/ancap/ - Anarcho-Capitalism

>The groups which may best leverage violence will have an advantage over those which refuse to utilize violence as a tool.
Perhaps, but AnCap does not denounce violence; only aggression. It is entirely appropriate to respond to force or the threat thereof with greater force, and to arm and train yourself in anticipation of such a contingency.

>even if there is no official state or degree of rule sufficient to constitute a government still there is a dominant "ruling" body over the other competing institutions within a region.
How so? How can you justify the presumption that coercion will inevitably form the basis of social organization, when this is neither theoretically sound nor historically indicated? The ruled always outnumber the rulers, and the only thing that tips the power balance in favor of the ruled is compliance. Remove compliance, and there cannot be a ruler.

>were it in your power, would you not conscript your peers or underlings to fight off a foe who, if victorious, would yoke you heavily?
It would be a betrayal of everything that I am, so I will not. Even so, what I may or may not choose to do under certain circumstances has no relevance to the veracity of my philosophy. I may err, but that does not invalidate my position.

> How a lack of government may be maintained
There are lots of potential models. The longest-lasting societies in human history were the ones without centralized coercive power structures. Many lasted for thousands of years as their statist neighbors came and went.
2) How is it possible for there to be no ruling man or group over men, however slight the rule
There is no guarantee that some will not try. In fact, I would bet good money that some will, and some of those will succeed in enslaving others. That already happens today, and has occurred in every government in history. It is unreasonable to hold any philosophy to an impossible standard of omnipotent enforcement of benevolence.
3) Does a lesser subjugation warding off the greater subjugation threatened by militant statist neighbors not justify even a temporary forced counter-militancy?
No. Aggression is never justified. One might commit it in desperation, but one has still done wrong and is obligated to make amends.

>>376
>Who are you referencing? Are you suggesting our criteria should be existence alone? By this standard every currently-existing society is equal in standing. A loincloth-clothed savage is just as good as a suite-and-tie wearing sophist.
Ireland, Iceland and the Somali come to mind. The latter preserved their customary law in spite of both colonization and a dictatorship, which is quite an achievement if you ask me.

>>382
>it's like insurance

Your analogy is apt. Most insurance companies only exist because the government requires investment in them.

An insurance company, as a business model, requires it isn't useful to most of its' customers. Rather than pool risk, most people would rather keep their wealth for other uses.

Likewise with a military. Someone has to kill, fight and die to maintain the culture. How do you incentivize doing so?
A. You can tell the soldiers to do as they please to the civillain populace, as the Red Army did with its' farmers-turned-rapists, feudal lords did with mercenaries, monarchies did with letters to privateers, and ancient generals did in terms of booty with their soldiers.
B. You may create some form of class benefits as Spartans did for their warrior caste, feudal societies did with land/nobility as rewards for great knights, and the Roman empire did with political advancement and wealth as returns for sacking enemy cities.
C. You may make the practice profitable, as the US, Russia, and other modern nations have with their military-industrial complexes, constantly developing new technologies funded by the people.

But voluntarily? At best you can convince tribes/families to rally for a time against an elected general. This could be enough to fight off external forces. But if a neighboring country or countries of similar strength have invested more of their wealth into their military, with a permanent army, officers schools, r&d, etc. then wars will be tipped into their fave until you're incorporated into their empire or match their practices.

The viability of your strategy (peaceful economic expansion, military conquest) varies depending on what the other players surrounding you choose to do.

>outnumbering part comes into play

Never. Every revolution in history is performed by a minority of the populace. As Hume pointed out, worldwide we had no record of a government created by social contract (except the US) while we had endless examples of people assenting to another man as their god-king. Likewise Nietzsche noticed most men don't have the mental force of will to defy the social standards they've been raised to have.

>explain

The specific form could be anything. It may be an elder who other men travel to seek the advice of, a young man admired by his peers, a family which is trusted in business, any form of influence. This voluntary influence functions as a positive feedback cycle. The more people believe in x entity the more empowered that entity is the more difficult it is to defy/contend-with that entity.
There are degrees of command. Say for example the overwhelming majority of the town is convinced Debbie has the best baked goods. There is no hard constraint stopping you from opening a baked goods shopped. But your business can fail on the cult-like appeal of Debbie's food alone. People are convinced it's better because their peers say-so. Preferring her cakes becomes a matter of cultural normalcy. She in turn can leverage this influence in any number of ways.
This is not to say that whoever has the most influence at any given time will inevitably become master of all. There may be reversals of trends at any time.
The point is, deferment between people can never be reduced to zero. Going below a certain threshold of obedience/respect, like letting someone tell you what hair style to have, is not a state which may be held. As various entities gain more influence eventually atleast one of them will surpass the threshold of power previously lost and re-establish that degree of influence. Understand?

