The New (12/12/2011) Arc on EFT

There's no way someone in an AnCap society could be prevented from vat-growing slaves by the dozens, or doing what he wanted with them unless your AnCap society has enforcement mechanisms (aside from lynch mobs) to prevent that sort of thing.

Probably true, despite Sandy's theory that we can have complete freedom and still not let anybody get away with anything that the twenty first centurian might disapprove of, but the question presupposes that those good bureaucrats will be better than mere mortals.

Observing state interference in families, the interference is generally harmful rather than beneficial to children, so on the whole, chance's are the technology is likely to be used less for evil purposes the less it is a state monopoly.

All the problems that could happen with cloning are rather similar to the problems that already happen with conventional reproduction.

Disagreeing with both you and Sandy:  How come an anarcho capitalist society will supposedly both allow abortion and forbid infanticide?

Will anarcho capitalist societies enforce the marital contract or not?  And if they are going to enforce it, it is going to be enforced largely through families, hence marital contracts to the extent that they exist, will necessarily be patriarchal.

Let us consider US reproductive law at present:  Abortion is a woman's right to choose, but child support is not a man's right to choose.  If you have drunken sex with some anonymous woman in your car behind a club, she can stick you for the pregnancy if she has enough information to trace you - and if she does not have enough information to trace you, she can stick it to her husband even though she has refused to have sex with him for over a year.

Is that going to happen in an anarcho capitalist society - and if you can enforce that on men, what can be enforced on women?

Sandy seems to think that all politically correct rules that currently apply, will continue to apply in anarcho capitalist society - that no one is going to be allowed to do anything currently deemed bad by the politically correct. such as get women pregnant and then tell them to get lost, while everyone will be allowed to do stuff that is currently deemed OK, such as abortion without the consent of the husband, female infidelity, and female serial monogamy.

I also notice that no one in "Escape from Terra" uses potentially dangerous recreational drugs.  Come on Sandy.  Surely in the belt Coca Cola really will be the real thing?

So, in answer to ContraryGuy's questions, you probably could get away with creating clones for bad purposes, but clones are expensive, therefore valuable, therefore not lightly mistreated.  Further, they have minds of their own, so would not necessarily comply with mistreatment.  So producing them for the purpose of mistreatment might be a costly failure.

On the other hand, producing them for sexual purposes would probably work fine, since women are naturally inclined to the purpose - and with the appropriate hormone treatment and upbringing would be even more inclined to the purpose.

And, as for evil things people might do under anarchy, consider that the state now favors diagnosing male children as transexual before puberty, chemically preventing puberty from hitting, and "sexually re-assigning" them - which is to say castrating them.

I notice that female to male transexuals who take testosterone tend to turn rightwards.  I bet the state will not be nearly as enthusiastic about handing out testosterone to young females as it is enthusiastic about cutting off the balls of small boys.

Aren't Selknams better related to Neanderthals than Aboriginal peoples? And would hybrid vigor be better suited to the bad guys' designs?

There's no way someone in an AnCap society could be prevented from vat-growing slaves by the dozens, or doing what he wanted with them unless your AnCap society has enforcement mechanisms (aside from lynch mobs) to prevent that sort of thing.

It's not a question of DNA makeup. The answer depends on whether your hypothetical society is a "true" anarchy where everyone can do whatever they want and no-one has power over anyone else, or whether it still has some sort of a state apparatus, for example in the form of courts with the power to force participation by all involved parties and to enforce its decisions. I'm not sure how the court system in EFT works, and what would happen if someone refused to attend or to abide by the court's decrees. Peer pressure only goes so far to force compliance, and inevitably you'd get a social movement advocating for disregarding court decisions, so that social norms and peer pressure alone probably wouldn't work as an enforcement mechanism.

Peer pressure and ostracism is a lot more effective when the legal system isn't busy undermining it.

Because humans fundamentally seek to force their world views on others at least to some extent, you'd inevitably get state-like organizations, unless you either assume very heavy indoctrination or ignore human nature.

