Sunday, 1 August 2010

Defenceless AnCaps

I am, I must confess, getting a bit irritated with my resident troll for claiming that an AnCap society would be defenceless against predatory criminals.

The first thing that I'd like to point out is that an AnCap society would inevitably a better armed society and states in the US that allow "carry" have lower rates of violent crime than states that do not. Although the murder rate is high in the US overall, it's high because "non-carry" states have very high rates.

So, individuals would be much better equipped to defend themselves against criminals than they are now.

The second thing that I'd like to point out is Kinbingo's own admission that AnCap advocates often create structures very much like what the state offers for our protection, only privatised. So they'd be cheaper and more responsive.

In what way does this leave an AnCap society defenceless?

Look around you, Kingbingo. Look around you.

23 comments:

Schlumpf23 said...

Good point about the varying murder rates in different US states depending on gun laws. I've argued this for years. Good piece.

Simon Cooke said...

I seems to me that there is what might be called a branding problem with the word 'anarchy' - those who criticise the idea of a voluntary state do so because they have been socialised to have an extremely negative view of 'anarchy'. The kind of images familiar from post-apocalypic film and from the congruence between anarchy and nihilism continue to create the image of life under anarchy being nasty brutish and short.

The idea of the voluntary society turns this on its head by seeing the capacity of humans to organise on the basis of mutual interest (which is where our love affair with being governed originates)without the need for givernmental fiat.

And the gun thing: Heinlein nailed it when he said: "the armed society is the polite society"

Morlock said...

The first thing that I'd like to point out is that an AnCap society would inevitably [be] a better armed society

There is no inevitably about it.

You might expect/hope that this would be the case, Obo, but you are merely postulating what the outcome might be. Much as those inflicted with the prevailing consensus view believe that it would be inevitable that if there was less poverty there would be less crime.

A major -- and valid -- critique of the lefty/social engineering world-view is that it is utopian. I'd caution that attempting to defend alternatives in the same manner is not very productive, and (rightly) open to the same criticisms.

Obnoxio The Clown said...

I disagree with you on this, Morlock.

The situation in the UK is that everybody who already wants to legally bear arms is not allowed to.

No such proscription would exist in an AnCap society, so there would inevitably be an increase in carry. And because people would have a different perspective on carrying weapons for self-defence than the prevalent UK "recoil of shock and horror, it's a gun, isn't that dangerous?" I think it's very, very likely that more people than currently want to own and carry but can't, will actually do so.

But one thing I can absolutely guarantee is that more people want to own and carry than are currently allowed to. ;o)

Obnoxio The Clown said...

PS I'm not saying that everyone will carry or even own, but we will definitely be better armed than we are now.

Roger Thornhill said...

One aspect of AnCap that clogs up for me is how to resolve competing DROs (Dispute Resolution Organisations).


If one is trying to thrash out a solution with a Sharia DRO, for example.

Obnoxio The Clown said...

Read this.

Historically, it was done all the time. It's *still* done all the time.

Kingbingo said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Kingbingo said...

"I am, I must confess, getting a bit irritated with my resident troll"

Goes to show your not reading the situation right. I'm not a troll, I'm your number one fan.

I just think you have gone a bit blinkered idealist with this anarchy business about six months ago.



At least I'm raising your game, a few months ago you could not muster a single argument in favour of anarchy. Now we actually get to have an amusing debate because you have been working on your defence, probably specifically to spite me.



Plus, as someone that would abolish somewhere between 90-95% of the state its amusing to be [i]defending[/i] the state with one of the 7 people in the country who are even more libertarian that I am.

Makes a nice change from labourlist where its a struggle to get them to admit that Tescos provides better and cheaper food than a National Food Services (NFS) would.

Kingbingo said...

How do you format text on this site if not [i]....[/i] etc?

Obnoxio The Clown said...

HTML

Obnoxio The Clown said...

"At least I'm raising your game, a few months ago you could not muster a single argument in favour of anarchy. Now we actually get to have an amusing debate because you have been working on your defence, probably specifically to spite me."

Well, an argument has two sides. Now that I *have* bothered to raise my game, could you please be fucking arsed to raise yours or admit that you are fucking wrong?

Kingbingo said...

"Now that I *have* bothered to raise my game"

Well lets not get carried away. Your now providing hyperlinks to other peoples arguments where they raise and answer their own questions and judge things on their own objective criteria. That's not the same thing as being able to make yourself on the fly in a dynamic back and forth.

Plus I would point out that almost all bystanders in the little chats of ours here and at Anna's place tend to think my points carry more weight.

Although I will admit you seem to carry the emotionally disturbed angry young men posting under the anonymous heading more.

Kingbingo said...

Plus of course your not right. I would love it if it were so, I would find it emotionally appealing if we could do without any government at all.

But having considered both options from a zero basis. The formation of a small but strong state providing law and courts for the protection of liberties and property rights. Or, the formation of private gangs and robber barons. I am sure that a small state is the least worst option.

Everything I learn about human behaviour and history convinces me this.

I know anarchists like to think 'this time it will be different' that society has reached a point where any sort of single accountable 'violence monopoliser' is obsolete and we can each arm ourselves to provide our own security. But I really doubt you appreciate all the ramifications of such a society.

Obnoxio The Clown said...

"Well lets not get carried away. Your now providing hyperlinks to other peoples arguments where they raise and answer their own questions and judge things on their own objective criteria. That's not the same thing as being able to make yourself on the fly in a dynamic back and forth."