>I would never press my fellow into service

Your devotion then, isn't to the freedom of the group, but preventing yourself from dominating others.

You can identify someone else's greater ideals by which value he sacrifices when one comes into conflict with another. For example, in a scenario where the only way to prevent a foreign power from debasing your countrymen is to bind them to your will for a time so they may fight off encroachment, you have repeatedly insisted you would press no one into your service. So you more highly value that you raise yourself above none of your peers than that your peers retain as much of their freedom as possible.

>millenia-old civilizations which will go unnamed

Who are you referencing? I would suppose tribals, as I said before and you pretend I gave no reference, but I expect you recognize the lack of appeal of such a standard and are purposefully vague so your belief can't be tested. Name atleast one of the millenia-old anarcho-capitalist societies you're referencing and name atleast one of the cultures you're referencing with a centuries-long lifespan.

>If he were happy to participate, there would be no need to subjugate him.

I do not believe you are so simple you didn't understand I meant, "after the fact".

>>405
>rally for a time under an elected general
>wars will be tipped into their favor
>There is no hard constraint stopping you from opening a baked goods shop.

Whoops.

>>383
>elected representatives
>one court

How is this anarchy?

What's described in Amikejo is a city-level government. That's a local government but it's not the same as no government. You could cite this as cause for favoring local governing, though the claims of the article are never given evidence or proofs, but it makes no sense to reference it as proof of anarchy's success when there was a city government.

This is one of the basic difficulties in talking about anarchy I'm addressing. What constitutes a government? How many institutions must there be? How many people must be involved? What aspects of life must it have a say in?

For something like drugs right now you could make an argument there is no government because anyone can get whatever drug he wants.

The goal/ideal of "anarchy" is very vague until there are clear delineations between what is/n't wanted.

Of course a lack of extortion is preferable. But violence is an option so some men will always choose to be extortionists. No amount of theoretical projections of how better optimized mankind would be if we all just got along will change this fact. This fact is why claims for anarchy seem childish.

The option we're afforded is not, "will there be an extorter?" but "who will extort us and how?".

>Who are you referencing? I would suppose tribals, as I said before and you pretend I gave no reference, but I expect you recognize the lack of appeal of such a standard and are purposefully vague so your belief can't be tested. Name atleast one of the millenia-old anarcho-capitalist societies you're referencing and name atleast one of the cultures you're referencing with a centuries-long lifespan.
It's not about the society being ancap, it's about it being voluntaryist. That said, the Somali, Iceland, Ireland. All of them lasted pretty long. There you go.

>>407
>Of course a lack of extortion is preferable. But violence is an option so some men will always choose to be extortionists. No amount of theoretical projections of how better optimized mankind would be if we all just got along will change this fact. This fact is why claims for anarchy seem childish.
Really, I don't see what the big deal with the extorters is about. Some people seem to think that one person who uses violence is enough to topple any anarchist society, nevermind the fact that self-defense against such persons would be entirely possible and would likely happen if your would-be dictator tried to crush anyone for not obeying his orders.

>>405
>Most insurance companies only exist because the government requires investment in them.
That's a rather bold assertion. Care to substantiate it? Not simply "the gov't requires you to purchase x, so without the gov't requirement, x would not be purchased" fallacy that gets thrown around. Life insurance isn't mandatory. Neither is homeowner's insurance. Plus, if insurance needed gov't mandates to stay in business, then how did insurance companies exist and thrive prior to the mandates. Your argument again rests on unsubstantiated assertions.

>military
Your analysis demonstrates only the narrow view of history commonly presented in public schools. I've already in my previous posts provided links to information regarding the historical practice of profitable, privately-funded national defense and its efficacy. I strongly suggest reading those before continuing with your argument.