I don't see this.  I see that people seek to reinforce their own views in their circumstances, and that obviously extends to other people in their lives, but only if they are in conflict with their views.  I don't see most people trying to force their views on the cashier at the grocery store, for example, and when it comes to neighbors and relatives, I see people who go out of their way to be polite and to not force their views on other people. Instead, if it's someone that conflicts with their world views, they generally just prefer to minimize their contact with them, which is also a part of the purpose of a gated community. 

Those who are actively trying to force their views on other people tend to be people who are in positions of power over other people. Without that power, they are forced to be less demanding and more persuasive, or else to be quiet.  Thus, what you see would seem to be human nature, but only under certain circumstances, and not in all circumstances.

... and if she does not have enough information to trace you, she can stick it to her husband even though she has refused to have sex with him for over a year.

Wouldn't a paternity test be able to stop something like that?

... clones are expensive, therefore valuable, therefore not lightly mistreated.  Further, they have minds of their own, so would not necessarily comply with mistreatment.

Clones who are only made to be spare parts could probably be kept literally brainless, or at the very least have brains that are rudimentary enough to not count as sapient. Though in that line of thinking you'd expect there to be less controversial methods of growing spare parts.

On the other hand, producing them for sexual purposes would probably work fine, since women are naturally inclined to the purpose - and with the appropriate hormone treatment and upbringing would be even more inclined to the purpose.

Now there's a creepy thought. But if it is deemed by society that such hormone treatments constitute an abuse, there would probably be ways to detect it, and then the clones could seek compensation through arbitration. I wonder if such hormone treatments are already being done today to children? At first I figured that the science would be too advanced, but I guess it's a lot like steroids, except the opposite. And no one would be checking for it, since the girls subjected to it wouldn't be competing in any athletic championships.

Mt Carmel? Mt Carmel? What's the point of *that* reference?

Everybody knows those crazy Branch Davidians shot and immolated themselves. After all, the government said it, so it must be true.

So what you must be saying is that the Abos 'disappeared' themselves.

... and if she does not have enough information to trace you, she can stick it to her husband even though she has refused to have sex with him for over a year.

Wouldn't a paternity test be able to stop something like that?

Not under current law in the English speaking world.

On the other hand, producing them for sexual purposes would probably work fine, since women are naturally inclined to the purpose - and with the appropriate hormone treatment and upbringing would be even more inclined to the purpose.

Now there's a creepy thought. But if it is deemed by society that such hormone treatments constitute an abuse, there would probably be ways to detect it, and then the clones could seek compensation through arbitration.

Yes, could happen, but there is no one who has a financial incentive to make it happen, and there are people with a financial incentive to stop it from happening.

In an anarchic society, it is hard to enforce public opinion unless there is a particular member of the public whose own particular ox is gored.

I wonder if such hormone treatments are already being done today to children? At first I figured that the science would be too advanced, but I guess it's a lot like steroids, except the opposite.

In much of Africa, husbands pay a substantial bride price for virgins.  In much of Islamic Africa, there is therefore an effort to induce puberty, or the appearance of puberty, as fast as possible, by force feeding very young girls.  Excess fat produces estrogen, and sufficient fat will produce breasts on anyone of any age, male or female.  The same result could be achieved more aesthetically by giving them growth hormone, then, when they were large enough, estrogen.  Since it can be done, probably is being done.

Aren't Selknams better related to Neanderthals than Aboriginal peoples? And would hybrid vigor be better suited to the bad guys' designs?

I'm not sure of your point. First, the Selknams are aboriginal people. Second, who cares who the Neanderthals are related to? It shouldn't make that much difference if you are gestating a baby. Think about mules and hennies. If they ever clone a mammoth, the segregate mother will probably be an elephant. The clone was done in the middle of nowhere, for security, not genetic similarities.

There's no way someone in an AnCap society could be prevented from vat-growing slaves by the dozens, or doing what he wanted with them unless your AnCap society has enforcement mechanisms (aside from lynch mobs) to prevent that sort of thing.