Well, go on then. Rebut any of the points he made and I'll see what I make of YOUR argument.

Rationalist said...

@ Kingbingo
Do you really not understand the differences between "your", "you are" and "you're"?
It in no way invalidates your argument, but it sets my teeth on edge - and I suspect I'm not alone. It would only take 5 minutes for someone, obviously possessed of some intelligence, to learn.

Kingbingo said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Kingbingo said...

“Do you really not understand the differences between "your", "you are" and "you're"?
It in no way invalidates your argument, but it sets my teeth on edge - and I suspect I'm not alone. It would only take 5 minutes for someone, obviously possessed of some intelligence, to learn.”

Of course I quite understand the difference, I’m just not aware of it as I produce written output. Since you have clearly have read my other post you know I’m dyslexic. So to explain I always perceive language in the way it’s spoken, i.e. how it sounds, so ‘there’ & ‘their’, ‘your’ and ‘you’re’ etc. Even ‘who’ and ‘you’ can get garbled. It’s simply not question of possession of intelligence or otherwise, Einstein transformed physics in his early 20’s but could not spell to save his life as he was dyslexic. I suspect he could easily dumbfound you with a run through of the properties of the EM spectrum, and perhaps I could baffled you a run through of the implications of the yield curve on forward pricing. But you would surely want to lord it over us for the one area you felt you were strong on; grammar.

I suppose the easiest analogy is I’m sure your aware of the difference between ‘manners’ and ‘being an aggressive demeaning & rude little shite’ but all the same you seem quite unaware of how to demonstrate the difference.

Nevertheless, your right, I must try and spot when I do that. But regardless it does not excuse you deliberately being as unpleasant to me as you can at every turn because you do not agree with my worldview. If you show a little respect you will get a little respect. Based on your engagement so far you deserve none.

Rationalist said...

I'm afraid you're the aggressive one, responding to what was, by the standards of these comment threads, a very mild, in fact almost complimentary, enquiry with some advice. I doubt whether you could teach me anything at all about the yield curve, forward pricing or, indeed, the role of the shortcomings of the Black-Scholes model of option pricing in its contribution towards recent global events, &c.,&c.
I have also studied Einstein's theories (both the Special and General Theories) and also the papers on the photoelectric effect (for which he was in fact, awarded his Nobel), Brownian motion, &c.,&c. both in the original German (now, sadly, very rusty) & in translation. I would never be arrogant enough to do more than claim to have been a student of his (prodigious) output. I was unaware that he was ever diagnosed as dyslexic as such, and would be interested to see an authoritative reference. Wikipedia (which I certainly did not need for the earlier comments) has 'Although Einstein had early speech difficulties, he was a top student in elementary school'. The same myth as Churchill, perchance?
I may have won prizes in English, but that was at secondary school - my pre- and post-graduate education has been a little more wide-ranging.
Although you incessant, contentious posting can be a bit irritating, I have on occasion intervened against Obo, in your favour. You respond, nonetheless, with what is very close to ad hominem abuse. Finally (at long last), I am much more 'mincap' than 'ancap' - although labels are tiresome, when not actually misleading.

Rationalist said...

I'm afraid you're the aggressive one, responding to what was, by the standards of these comment threads, a very mild, in fact almost complimentary, enquiry with some advice. I doubt whether you could teach me anything at all about the yield curve, forward pricing or, indeed, the role of the shortcomings of the Black-Scholes model of option pricing in its contribution towards recent global events, &c.,&c.
I have also studied Einstein's theories (both the Special and General Theories) and also the papers on the photoelectric effect (for which he was in fact, awarded his Nobel), Brownian motion, &c.,&c. both in the original German (now, sadly, very rusty) & in translation.
I was unaware that he was ever diagnosed as dyslexic as such, and would be interested to see an authoritative reference. Wikipedia (which I certainly did not need for the earlier comments) has 'Although Einstein had early speech difficulties, he was a top student in elementary school'. The same myth as Churchill, perchance?
I may have won prizes in English, but that was at secondary school - my pre- and post-graduate education has been a little more wide-ranging.
Although your incessant, contentious posting can be a bit irritating, I have on occasion intervened against Obo, in your favour. You respond, nonetheless, with what is very close to ad hominem abuse. Finally (at long last), I am much more 'mincap' than 'ancap' - although labels are tiresome, when not actually misleading.

Rationalist said...

Oh, dear.
Finger trouble with the preview/edit/captcha functions.

Rational said...

A final (Parthian) shot:
The EM man was much more James Clerk Maxwell than Albert Einstein. The latter was more of a mathematical physicist (even a statistical physicist). Although he derived some important results concerning light his major work lay outside (or, at most included some aspects of) EM radiation. He was certainly not the spectrum expert. That goes back as far as Roger Bacon, Newton and even Goethe. It goes on through Henri Becquerel and the Curies (the three being joint Nobel laureates in 1903).
(Here, I do acknowledge a debt to Wikipedia - for confirmation).

richard said...

Obo is right. Private gangs as in APCO, or robber barons as in whoever's taxing us, or fining us for non-crimes are already here, Kingbingo. As is waiting for Plod to catch some scrote that you could have sent packing by yourself. Gun ownership is a sine qua non of a free society. You should be able to buy one as easily as a fishing rod.