>influence
You still haven't established why this deferment and preference represents actual control over someone else's life. If you are able to persuade people that you have the genuinely superior product, it does not constitute command over the lives of other providers of said product for several reasons:
1) The fact that you are able to persuade others demonstrates that in principle your competitors are capable of the same (and to your credit you seem to acknowledge this to some extent).
2) It is extremely unlikely that a unanimous consensus of preference will ever be reached among the population, with each provider appealing to consumer bases with different preferences and situations.
3) Competitors are capable of improving their products to appeal to new audiences, which ties in closely to point #1.
And of course there's the simple fact that one person's goods and services being preferred over another's does not in any way constitute control over anyone's life. If nobody wants to buy my goods, they aren't controlling me; they're controlling themselves and their own resources. They are not compelling me in any way.

>Your devotion then, isn't to the freedom of the group, but preventing yourself from dominating others.
You're right, in a sense. My devotion isn't the the "freedom of the group", because that's a nonsensical concept. My devotion is to the freedom of the individuals who make up that group.

>in a scenario where the only way to prevent a foreign power from debasing your countrymen is to bind them to your will for a time so they may fight off encroachment
Such a scenario makes no sense. There is no way there could ever be a scenario where the only possible way to escape foreign aggression is for me personally to enslave people. Even permitting that such a scenario did make any sense, it would only serve to turn ME into the invading aggressor. Pressing people into slavery to prevent people from being pressed into slavery only changes the guilty party, and not the crime.

>So you more highly value that you raise yourself above none of your peers than that your peers retain as much of their freedom as possible.
So? Yet again, my personal values are not relevant to this discussion.

>Who are you referencing?
Oh, I don't know; maybe the source I provided which I said pointed out precisely those societies? A little reading goes a long way.

>"after the fact"
So your position hinges upon your absolute certainty that your victims will in retrospect be glad to have been enslaved by the the right people? You believe that this in principle makes it both just and viable to depend upon the goodwill of your rulers to have the wisdom and benevolence to know when to stop enslaving you?

>>413
>somali, iceland, ireland

As opposed to who? Which of their civilizations is referenced?

You're still vague-as-fuck. Somalia has improved some for lack of government I guess but it still sucks because of shitskins.
Iceland was a refuge for criminals exiled from polite viking society. It developed its' own jarls and the like patterned after the Danish form of government.
Ireland has been a pictish area, land of neanderthals, limey colony, catholic, protestant, home to washed-up spaniards and more.

As I asked before, what about these cultures appeals to you? The question isn't so much, "can a number of men live without government institutions" but "have cultures sans overarching governments out-performed those bound by governments?".

I'm not denying cultures with less government have existed I'm asking what you are identifying in which cultures as preferable to our own.

>>414

You're describing a scenario in which self-defense always trumps aggression. This is not the case. Being the last to act violently is no guarantee of victory. To the contrary, a conqueror is able to leverage the productivity of his subjects, putting him at an advantage against any individuals, families, tribes or other smaller organizations who may leverage their members to a lesser degree in the contest of warfare, have fewer members to leverage, or have members of lesser quality.

The problem of relying on self-defense as protection is your insurance model revisited. It is always tempting to think, "my neighbor will hold-off the invading army for me. I don't need to commit my forces to the battle with his to insure our independence" and so the larger group, which is given no such choice between smaller units to opt-out of the conflict, overtakes the small pockets of independence until all are consumed under a general's flag.

>>419
>demand proof
>no logical proof may apply

You have claimed that insurance companies thrived before they were legally required. The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate this claim is true.

>I provided links

You mean the stuff talking about the city which spoke Esperanto? I already addressed it and it fails to address my points. You either
1) Don't understand what I've said
2) Don't understand what the links you've posted say
3) Are aware the links you posted don't address my points and hope I'll agree with them out of laziness since you're too lazy to consider my points, let alone attempt refuting them.

>watch me burn a strawman

I have never claimed that influence constitutes absolute control over another man. You're wrongly taking for granted the false claim complete control of the populace is required to constitute a government. Even now ever many in the world regularly breaks many of his "ruler's" rules. This does not change the fact that when you ask, "What man has the most control over his peers?" there is an answer.

>My devotion isn't the the "freedom of the group", because that's a nonsensical concept. My devotion is to the freedom of the individuals who make up that group.

