Cinaed on August 30, 2010, 10:03:52 am
I haven't been an SCA member.  Myself and a couple of friends have been trying to start our own group based off the Markland Mercenary Militia from out Maryland way.  We looked into the local SCA when we were first getting started but the local SCA group treated my friends who went as noobs even though all three had years of fighting experience so we never went back.  There is a new shire starting up here tho so I'm going to check them out.

Haven't heard of Moonwolf, do ya have a link?

ContraryGuy on September 03, 2010, 01:12:00 am

Anarcho capitalism is the idea that

if there were no laws, no police, no "government", no social contract, that everyone would be altruistic and everyone would do that which is in their own best interest; such as being honest, holding true to the word and spirit of all contracts and dealings; never taking from another that which is not theirs...  basically it is another word for Utopia.

AnCap'ism is pushed by a few discontents who are tired of paying their taxes but who are too lazy to do the work to reform the system; which would include convincing enough people that their viewpoint ('no taxes') is the best one.

Some people here on this forum believe that if the the system were laissez-faire that all people would have honest dealing with one another, including Bernie Madoff and the Enron gang.
Because of course the absolutely free market is so amazingly self-correcting that laissez-faire capitalism would never reach its ultimate end of monopoly.

Quote
we should privatize everything, justice and retribution included. 

Because that way is *so much* fairer and more impartial than the current system [/sarcasm]

Quote
Government arises when some bandit makes himself supreme.

or when a group of people select one person to represent the group in dealings with other groups.

Quote
Government originates in a stationary bandit, a bandit king, a bandit so  successful he deters or exterminates all competition. 
Wow; whats this guy been smoking and where can I get some?

Quote
The government at  first consists of little more than the bandit himself. 

Because a government is that which provides those things which are not efficient for individuals to provide for themselves, a government of one is no government at all.

Quote
Taxation  consists of him suggesting that the eminent give him and his boys land  and money,

This is not government, this banditry or brigandage; at the least, highway robbery.
In any area where this is possible, there are no eminences to rob, for the bandit king keeps any business from succeeding. 

Quote
thus taxes, though capricious and erratic, are quite low.  Laws are few, verging on nonexistent, but enforced with brutal  efficiency, the main law being that no one else does any banditry.


Those are not laws, but whims.

Quote
All organizations tend to fall apart.  It is simply difficult to have a  large bunch of people efficiently coordinated into a single collective entity. Organizations that are  actually effective originate in intense competition, and sooner or later  are apt to decay - the Peter Principle, Parkinson's Law, etc.Absent intense competition, they decay very badly indeed.

Of course all orgs fall apart, its called entropy.  Obviously this person has never been part of a large organization that is well managed.  Such an org is able to maintain internal cohesion for a long time merely on the basis of institutional inertia.
Not all orgs decay at the same rate; absent competition or the reason they were formed, some decay quickly, some coast for a loooong time.

I should like to point out here the goodness of Google: the Peter Principle states, in essence, that a person will rise to the level of their own incompetence, Parkinsons Law says that "work expands to fill all available time." I hardly see what that has to do with the decay rate of organizations.  If the OP had thought to use Google, such errors could have been avoided.

Quote
Over time therefore the bandit's companions become a horde of bureaucrats. 

Really?  Saddam Husseins companions never bothered becoming bureaucrats; they remained thugs throughout. 
Please expand on this incredulous supposition.

Quote
Laws, taxes, quasi governmental organizations,  and regulations multiply like vermin.

Not only do you need an actual government for this, you need a *stable* governemnt, and any government based on banditry and thuggery does not give rise to bureaucrats.
Bureaucrats must have some power to carry out the governments wishes, but anyone not a bandit is going to be too busy cowering and hiding to become a bureaucrat.  No bandit would trust someone he doesnt know, without wondering if that person will try to take the bandits power away.

Quote
Eventually, laws, taxes and  meddling bureaucrats become a serious burden, and the bureaucrats face  the need to persuade everyone that a horde of bureaucrats is a good thing.