It's not a question of DNA makeup. The answer depends on whether your hypothetical society is a "true" anarchy where everyone can do whatever they want and no-one has power over anyone else, or whether it still has some sort of a state apparatus, for example in the form of courts with the power to force participation by all involved parties and to enforce its decisions. I'm not sure how the court system in EFT works, and what would happen if someone refused to attend or to abide by the court's decrees. Peer pressure only goes so far to force compliance, and inevitably you'd get a social movement advocating for disregarding court decisions, so that social norms and peer pressure alone probably wouldn't work as an enforcement mechanism.

Peer pressure and ostracism is a lot more effective when the legal system isn't busy undermining it.

Doubtful that it would make a difference. Peer pressure is just not all that effective, and the absence of other systems of enforcement won't change that.

The effectiveness of peer pressure mostly depends on the exact makeup of the society and the tools it has at its disposal. Highly homogeneous societies tend to be able to bring peer pressure to bear more easily and with greater weight than diverse societies, because true diversity makes it more difficult to form a true consensus, and thereby reduces the weight of social authority which can be brought to bear by the society as a whole. I don't get the sense that there is a very wide range of perspectives in EFT Belter society in any meaningful way, but could be wrong, since readers usually see only a small fraction of a fictional universe. Yet even for homogeneous societies, peer pressure only works as long as the costs of non-conformity exceed the perceived benefits.

I assume that peer pressure does not include the threat of mob violence, because mob violence is as bad or worse than a coercive state apparatus -- both involve the use of force, often by a majority, to dominate a weaker party. So in our hypothetical anarchist society peer pressure will only work so long as the non-compliant person values his membership in the social group more than what he would get from continued non-compliance. It should not be difficult to imagine such a situation. And if the non-compliant person can also easily change his place of residence, the costs of non-compliance approach zero because he can always move to a community of like-minded persons and change his social group to one which won't oppose his actions. Thus, somewhere out in the EFT universe there could well be a self-sufficient enclave of Terran expats practicing slavery and female genital mutilation, and there'd be jack-all anyone could legally do aside from forcibly evicting them.

True anarchist society could have no legal system as we understand it, because all modern legal systems depend on a state apparatus to enforce court decisions. Doesn't matter if that apparatus is a U.S. Marshal's Office or Granny's Goon Squad LLC; once your court has the power to enforce its decisions without consent of the affected party, it becomes the very sort of state institution which is anathema to anarchist society. At most, there might be a universally-accepted forum for settling disputes, but that forum could have no enforcement authority.

Because humans fundamentally seek to force their world views on others at least to some extent, you'd inevitably get state-like organizations, unless you either assume very heavy indoctrination or ignore human nature.

I don't see this.  I see that people seek to reinforce their own views in their circumstances, and that obviously extends to other people in their lives, but only if they are in conflict with their views.  I don't see most people trying to force their views on the cashier at the grocery store, for example, and when it comes to neighbors and relatives, I see people who go out of their way to be polite and to not force their views on other people. Instead, if it's someone that conflicts with their world views, they generally just prefer to minimize their contact with them, which is also a part of the purpose of a gated community. 

Those who are actively trying to force their views on other people tend to be people who are in positions of power over other people. Without that power, they are forced to be less demanding and more persuasive, or else to be quiet.  Thus, what you see would seem to be human nature, but only under certain circumstances, and not in all circumstances.

All people have views of how the world should be, and virtually all would be more than happy to put those views into practice if given the chance. Most people in real life never get that chance beyond voting for a representative they most closely agree with, and spend most of their lives avoiding conflict because they cannot achieve anything through conflict. So people obviously don't try and start arguments in the middle of a grocery store because they have no means of forcing their world views in that setting. 

But we can see what happens when people do get into positions where they can force their world views onto others. As I pointed out in a previous post, local governments have tried to control virtually every aspect of a person's life as far as they legally could in one way or another. I am not speaking of gated communities, but of regular towns and villages whose elected officials did not seek to avoid conflict but instead tried to force their wills onto other community members. You can posit an anarchist settlement with no government, but I guarantee you that within a year it will generate a proto-government comprised of people who think that their world-view is the right one and who will not hesitate to force that world view against the unwilling, and backing that proto-government will be those very same people who you say would prefer to minimize conflict. Else it will become a completely homogeneous society by driving out anyone who does not conform.