You call my words nonsense and offer gibberish rhetoric as a substitution? Fuck you. A man in a territory being invaded is in a group with whoever else is in the same territory being invaded. His will is irrelevant in regards to this fact. His choice is how he will react to the invasion. To claim that you're nobly respecting other men's liberty by allowing them to become slaves for their foolishness is pompous jackassery.
If you know full well such smaller entities haven't a chance in hell to contend with their would-be conqueror and it is in your own power to stave off the rule of the encroach, given you bind the smaller to you, then you are morally beholden to bind them and so deliver your people.

>Such a scenario makes no sense.

Are you simple?

It has occurred repeatedly throughout history. Athens must take a toll from surrounding Greek Isles to keep Persia at bay. There is no middle ground. You either take the strength to keep your freedom or submit yourself to the cowardly bended knee of your peers.

>my personal values are not relevant to this discussion.

Your personal values are the discussion. Don't delude yourself into thinking you write for anyone else. You're not fooling any readers into believing such a lie.

>maybe the source I provided

In a different post. I've these crazy ideas about a post being self-referential instead of referring to the next # posts following it.

>enslaved by the the right people?

I don't believe you're this stupid. I'm positive you're burning a strawman and no damn well you're burning a strawman.

I specifically stated in my scenario your rule would be lighter than the conquerors. It could even be temporary. And yes, the serf would rather be under nazi germany for example than the USSR.

Freedom is not a viable choice in such a scenario. You can die alone or have some chance of victory with a party large enough to enforce its' will. Rationally, you would favor the party which does better by you and so be glad to have served it once you realized such service delivered you from a crueler master's ownership.

>>420
>Is a proof-of-concept that the less government, the better.

I actually agree that city-scale governments are more efficient than larger governments but
1) Your links do not demonstrate this fact.
2) A city government being better than a larger government does not demonstrate less government is an improvement all the way to 0.

>If the law compels you under threat of force to do something without your consent, that's government.

So every man who gives orders with his capacity for violence to back them up is a governor. By this definition government can't be eliminated because any individual can be a governor.

>What we aim to do is repair and update the mechanisms which have in the past managed to provide genuine consequences and incentives to promote cooperative behavior and minimize the profitability of coercive behavior.

specifically….

>>437
>Fuck you
You know, I had actually been typing up thoughtful responses to your entire onslaught of willful misinterpretations, trying to shed light on where you had inserted terms into my claims that I had never supported, but then I got to this point and realized that you just aren't worth it.

You've proven yourself utterly incapable of addressing an argument for what it is, investigating data with any intellectual integrity, or even having the basic personal fortitude to separate yourself from your own argument. You've shown yourself to be so emotionally invested that any criticism of your position is taken as a personal attack. You pour out baseless assertions, and berate me when I don't provide direct specific citations of basic facts of which any reasonable person should be aware, and then when I tell you that the idea you asserted was unambiguously wrong, you cry crocodile tears.

I'm done with you. You don't want to be convinced of anything, and you can't keep from getting personal. I won't wast my breath.

>>435
Ireland and Iceland had some of the most progressive legal systems of their time, and managed to survive and even thrive for hundreds of years. I'm talking about the societies there that started at around 1000 AD. Should be enough for you to find them, I'm not your dictionary.

The Somali managed to survive the colonization, a dictatorship and a civil war with their culture and legal code intact. How is that not an achievement? Know any other law that remained in use as long as the Xeer?

>As I asked before, what about these cultures appeals to you? The question isn't so much, "can a number of men live without government institutions" but "have cultures sans overarching governments out-performed those bound by governments?".
Ireland and Iceland had more freedom and a more just law than any other country of their time. In these regards, they out-performed their contemporaries. They survived for hundreds of years, showing that they were very stable, too. And I don't hear of many wars happening on the soil of these countries during their libertarian eras.

>>436
>To the contrary, a conqueror is able to leverage the productivity of his subjects, putting him at an advantage against any individuals, families, tribes or other smaller organizations who may leverage their members to a lesser degree in the contest of warfare, have fewer members to leverage, or have members of lesser quality.
You're assuming a would-be conqueror would have better ressources than the defenders, with no further explanation given. That would only be the case if he a) was really successfull in this whole pillaging-thing, and good luck pulling that off in a society that's allergic to statism, where everyone might be armed or b) he would have a bigger resource-pool to begin with, which begs the question of why this would be the case.