The left is the bureaucracy's PR apparatus - a collection of government  sock puppets, astroturf.

Gee, regurgitate Fox News much?

Quote
Its mission is to persuade us that six hundred pounds of  fat is a healthy and handsome physique, and that government has never  been better, that more laws are good for you, the government is here to  help you, and more government will help you more.

And I suppose the rights mission of "demonize the other-if they dont have the right skin tone, the accent, the right family background, if they dont go the correct church, they must be hated and destroyed!"  is the proper way to go?

Why dont you just go back to your couch, and watch more Fox and let the grown ups handle the debate, OK son?  Thats a good boy.

Quote
Ever since the original bandit chieftain, government has moved ever further leftwards,

Because banditry and terror are *such* lefty causes.  How can the OP watch  so much Fox and yet not hear a word they say?

 
Quote
and will always move ever further leftwards until checked by crisis and collapse, or reformed by internal totalitarian terror, "left" being whatever rationalization most plausibly justifies more government at the time.

Wow!  I never knew Reagan, and both Bushes were such Stalin-like leftists!

Oh, I forgot!  Anytime the right expands government, its not bad, its the Right thing to do!


SandySandfort on September 03, 2010, 08:43:04 am

Anarcho capitalism is the idea that

if there were no laws, no police, no "government", no social contract, that everyone would be altruistic and everyone would do that which is in their own best interest; such as being honest, holding true to the word and spirit of all contracts and dealings; never taking from another that which is not theirs...  basically it is another word for Utopia.

This sort of nonsense is why you are considered a troll by myself and others. You persist in defining anarchy in terms that are clearly contrary to fact. With that in hand, you show how anarchy cannot work. Quod erat demonstrandum.

In anarchy there are always, "laws," "police," some sort of voluntary governance and a "social contract." These may not conform to the restrictive sense you envision, but all these elements are there is some voluntary form or another. Try reading something about anarcho-capitalism and then come back and regale us with your "insights." It isn't as though we haven't given you plenty of citations.



J Thomas on September 03, 2010, 09:43:01 am

Anarcho capitalism is the idea that

if there were no laws, no police, no "government", no social contract, that everyone would be altruistic and everyone would do that which is in their own best interest; such as being honest, holding true to the word and spirit of all contracts and dealings; never taking from another that which is not theirs...  basically it is another word for Utopia.

AnCap'ism is pushed by a few discontents who are tired of paying their taxes but who are too lazy to do the work to reform the system; which would include convincing enough people that their viewpoint ('no taxes') is the best one.

Reagan already persuaded the public to accept high government spending and low taxes. That was easy. The hard part is persuading the public to stop letting the government give them lucrative contracts. Also the public likes the government to coerce people they disapprove of.

It would be hard to change the system effectively even if the public agreed. These guys believe in the Austrian school of economics and want changes based on that. What would it take for the general public to understand and believe the Austrian school of economics well enough to make legislators do the right things?

Is it any wonder they instead want to start a new society of people who think like them? What's the harm in that?

And what do you get by coming onto their forum and sneering at them?

Quote
Some people here on this forum believe that if the the system were laissez-faire that all people would have honest dealing with one another, including Bernie Madoff and the Enron gang.

We got those under the current system. Bernie Madoff came because a lot of people didn't do due diligence, right? I don't know what system could help people who choose to invest their money without paying attention. Enron manipulated government regulations. It would have to be different without a government.

If people tended to distrust guys who had a reputation for cheating, that might work at least as well as our current legal system to discourage cheating. I can imagine it might have some big flaws, but it would definitely be cheaper.

Quote
Because of course the absolutely free market is so amazingly self-correcting that laissez-faire capitalism would never reach its ultimate end of monopoly.

It can be argued that industries tend to have a sort of life cycle, and that they settle into oligopoly late in that cycle in our current reality. Some of these guys argue that with free competition large companies would be inherently inefficient and could not compete. They suppose that things like brand names would not be so important, and it's only government that creates an environment where large corporations survive. One of them presented the cynical argument that if a big company actually did by whatever method outcompete all smaller competition, then it must be providing the best for its customers and so nobody should complain.