And like I said at the beginning of this post, a society of atomized "gated communities" of like-minded persons will have no way of preventing someone from doing more or less whatever he wants, so long as there is a community out there whose members share his world views in that particular regard.

You can posit an anarchist settlement with no government, but I guarantee you that within a year it will generate a proto-government...

Exactly what are the terms of your "guarantee"? 

Thanks for playing, but I am going to give your posts short shift, unless you shore up your assumptions with some evidence. Otherwise, your claims are just as vacuous as your "guarantee." You might start with your unsupported claim that social pressure requires a homogeneous society. Might be true, but unless you provide a modicum of evidence, I remain dubious. As far as I can tell, a large percentage of people who strongly believe in the ZAP should be all the homogeneity you need.

I take it as given that AnCap society has the ZAP as its basis, and thus of course cloned humans have the same rights as anyone else - acts against them are defined as aggression.

Of course - but who has the incentive to enforce this principle?

Sandy is reluctant to acknowledge that any bad things will happen - even in situations, such as family matters, where people disagree about what is bad, about what should be permitted, and what should be suppressed.

Cloning type bad things happening are rather like family type bad things happening today.  It seems to me that today a lot of family type bad things happen, but more of them happen because of the state, than in spite of the state.

In anarchy, some bad family type things will happen because of the absence of the state, and some will be prevented because of the absence of the state.

Thus, anyone who feels like it - and almost everyone is armed - and the people almost unanimously believe in the ZAP - will enforce the ZAP against an egregious offender.

Quite so.  But what is egregious?

Is abortion an egregious offense?  If not, is infanticide an egregious offense?  And if one is, and the other is not, what is partial birth abortion?

I would expect rather little busy bodying in anarchy - people will defend themselves, and defend those that they are morally or contractually obligated to defend, but will be disinclined to defend strangers that they have no obligation to.

And if there are strangers that nobody has any obligation to, other people will tend to adopt a moral code that bad behavior to such people is permissible.  You get in less trouble that way.

Is killing a stepchild an egregious offense?  If a couple of lesbians "adopt" a male child, and then castrate him before puberty, is that an egregious offense?

Now I rather think that the former is a less egregious offense than the latter, but current state policy, in which gays are more politically correct than heterosexuals, and transexuals more politically correct than either one, means that former is vigorously repressed where it can be detected, and the latter rather forcefully encouraged.

Though of course the eradication of inconvenient stepchildren mostly cannot be detected. There is today a startlingly large rate of "accidental" death among children who have "father figures" rather than fathers, and neither the presence, nor the absence, of the state is likely to make step children safer or less safe, though I suspect that absent the state intruding in families to break them up, there would be fewer broken families.

True anarchist society could have no legal system as we understand it, because all modern legal systems depend on a state apparatus to enforce court decisions.

Obviously we are likely to have groups of people organized to defend rights - vigilantes, heroes, rentacops, detective agencies, and so forth.

Let us suppose that most routine ordinary everyday enforcement is done by rentacops and detective agencies, done for pay, as a job.

Let us also suppose that most people sign up in advance, like insurance.  You don't get insurance against burning your own house down, and you won't get insurance against trouble that you yourself started.

So to determine whether a client should be defended or not, the defense agency has to determine fault - so the defense agency wants to determine fault accurately, which is to say justly.  It wants law abiding and peaceful clients, and does not want criminal clients, because criminal clients create cost and work.

If the defense agency determines its client is at fault, the client is likely to protest, accusing the defense agency of welshing on its obligations.  So the defense agency wants justice to be done and to be seen done.

Contrary to the way things are depicted in the comic, I expect that in most cases, the determination will usually be done out of hand in a casual and informal way, because that is the way credit card agencies and credit rating agencies do it.

