually understand my proposal and you both don't understand it fully and haven't taken the time to ask me questions about it, 95% of your challenges are due to ignorance about what I'm proposing, and not thinking critically about your own challenges. Classic example: your acid attacks scenario--people would separate into COLAs of either extremist Islam or moderate Islam and never the twain would meet.

Soon the people radical enough to do acid attacks would find they don't have any women to attack in the first place. Then that culture would finally die its natural death.

You start with what amounts to a rebuttal to yourself. Bring your massive ego, you charge anyone that opposes you as "not understanding it" and "not asking questions". This is, of course, false and idiotic. How long have I been engaging you on this topic?

Look at what you view as examples of ignorance. If you're ignorant enough to understand that people -both born and bought into these areas - Sharia Law cannot be expected to escape by simply renouncing a COLA, you're simply ignoring reality. Has this Sharia Law culture died in reality? No.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anenome
You're presuming things. If you had asked me under what circumstances I would support invasion, it would be after evidence presented in a public hearing and a court issuing an invasion reasonable based on the evidence. Only excepting cases of obvious imminent harm would that be avoidable in my preferred scenario.

Hilarious. The king of presumption charges others with presumption. You have stated what circumstances you support invasion. Per your ancap system, who cares what circumstances you support invasion? People are supposed to create their own rules to live by in your dystopia. However, what you really mean is "I want people to live by what I, Anenome, believe is right".

Trying you argue that there are "legal" circumstances for someone to invade another person's private property - where they make all the laws - is hilarious with you simultaneously arguing there are no umbrella laws.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anenome
A COLA that doesn't publish its laws is also unvisitable.

Again, what law declares this? Answer: None. You keep invoking these umbrella laws that do not exist.


Quote:

Originally Posted by Anenome
What you also don't understand is that entrants to any COLA can also demand certain provisions be included, including tings against child molestation--I'm sure that would be a standard clause everywhere for obvious reasons. Thus if the owner hid it, didn't declare a law about child molestation, then they'd be convicted of child molestation based on agreeing to the visitor's visitation agreement.

First, there is no legal requirement to display a private property's COLA since there are no umbrella laws - this has been covered. "I'm sure" = presumption. Why not just go onto private property, not "sign" a COLA, and invoke your own when they try to remove you from their property? Just declare it your own!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anenome
If you'd bothered to ask instead of assuming you wouldn't look like a moron right now.

I would agree that you are the resident expert, certainly deserving of an honorary PhD, in being a moron. You declared - clearly, may I add - that a person is the Congress, President, and Chief Justice of their private property. Welcome to Kangaroo court, have a seat.


Quote:

Originally Posted by Anenome
Define "demand" in this context, and provide an example.

Here's what I know: government is just a group of people. And if you're trying to tell me that government can do things that other people cannot do, then you're saying that people can do what people cannot do, and that's obviously wrong.

Anything one group of people can do another group of people can do, quite obviously.

Anything government can do, the market can do--both are just groups of people acting.

Isn't the entire premise of a truly free market that it will meet all the demands of the consumer, cheap and efficiently?

VenomUSMC 05-15-2014 06:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SpectralThundr (Post 2303102)
Says the guy who's society will indeed force personal laws on people. This comedy almost writes itself at this point. :rolleyes:

True. I'm not sure if he's accounted for the size of his ego when planning his seasteed in his parent's garage.

"There are no standard laws.... well unless I need to invoke some for an argument..it's a free ancap society, assuming you completely agree with my rules"

Coming to a seasteed near you:
http://ts2.mm.bing.net/th?id=HN.6080...830365&pid=1.7


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:52 PM.