I made the switch to Anarcho-capitalism....what a trip!

[green73]

I forget. That's more than a decade ago now. It was during my undergrad studies and I took creative writing as an elective...

I took creative writing too. We must both be Hemingways!

 

[heavenlyboy34]

A. New Zealand is currently considered the market with the least regulations in the world.

B. Privacy has no protection at all in an An-Cap society. Monitoring your activity on 3rd party systems doesn't violate your property in any form. *Especially* for An-cap theorists who do not acknowledge intellectual privacy.

C. Those two items are unrelated.

This is a really good point. Even the SCOTUS and the other superior courts have consistently ruled that there is no such thing as a right to privacy.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

I took creative writing too. We must both be Hemingways!

Does not logically follow...but I lol'ed.

 

[green73]

A. New Zealand is currently considered the market with the least regulations in the world.

B. Privacy has no protection at all in an An-Cap society. Monitoring your activity on 3rd party systems doesn't violate your property in any form. *Especially* for An-cap theorists who do not acknowledge intellectual privacy.

C. Those two items are unrelated.

I stand corrected, They are a free market.

Who, in a free society, is going to survive violating people's privacy?

 

[green73]

Does not logically follow...but I lol'ed.

My point was that the idiots teaching CW in universities don't necessarily know their heads from their asses.

 

[idiom]

I stand corrected, They are a free market.

Who, in a free society, is going to survive violating people's privacy?

What are you going to do? Violate their property? Pay waaaay more for insurance? Not use any private roads?

 

[green73]

What are you going to do? Violate their property? Pay waaaay more for insurance? Not use any private roads?

I'm not sure what you're saying. Please expand.

 

[Occam's Banana]

This is a really good point.

It's not, actually. There is no more a "right" to privacy than there is a "right" to a job, an education, health care, etc., etc., etc.

Even the SCOTUS and the other superior courts have consistently ruled that there is no such thing as a right to privacy.

Srsly? Griswold v. Connecticut doesn't ring a bell? Howzabout "penumbras" and "emanations" ... ?

Some of the more infamous instances of jurisprudential piffle have "emanated" from federal courts' support for vague & ill-defined "rights" judges have "discovered" in the Constitution - including that of "privacy" (from whence "penumbras," to name but one sample of the aforementioned piffle).

 

[idiom]

I'm not sure what you're saying. Please expand.

For a start there is nothing to violate. In a free society anyone not accumulating and manipulating big data is going to be less efficient, generally.

Avoiding systems that accumulate your data will be hellishly expensive, and often practically impossible. Perhaps a road network becomes dominant because its free to travel on. Its free to travel on because it sells its users data.

Anonymous travel is actually a byproduct of publicly owned roads.

Insurance companies that don't have access to a a lot of data on you are going to be much less accurate actuarially and therefore have significantly higher premiums.

 

[idiom]

It's not, actually. There is no more a "right" to privacy than there is a "right" to a job, an education, health care, etc., etc., etc.

Some could consider information about themselves to be their property. Just because you disagree on the definition of property doesn't stop you aggressing against their property.

Now all they need is a private court and enforcement system that agrees with them.

 

[Icymudpuppy]

I'm no good at convincing anyone by argument. Although I understand the logical principles, and spend hours alone going over the logic in my own head, when it comes to a debate situation, my mind is too slow to present a coherent argument. Thus, I mostly just sit and listen, and hope that people will read my Facebook posts which I have plenty of time to draft.

 

[green73]

For a start there is nothing to violate. In a free society anyone not accumulating and manipulating big data is going to be less efficient, generally.

Avoiding systems that accumulate your data will be hellishly expensive, and often practically impossible. Perhaps a road network becomes dominant because its free to travel on. Its free to travel on because it sells its users data.

Anonymous travel is actually a byproduct of publicly owned roads.

Insurance companies that don't have access to a a lot of data on you are going to be much less accurate actuarially and therefore have significantly higher premiums.

I look forward to your manifesto. I'm sure Hobbs has nothing on you.

 

[Occam's Banana]

Some could consider information about themselves to be their property. Just because you disagree on the definition of property doesn't stop you aggressing against their property.

Now all they need is a private court and enforcement system that agrees with them.

Some could consider their jobs [education, health care, etc.] to be things to which they are entitled.
Now all they need is a public court and enforcement system that agrees with them.
Oh, wait ...