On the other, when what is at issue is someone's life or freedom, rather than a small amount of money, perhaps they will be more formal.

There's no way someone in an AnCap society could be prevented from vat-growing slaves by the dozens, or doing what he wanted with them unless your AnCap society has enforcement mechanisms (aside from lynch mobs) to prevent that sort of thing.

It's not a question of DNA makeup. The answer depends on whether your hypothetical society is a "true" anarchy where everyone can do whatever they want and no-one has power over anyone else, or whether it still has some sort of a state apparatus, for example in the form of courts with the power to force participation by all involved parties and to enforce its decisions. I'm not sure how the court system in EFT works, and what would happen if someone refused to attend or to abide by the court's decrees. Peer pressure only goes so far to force compliance, and inevitably you'd get a social movement advocating for disregarding court decisions, so that social norms and peer pressure alone probably wouldn't work as an enforcement mechanism.

Peer pressure and ostracism is a lot more effective when the legal system isn't busy undermining it.

Doubtful that it would make a difference. Peer pressure is just not all that effective, and the absence of other systems of enforcement won't change that.

The effectiveness of peer pressure mostly depends on the exact makeup of the society and the tools it has at its disposal. Highly homogeneous societies tend to be able to bring peer pressure to bear more easily and with greater weight than diverse societies, because true diversity makes it more difficult to form a true consensus, and thereby reduces the weight of social authority which can be brought to bear by the society as a whole. I don't get the sense that there is a very wide range of perspectives in EFT Belter society in any meaningful way, but could be wrong, since readers usually see only a small fraction of a fictional universe. Yet even for homogeneous societies, peer pressure only works as long as the costs of non-conformity exceed the perceived benefits.

I assume that peer pressure does not include the threat of mob violence, because mob violence is as bad or worse than a coercive state apparatus -- both involve the use of force, often by a majority, to dominate a weaker party. So in our hypothetical anarchist society peer pressure will only work so long as the non-compliant person values his membership in the social group more than what he would get from continued non-compliance. It should not be difficult to imagine such a situation. And if the non-compliant person can also easily change his place of residence, the costs of non-compliance approach zero because he can always move to a community of like-minded persons and change his social group to one which won't oppose his actions. Thus, somewhere out in the EFT universe there could well be a self-sufficient enclave of Terran expats practicing slavery and female genital mutilation, and there'd be jack-all anyone could legally do aside from forcibly evicting them.

True anarchist society could have no legal system as we understand it, because all modern legal systems depend on a state apparatus to enforce court decisions. Doesn't matter if that apparatus is a U.S. Marshal's Office or Granny's Goon Squad LLC; once your court has the power to enforce its decisions without consent of the affected party, it becomes the very sort of state institution which is anathema to anarchist society. At most, there might be a universally-accepted forum for settling disputes, but that forum could have no enforcement authority.

Because humans fundamentally seek to force their world views on others at least to some extent, you'd inevitably get state-like organizations, unless you either assume very heavy indoctrination or ignore human nature.

I don't see this.  I see that people seek to reinforce their own views in their circumstances, and that obviously extends to other people in their lives, but only if they are in conflict with their views.  I don't see most people trying to force their views on the cashier at the grocery store, for example, and when it comes to neighbors and relatives, I see people who go out of their way to be polite and to not force their views on other people. Instead, if it's someone that conflicts with their world views, they generally just prefer to minimize their contact with them, which is also a part of the purpose of a gated community. 

Those who are actively trying to force their views on other people tend to be people who are in positions of power over other people. Without that power, they are forced to be less demanding and more persuasive, or else to be quiet.  Thus, what you see would seem to be human nature, but only under certain circumstances, and not in all circumstances.

All people have views of how the world should be, and virtually all would be more than happy to put those views into practice if given the chance. Most people in real life never get that chance beyond voting for a representative they most closely agree with, and spend most of their lives avoiding conflict because they cannot achieve anything through conflict. So people obviously don't try and start arguments in the middle of a grocery store because they have no means of forcing their world views in that setting. 