I myself say that the results will depend on the details of the society and we can't predict them ahead of time. There isn't much that's inevitable regardless of the details. Here are two possibilities that might tend to reduce monopoly in an AnCap society:

First, if they do not recognise limited-liability corporations and they wind up with a litigious society, one way for large businesses to avoid losing everything to litigants would be to split into smaller businesses.

Second, in an AnCap society composed of individuals who value autonomy, large businesses or even moderate-size businesses might tend to fragment into smaller ones due to personality clashes.

Some AnCap enthusiasts might have an almost religious belief that free enterprise will solve all problems. Or they might take that stand with trolls. A troll says "You want a new society and there's no way in hell it could ever work because of reason X". So they say "It cannot fail because free-enterprise/guns/personal-responsibility/etc prevents reason X and any other problem from ever occurring". It wasn't going to be much of a conversation anyway.
 
Quote
Quote
we should privatize everything, justice and retribution included.  

Because that way is *so much* fairer and more impartial than the current system [/sarcasm]

It might wind up with some glaring flaws. I dunno. We won't find out until we actually try it out for a few decades, and then maybe we'll be ready for a second attempt in light of what we learn.

But when you want to compare to the current system you're setting the bar awfully low. Defending the status quo leaves you fighting with both hands tied behind your back.

Quote
Quote
Government arises when some bandit makes himself supreme.

or when a group of people select one person to represent the group in dealings with other groups.

It's possible that small communities have often been run by village elders who were respected to the point they didn't neet tough guys to keep everybody else in line.

But larger groups have usually been run with a degree of force behind them.

Gilgamesh was the son of an important priestess and was genetically supposed to be 1/3 god. He was also the best wrestler in the city.

Samuel appointed Saul. Saul was the tallest man in Israel, a younger son of an unimportant family in the smallest despised tribe. The people proclaimed Saul king after he won a big battle against the Philistines. When the Philistines killed Saul, David was a mercenary working for the Philistines and he was the next king.

Sometimes when a king died one of his sons was peacefully declared king, and some of the other sons then were killed or had mysterious accidents. Sometimes the sons fought, and the winner depended on how the army split. The borders were set by skirmishing between the different kings' armies -- if you lived near the border your land was likely to be a battlefield occasionally. Which king you belonged to might change every few years and you didn't get any say in it.

Sounds like bandits to me.

The swiss and a few other places eventually decided they didn't like kings and threw out their kings. It took a lot of organization to keep kings from taking over, so they developed a way to organize themselves to stop that. They started with bandit governments too. It looks to me like agricultural societies tend to develop bandit governments as a sort of ground state. Something else could happen instead but it isn't the way to bet.

But bandit kings wind up trying to protect their people just like cattle farmers try to protect their cattle. Even if you're going to eat them, you don't want somebody else to eat them without your permission.

Quote
Quote
All organizations tend to fall apart.  It is simply difficult to have a  large bunch of people efficiently coordinated into a single collective entity. Organizations that are  actually effective originate in intense competition, and sooner or later  are apt to decay - the Peter Principle, Parkinson's Law, etc.Absent intense competition, they decay very badly indeed.

Of course all orgs fall apart, its called entropy.  Obviously this person has never been part of a large organization that is well managed.  Such an org is able to maintain internal cohesion for a long time merely on the basis of institutional inertia.
Not all orgs decay at the same rate; absent competition or the reason they were formed, some decay quickly, some coast for a loooong time.

So, organizations should be designed with a clear pathway to take them apart when they fail, just as buildings and nuclear power plants should be designed with thought to how to tear them down when the time comes.

Perhaps it would be good to find ways to build organizations quickly, for specific purposes, with the intention of taking them apart when their task is complete or at a set time, whichever comes first. There's an overhead to building organizations and rebuilding them, but it's hard to measure the overhead of letting them fester.

Quote
Quote
Over time therefore the bandit's companions become a horde of bureaucrats.