It is not a matter of definitions. It is a matter of what things by their fundamental nature are.
You can define "information about yourself" as "property" if you like.
You can also define "elephants" as "cats." That doesn't make it so.

 

[green73]

Some could consider information about themselves to be their property. Just because you disagree on the definition of property doesn't stop you aggressing against their property.

Now all they need is a private court and enforcement system that agrees with them.

Private courts would rise up based on reputation. If they'd rule willy-nilly people would not use them.

 

[mad cow]

Some could consider information about themselves to be their property. Just because you disagree on the definition of property doesn't stop you aggressing against their property.

Now all they need is a private court and enforcement system that agrees with them.

And all the Aggressor needs is a private court and enforcement system that agrees with them and we have a shooting war.

I don't expect it to devolve into this for at least several nano-seconds after an Anarchist society involving more than the population of Peoria Illinois,say,is established.

 

[Occam's Banana]

And all the Aggressor needs is a private court and enforcement system that agrees with them and we have a shooting war.

I don't expect it to devolve into this for at least several nano-seconds after an Anarchist society involving more than the population of Peoria Illinois,say,is established.

Well, I guess it's a good thing we don't have anarchy, then. Whew!
'Coz I don't want the Aggressor running court & enforcement systems.
I also don't like shooting wars.

Oh, wait ...

 

[mad cow]

Well, I guess it's a good thing we don't have anarchy, then. Whew!
'Coz I don't want the Aggressor running court & enforcement systems.
I also don't like shooting wars.

Oh, wait ...

As long as you admit that there will be at least as many shooting wars under Anarchy as under Minarchy,I'm happy.

 

[Occam's Banana]

As long as you admit that there will be at least as many shooting wars under Anarchy as under Minarchy,I'm happy.

'Fraid I can't oblige. I hope you can still be happy, though.

 

[mad cow]

'Fraid I can't oblige. I hope you can still be happy, though.

Why won't there be?Do you think human nature is going to change under Anarchy?Do you think people are going to all of a sudden agree what constitutes acceptable behavior after reading Rothbard and disregarding their cultural and religious norms from centuries past?

Take a very simple example such as age of consent.Is a father of a 11 year old girl going to simply say that her going off with the 60 year old neighbor for sex and heroin is fine because that's what the neighbor's private court and enforcement system allows?
What if the private court and enforcement system of the father thinks that both of these are capital offenses?
Do they flip a coin?Fight it out?Does anybody that disagrees with Murray Rothbard get tossed in prison or executed?

Don't worry,I'll still be happy.I'm old and I have no daughters.

 

[idiom]

Some could consider their jobs [education, health care, etc.] to be things to which they are entitled.
Now all they need is a public court and enforcement system that agrees with them.
Oh, wait ...

It is not a matter of definitions. It is a matter of what things by their fundamental nature are.
You can define "information about yourself" as "property" if you like.
You can also define "elephants" as "cats." That doesn't make it so.

I guess you missed this part:

What version of the NAP do you subscribe to?

This is a bit of an issue. An-Cap systems each have a very specific and very narrowly defined definition of the Non-Aggression Principal.

It is often very different from the intuitive idea of 'just don't hurt anyone'.

For a start its usually non-aggression against property only. Thus the definition of property, along with what is not property is very important. Say I obtain a big block of land, and I want to maintain it in a pristine state because I am a conservationist. According to Rothbard, its not my land, because I haven't done anything to homestead it. So there are strict limits to what I can do what one might otherwise think was my own property.

Also the definition of Aggression against property is very important. For example, you might think having people just waltz onto your land is a bad thing. Mr Block would argue that anyone can cross anyone else's land at any time. If you disagree, imagine I buy all the land around you. You may never leave the land you are on without aggressing against me. Some would think that just by ring fencing you, I am the aggressor whether intended or not.

That's An-Caps themselves disagreeing on the fundamental nature of everyday things.

This is for the reason's Rothbard himself noted. The so-called axioms are not axioms at all, but loose cultural generalisations. If you don't start with mid-western christian culture as your base then you don't arrive at the NAP as written.

This is generally the reason cited for not setting up camp in Somalia for example. The culture doesn't lead people to assume what western american (ex) christian An-caps assume is patently obvious inherent properties of property.

This is without touching things like why can only humans homestead things, why can't other creatures homestead things, why can't an advanced AI homestead itself?

'NAP' theory is riddled with arbitrary designations because it doesn't build from inherent properties.