But we can see what happens when people do get into positions where they can force their world views onto others. As I pointed out in a previous post, local governments have tried to control virtually every aspect of a person's life as far as they legally could in one way or another. I am not speaking of gated communities, but of regular towns and villages whose elected officials did not seek to avoid conflict but instead tried to force their wills onto other community members. You can posit an anarchist settlement with no government, but I guarantee you that within a year it will generate a proto-government comprised of people who think that their world-view is the right one and who will not hesitate to force that world view against the unwilling, and backing that proto-government will be those very same people who you say would prefer to minimize conflict. Else it will become a completely homogeneous society by driving out anyone who does not conform.

And like I said at the beginning of this post, a society of atomized "gated communities" of like-minded persons will have no way of preventing someone from doing more or less whatever he wants, so long as there is a community out there whose members share his world views in that particular regard.

You are making broad assertions.  You can doubt what I say all you want, but as Sandy said, why should anyone believe your assertions are more likely than mine?  You seem to be just another doom-and-gloom pessimist who thinks that man is basically evil.  You're not even really addressing my points, just dismissing them, so really, unless I plan to write a thesis, there's not much here for me to actually respond to.

Peer pressure and ostracism is a lot more effective when the legal system isn't busy undermining it.

Takes me back to my youth, when a champion back on a local high school team was suspected of multiple rapes of grade school girls.  Since the victims were all of African descent, it was decided that the ruin of a promising young man's career was too high a price to pay for anything that had happened to the girls.  A very dignified, elderly lady at out church said "they are all going to grow up to be common property anyhow," a statement that still depresses me deeply as I remember. 

Because humans fundamentally seek to force their world views on others at least to some extent

and

Thus, somewhere out in the EFT universe there could well be a self-sufficient enclave of Terran expats practicing slavery and female genital mutilation, and there'd be jack-all anyone could legally do aside from forcibly evicting them.

I believe that you chose the examples of slavery and female mutilation because you, personally, disapprove of them to the point of wanting to force them out of existence #AND# you believe that this audience agrees with you enough that we're having to say, Well, maaaybe some government. . . .

You are plainly one of the humans you mention, who "fundamentally seek to force their world views on others".  You are projecting this desire onto all of us.

Being female myself, I do have Views on female "circumcision":  not me, and not my kids.  In an anarchic society, no female-circumcisionist can impose it on me.

And in all human honesty, I have to note that the female-circumcisionists -- male and female -- do believe it's for the best.  A government of such people can impose it on me.

You seem to think you have some duty or obligation to "fix" them, to cure them of their mistaken ideas.  I don't.  If such a family moves into my neighborhood, I will duly grieve for their girls -- and I will do jack-all to "correct" them.  If I attempt such a correction, I am announcing -- in that "actions speak louder than words" way -- that I believe it's OK for Joe to impose his views on Jack and therefore it's OK for them thar female-circumcisionists to attempt to correct me, and my kids.

And likewise for slavery:  if somebody owns slaves in my anarchic society, he can go right ahead . . . for as long as he can.  'Cos if they escape and come to me, ain't no way I'll hand them back.  I do believe slavery is wrong, but my opinion isn't worth the breath to express.  Happily, slavery is also bloody stupid; e.g., no slave will ever produce as close to his greatest potential as a paid employee.

I don't even wish to force an anarchic society on you.  If you want to live in a state (i.e., under the notion that the best way to deal with human nature is to give a select Few human cusses -- who will still, you know, remain human cusses -- extra power over the Many), go right ahead.  Please don't attempt to include me:  even if you are successful, you won't get my best (see above comment on slavery) and I might even prove actively subversive.

As evil and wrong as things like slavery and female circumcision may be, I for one regard forcing world views onto people even worse.  Capiche?

Since the victims were all of African descent, it was decided that the ruin of a promising young man's career was too high a price to pay for anything that had happened to the girls.  A very dignified, elderly lady at out church said "they are all going to grow up to be common property anyhow," a statement that still depresses me deeply as I remember. 

Truth is so depressing.