>It is always tempting to think, "my neighbor will hold-off the invading army for me. I don't need to commit my forces to the battle with his to insure our independence" and so the larger group, which is given no such choice between smaller units to opt-out of the conflict, overtakes the small pockets of independence until all are consumed under a general's flag.
Make a defense contract with whoever provides your defenses and the problem is solved. Sure people can break the contract, but people can always break any contact, wheter in ancap-land or in a state. Counts for the state, too.

>>438
>So every man who gives orders with his capacity for violence to back them up is a governor.
Only when he threatens you, not just because he has the capacity for violence.

>By this definition government can't be eliminated because any individual can be a governor.
You applied the definition incorrectly.

Whichever system has the most secure means of production would become the most successful. Violence is only necessary when perimeters are violated. Naturally the most successful system would create the most powerful arnament complexes. The most effective anarcho-capitalist system would be based around the United States military industrial complex. Do away with the "states" and there you have it, direct uninhibited anarcho-capitalism.

>>442
I applied your words rationally. If reason isn't your standard than you've accepted the irrationality of your beliefs. I hope someday you will organize your mind along the precepts of logic rather than blind faith.

>>449
>the most secure means of production would become the most successful.

What does "secure means of production"? Profit's determined by how efficiently and to what thresholds a good or service is provided to the populace, how well informed the populace is to that goods existence and merits, the desire for the good or service, and other factors.

>Naturally the most successful system would create the most powerful arnament complexes.

By this definition the US Federal government is the most successful system.

>The most effective anarcho-capitalist system would be based around the United States military industrial complex.

The military industrial complex is a product of the state.It would not exist in an anarcho-capitalist society.

>>440
>The societies
>I'm not your dictionary

But the burden of proof to name your evidence is on you. I am not responsible for discovering the hypothetical society which satisfies your criteria. You're responsible for demonstrating to me that a society has existed which meets your criteria. You have failed.

>Xeer

Somalians demonstrate no legal code as they assault, rob, rape and murder wherever they go.

You have clarified your postition is what I suspected at the first and you denied: the continuity of a society is its' highest virtue. By this definition an empire like Rome's is more sucessful by Hong Kong or Singapore.

I contend the success of a culture is observable by how much it improves the position of its' members. Are they worse or better off than when they adopted this culture? To what degree?

The superiority of european cultures for example is displayed by the spread of white practices clothing savages, raising their living standards, uplifting them, and providing them benefits too many to fully list or count.

>more freedom and just law

Is it not in the definition of a culture with less government that it is more free? Then to say, "The superiority of a culture with less government is demonstrated by how it has more freedom" is to say, " The superiority of a culture with less government is demonstrated by how it has less government". It's circular reasoning.

>no wars

What's wrong with wars? Chinese states during the Warring States period advanced to the point of metal plumbing. Such technology was lost for centuries after they merged (with a few notable cities as exceptions) into China.

I anticipate your value-standard is violence is innately detrimental. Then you must consider if a lack of recorded wars is proof of a lack of violence. There could well be a greater sum of violence overall do to a multitude of smallscale blood feuds, banditry, and personal crimes.

>>441
>I no read good

Never did I use the word, "resources". I specified
>productivity
>numbers
>quality

I'll try again to communicate with you.
PRODUCTIVITY. As in if all else were equal people pressed into service could be worked unto death while those voluntarily sharing their labor could quit and provide fewer man-hours overall at any time.
NUMBERS. As anyone can be drafted from men in peak condition, to men of any condition, to women, to children. Meanwhile the voluntary force will not see such a wide range of demographics available to it.
QUALITY. A force dedicated to war as a profession will out-perform war hobbyists. This manifests in a variety of ways from muscle memory, communication, organization, battle planning, maintenance, position fortification, discipline, and more. The idea a group without practice would spontaneously generate an equivalent amount of ingrained military sense is nonsense.

>agree to defend each other and problem solved

History attests more men fight from the compulsion of a higher authority than volunteerism.

>>437
>You have claimed that insurance companies thrived before they were legally required. The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate this claim is true.
What? Life insurance is not required by law.

> Athens must take a toll from surrounding Greek Isles to keep Persia at bay
Are you referring to the Delian League?

>>460
>History attests more men fight from the compulsion of a higher authority than volunteerism.

lol no, black markets are a method of fighting against government interference and it has occurred more often than wars.