AMA: Anarcho-capitalism

Author: Bones

Posts

Total: 41
Bones
Bones's avatar
Debates: 31
Posts: 965
3
7
9
Bones's avatar
Bones
3
7
9
-->
@Best.Korea
So under that system, people have no obligation to make future generations, thus are able to destroy any liberty future generations would have if they were born?
There is no. obligation under current system to make future generations either - it's just something people like to do. 

There's a distinction between potential and actual liberty - a system can only logically account for actual liberties, given how extraneous the potential considerations are. 
I would disagree with that, as potential liberty becomes actual liberty when proper steps are taken, so not taking those steps essentially means actual liberty wont exist in that case, and if you hold stance that actual liberty is good, then it makes sense to convert potential liberty into actual liberty so that there is more of the actual liberty, and likewise, if you think destroying actual liberty is bad, then not creating it is bad too, since it carries same result, apparently that of actual liberty not existing in either case.
There's a difference between creating and abstaining - anarcho capitalists believe in negative rights not positive rights. 
Bones
Bones's avatar
Debates: 31
Posts: 965
3
7
9
Bones's avatar
Bones
3
7
9
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Well I think it depends on the business model as it were. The quietly 90% let HOA abuses go for years until it passes a point of true absurdity. Often judges or state journalists intervene before the 90% do something about it.
This is one huge fault of the government - the reason the 90 percent are not accounted for is because the HOA is run by taxes - that is, they have no obligation to do what the people want. Because of this, they would have an incentive to appease the annoying bunch, as oppose to truly targeting their audience. 

How will an "anarchist HOA" be "overwhelmed by the majority and more logical individuals of society"? Why don't we see that with existing HOAs which basically are formed organically from pre-existing agreements?
1. HOA doesn't face competition 
2. HOA doesn't face the possibility of extinction 
3. Regardless of how poorly they perform, the HOA is funded by tax and so their income is ensured
4. Because of this they lack incentive to perform good services. 

If an anarchist HOA existed, it would be subject to market forces and competition. 

Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 274
Posts: 7,975
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@Bones
So if under your system, people are allowed to destroy future generations by not creating them, then I feel your system is inferior to systems which are focused on empowering society and making it strong as a whole, also your negative rights dont account for the fact that action of banning child marriages is not any type of "not doing anything" action, but an action in which you act to lower birth rates thus it does not fall under negative rights but rather it is equivalent to acting to destroy offspring.
Bones
Bones's avatar
Debates: 31
Posts: 965
3
7
9
Bones's avatar
Bones
3
7
9
-->
@Best.Korea
Are you in favour of mandatory procreation? 
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 274
Posts: 7,975
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@Bones
Countries with mandatory procreation, or at least the ones which have legal child marriages, or which have both, have significantly higher birth rates than any countries that try to manage society differently. So while child marriages arent same as mandatory procreation culture, both policies were proven to increase birth rates where trying to ban reproduction until age 18 has for the most part lowered birth rates and countries which ban child marriages ironically depend on importing migrants from societies which have child marriages. So mandatory procreation is not bad for society, and banning child marriages is an action which lowers birth rates obviously, so one could say that practicing neither policy just ensures that your society is outnumbered by or dependent on that society which has one or both of those policies. And if your view is that one has no right to act to destroy future generations, then I dont see how acting to ban child marriages fits in your view, as child marriages occur naturally unless prevented, so one could say that banning child marriages is equal to banning people from giving birth, which if you take as justified due to age, doesnt make sense as you are implying that it is justified to use force against persons before they reach certain age, or make decisions instead of them, which contradicts with the whole idea of child marriages being forced on children, as if your definition of force is that "everything which child doesnt understand is being forced on that child", then that is a no win scenario as then everything is always forced on children and there is no way for you to act in any way which is not forced on a child.
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,014
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@Bones
If an anarchist HOA existed, it would be subject to market forces and competition. 
Long term contracts exist in "market forces", what makes you so sure the HOA wouldn't just make a 30 year contract?