Really?  Saddam Husseins companions never bothered becoming bureaucrats; they remained thugs throughout.  
Please expand on this incredulous supposition.

?? Saddam wound up with a giant bureaucracy, didn't he? Complete with a giant collection of secret police informers. You could argue that he had thuggish companions who never got jobs as bureaucrats, but so what?

Quote
Quote
The left is the bureaucracy's PR apparatus - a collection of government  sock puppets, astroturf.

Its mission is to persuade us that six hundred pounds of  fat is a healthy and handsome physique, and that government has never  been better, that more laws are good for you, the government is here to  help you, and more government will help you more.

And I suppose the rights mission of "demonize the other-if they dont have the right skin tone, the accent, the right family background, if they dont go the correct church, they must be hated and destroyed!"  is the proper way to go?

Why dont you just go back to your couch, and watch more Fox and let the grown ups handle the debate, OK son?  Thats a good boy.

You've reached bottom at this point. Left and right are like left and right hands of the same government. If one hand grabs you by the throat while the other one slugs you, do you really want to condescend about which one is worse?

The guy you're responding to made the same mistake, but that's no excuse for you.

Quote
Quote
and will always move ever further leftwards until checked by crisis and collapse, or reformed by internal totalitarian terror, "left" being whatever rationalization most plausibly justifies more government at the time.

Wow!  I never knew Reagan, and both Bushes were such Stalin-like leftists!

He just explained what he was talking about. "Left" is whatever rationalization most plausibly justifies more government at the time. Which is what Reagan and the Bushes did. Right is the new left.

I guess I had fun responding to you. It doesn't seem like it was the best use of my time. I might do it again.
« Last Edit: September 03, 2010, 09:46:36 am by J Thomas »

MacFall on September 03, 2010, 09:50:59 am
blardy blarg lol blah

This sort of nonsense is why you are considered a troll by myself and others.

My favorite part was when he made the assumption that we're all right-wing, Faux News-watching neocons.  :D
Government is not, as is often believed, a "necessary evil". Rather, it is a plain evil of such power that it has been able to convince people of its necessity.

quadibloc on September 03, 2010, 07:51:06 pm
My favorite part was when he made the assumption that we're all right-wing, Faux News-watching neocons.
While I have a great many issues with the sort of views that Fox News chooses to air, in my support of your nation's heroic efforts in the War on Terror, and my general acquiescence to the War on Drugs (even if I would prefer there to be less collateral damage in it), I still come rather closer to that stereotype than the supporters of AnCap here.

J Thomas on September 03, 2010, 09:09:21 pm

My favorite part was when he made the assumption that we're all right-wing, Faux News-watching neocons.  :D

Well, the single person he was responding to did kind of sound that way in the particular sentences he was responding to at the moment.

When somebody starts talking about how horrible Republicans are but says nothing about Democrat flaws or mistakes he's likely to be a Democrat. If he says Hertz is awful he probably favors Avis. Etc.

wdg3rd on September 04, 2010, 02:44:30 am
Statists suck.   (Badly).
Ward Griffiths        wdg3rd@aol.com

Men will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest.  --  Denis Diderot

Archonix on September 04, 2010, 04:23:03 am
I can confirm that. My wife's a statist.



;D

jamesd on September 04, 2010, 05:00:58 am
if there were no laws, no police, no "government", no social contract, that everyone would be altruistic and everyone would do that which is in their own best interest; such as being honest, holding true to the word and spirit of all contracts and dealings; never taking from another that which is not theirs...  basically it is another word for Utopia.

Police are not in the business of stopping criminals, but protecting them.  If shopkeepers relied on police to arrest shoplifters, no shoplifter would ever be arrested.

If someone shoplifts from Walmart in California, and he is detected, Walmart security wait for him to get in the parking lot, so as to avoid spooking the paying customers.  They then bag him in the parking lot.  If no police, the shop lifter would have a big problem.  If no walmart security, he would have no problem.

ContraryGuy on September 04, 2010, 05:28:52 pm
blardy blarg lol blah

This sort of nonsense is why you are considered a troll by myself and others.