How does one HOA interfere in the harassment operations of another? Why would the 90% stop paying if even now they don't even show up to meetings to vote against things?
Bones
Bones's avatar
Debates: 31
Posts: 965
3
7
9
Bones's avatar
Bones
3
7
9
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Long term contracts exist in "market forces", what makes you so sure the HOA wouldn't just make a 30 year contract?
Given I do not live in the United States, Canada, nor Philippines, my country does not have a HOA, so I have minimal knowledge of what it is besides the fact that its' a government entity. Could you outline the particular issue you have right now? 

How does one HOA interfere in the harassment operations of another?
It would employ private security to uphold the validity of contracts. 

Why would the 90% stop paying if even now they don't even show up to meetings to vote against things?
  1. People would care more because they are directly paying for the service (not having their income involuntarily expropriated by taxation). 
  2. People do not show up to vote because the relationship between the impact of ones vote on an individuals life and the effort required to cast it renders the action unjustified. Even in the larger system of government, one must determine what policies are actually in line with their interests and who represents these policies. 

WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 14
Posts: 1,700
3
4
8
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
8
-->
@Bones
Given I do not live in the United States, Canada, nor Philippines, my country does not have a HOA, so I have minimal knowledge of what it is besides the fact that its' a government entity. Could you outline the particular issue you have right now? 
An HOA is where homeowners come together to form a type of anarcho capitalist organization to self govern many aspects of their own community. It's possibly a good ideal for new home owners who plan to sell at some point becausse HOAs are good at retaining the homes value however they can be a pain in the ass to deal with by self imposed fines for long grass or they can tell you to remove you Gadsen flag or decide how many if any christmas lights you put up etc. Many come together to hire community security have a community clubhouse etc.
Savant
Savant's avatar
Debates: 23
Posts: 586
3
7
6
Savant's avatar
Savant
3
7
6
-->
@Bones
You may be interested in this thread. Not trying to steal your thunder, but we are recruiting academics and Huemer was the first to respond.
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,404
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Bones
Anarcho-capitalists.

Are people who aspire to the same things as everyone else.

With a particular style of spin on accompanying bullshit.
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,014
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@Bones
@WyIted
Long term contracts exist in "market forces", what makes you so sure the HOA wouldn't just make a 30 year contract?
Given I do not live in the United States, Canada, nor Philippines, my country does not have a HOA, so I have minimal knowledge of what it is besides the fact that its' a government entity. Could you outline the particular issue you have right now? 
Wylted summed it up fairly well.

It's a voluntary association, at least in theory (at first).

It's just a contractual entity that behaves like a government without any structure to protect rights. Essentially it's a "sign here to forfeit all your property rights", and people do (that's the crazy part).

In many cases HOA's try to form based on majority and non consensus, that is there are holdouts but the HOA claims to have authority over them. Now I am saying there is a problem in either case, even with consensus, but I am specifically pointing out that majorities (or sheep with a few lunatics at the front of the herd) have historically had no problem trampling the rights of minorities and this can be seen in modern HOAs which are more or less spontaneous attempts at government with no initial military power.

In the end, if morality is objective, there is no error in stating it. People can't be loyal to a principle that nobody speaks aloud. So when you say something like:

People would care more because they are directly paying for the service (not having their income involuntarily expropriated by taxation). 

You are addressing a purely economic error, which is a considerable part of the world's avoidable problems right now; but it's not the only kind of error there is.

The HOAs don't need a lot of resources to ruin the lives of a few people. Thus the economic self-interest of the minority is not put at risk by focused tyranny. Fear is the mechanism by which focused tyranny can harm everyone, but normally by then it it's too late.

People do follow their self-interest, but the systems that don't work are the ones where the general or long term good contradicts with the immediate self-interest of people who find themselves with the power to violate rights.

There needs to be a grave threat to immediate self-interest for anyone who tries to violate the rights of others.