My favorite part was when he made the assumption that we're all right-wing, Faux News-watching neocons.  :D

The blah blah quote is not mine.  I did not assume all forum poster are Fox'ers, merely the post author.

jamesd on September 04, 2010, 07:23:14 pm
Government arises when some bandit makes himself supreme.
or when a group of people select one person to represent the group in dealings with other groups.
It is extraordinarily rare for governments to arise in such a fashion. 

The normal origin is that some bandit invades and makes himself supreme, for example William the Bastard, or people gang together under a great leader such as Romulus, not so that the great leader can "represent them in dealings with other groups", but so that they can kill members of other groups, steal their land and abduct their women.

ContraryGuy on September 11, 2010, 01:16:51 am
My favorite part was when he made the assumption that we're all right-wing, Faux News-watching neocons.
While I have a great many issues with the sort of views that Fox News chooses to air, in my support of your nation's heroic efforts in the War on Terror, and my general acquiescence to the War on Drugs (even if I would prefer there to be less collateral damage in it), I still come rather closer to that stereotype than the supporters of AnCap here.

The 'War on Terror' is actually a War on Americans Privacy and Individual Rights.  And i denounce all of the Democrats who voted for it.
If you have acquiesced to the war on drugs then you are complicit in its statist actions.

So quadibloc, you *are* a Fox news watching neo-con?  Why?  Do you really hate America *that* much?

ContraryGuy on September 11, 2010, 01:33:29 am

Anarcho capitalism is the idea that

if there were no laws, no police, no "government", no social contract, that everyone would be altruistic and everyone would do that which is in their own best interest; such as being honest, holding true to the word and spirit of all contracts and dealings; never taking from another that which is not theirs...  basically it is another word for Utopia.

Quote
This sort of nonsense is why you are considered a troll by myself and others. You persist in defining anarchy in terms that are clearly contrary to fact. With that in hand, you show how anarchy cannot work. Quod erat demonstrandum.

So show me how i am wrong.  Google 4chan and tell me how they fit into your classical anarchist society.
I say classical anarchy to separate it from popular, modern anarchy as seen demonstrated by the Eugene Oregon college students, or by lawless motorcycle gangs, or by the anarchist community known as 4chan.

Question:  in an anarchy, can there be such a thing as lawlessness?  Why?

Quote
In anarchy there are always, "laws," "police," some sort of voluntary governance and a "social contract." These may not conform to the restrictive sense you envision, but all these elements are there is some voluntary form or another.

Can you link me to some of these examples?

Quote
Try reading something about anarcho-capitalism and then come back and regale us with your "insights." It isn't as though we haven't given you plenty of citations.
Yes, you have.  And I have read them(no I havent bought all of those books *and* read them *and* put them through a critical analysis; I have a life you know), but I ave followed the links provided and I have read the articles and I *still* have questions.
Most of the articles cite ancient towns inside larger states or they are preaching to the converted.  The more recent articles have covered things we have already answered here in the forum.

And I still have questions.  And Sandy's Mutual Admiration Society still needs pricking.

Isnt most learning done through asking questions?


ContraryGuy on September 11, 2010, 01:43:17 am

My favorite part was when he made the assumption that we're all right-wing, Faux News-watching neocons.  :D
When somebody starts talking about how horrible Republicans are but says nothing about Democrat flaws or mistakes he's likely to be a Democrat. If he says Hertz is awful he probably favors Avis. Etc.
So if i say that Hitler was a not-nice guy, do i mean that Stalin was a do=gooder?

I believe you are practising a logical fallacy.  I do not need to justify criticism of Republicans by balancing it with criticism of their opposition.
I am justly able to criticize Hertz if they do a bad job without favoring Avis.  perhaps I want them to improve their performance and I must point out to them where they are failing.

I realize that you have given up on whatever religion you practice in favor of worshipping Fox News, but please do not bring it into the forum.
Thank you.

Next time, you could ask me if i am a Democrat instead of making snide remarks.