Total posts: 965
-->
@RationalMadman
Do you get some joy appealing to authority over and over like a hall monitor worshipping the school principal or something?
I just find it simultaneously disrespectful and pitiful that you would accuse some qualified professor in philosophy as having "dunning kruger" (which mind you is the incorrect usage of the term) with regards to this entire world view. Just take a step back and look - if you were a mid tier debater lecturing a professor in a topic they have not read a single book on and then accuse them of "dunning kruger", how would you react in this circumstance?
How was your reply relevant to mine?
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
It’s a real pity that he with a PHD, professor at the university of Colorado, and 80 published works has had their entire worldview shattered by a mid tier online debater who’s never read a single work on libertarianism nor anarchism
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
So do you then disagree with the statement that "the strong and fit will always defeat the weak and unfit"?Sure
Okay great so you just conceded absolutely everything because that was the only point I was making, that ancap is not all about just the strong winning.
Smarter and weaker members can band together against strong, powerful thugs which is the most reliable way to ensure the 'maxim' of ancap is defeated, by defying Ancap altogether and establishing a government, police force etc.
In this instance, can you tell me why a government and police would be beneficial?
Now you're backtracking your claim. Before you said "Ancap is survival of the fittest, point blank period", now you're saying "survival of the fittest plays a big role in ancap".It is. To which you replied that in a war that wasn't Ancap, the stronger side lost due to pulling out of the war as back home people were against it and it seemed like the Cold War was won regardless at that point and they were just kicking a horse while it's down.
I'm not sure if you're slow, but I already said the Vietnam example has nothing to do with Ancap, but rather attacks a very specific point, being "is it true that the entity with the stronger guns always wins".
Somehow your brain, wylted's Benjamin's and BKs can't quite grasp that.Don't forget public freedom!?
The user public-freedom was also in disagreement with you, thereby making you officially in disagreement with 4 statists and 1 ancap.
I didn't say that in anarchy there is no coercion, bribery, rape etc. Not sure why you're straw manning.In that case voluntarism isn't the axiom or core value in anarchy.
Something can be the axiom whilst still being violated. This is as stupid as arguing "even though the UN says slavery is a fundamental deviation from human rights, that because slavery exists, it cannot be a fundamental principal of human rights.
I have only defined anarchy as the system which preferences freedom as its ultimate maxim. Not sure how I'm committing any stimulative fallacy.But it doesn't. It says it does but it doesn't. If I am free to bully you and oppress you with 0 restrictions, that's not real freedom it's knuckleheaded illusion of freedom.
You have the freedom to do anything that doesn't violate the NAP.
The reality of anarchocaputalism is that not only in practise is it caveman politics but even in theory it is.Since you are so confident in this position, I'm interested in what sources have you consulted to arrive at this conclusion - what informs your understanding of ancap?You want me to appeal to authority to explore a blatant truth?
So you are saying you have read absolutely zero literature on the matter? Talk about dunning kruger.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
The fact that you think he, professor of philosophy, never heard that question before and is now unable to answer it, just tells me that you are trolling here.
Exactly - not sure why he as a mid tier debater really thinks he can checkmate a professor of philosophy with something as rudimentary as "but everyone will kill everyone".
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
In my argument, I never once mention ancap. At all. It's completely irrelevant. The only thing I am addressing is the proposition that "the strong and fit will always defeat the weak and unfit" - this statement is the only thing I am interested in at this point in time.That statement is not what I said.
Now you are being completely dishonest. I already posed that maxim as an extrapolation of what you did so, combining your statements that that "ancap is survival of the fittest, point blank period", and also that "guys built like Huemer would get tossed like rag dolls within the first week of anarchy, left in rags (pun intended) bleeding". So with these statements, we can take the maxim "the strong and fit will always defeat the weak and unfit".
Sometimes the weak will be more tactical, popular, rich (with paid gangs/guards that don't feel like mugging them) or lucky and have others defend them.
So do you then disagree with the statement that "the strong and fit will always defeat the weak and unfit"?
I said under AnCap that's the significant primary rule at play far more than when laws protect those less 'fit'.
Now you're backtracking your claim. Before you said "Ancap is survival of the fittest, point blank period", now you're saying "survival of the fittest plays a big role in ancap".
Somehow your brain, wylted's Benjamin's and BKs can't quite grasp that.
Don't forget public freedom!
Under your definition absolutely everything is anarchy. In anarchy you can still be coerced, bribed, raped, murdered, stolen from and all of it happening (by definition with rape and theft) completely against your voluntary will.
I didn't say that in anarchy there is no coercion, bribery, rape etc. Not sure why you're straw manning.
You are choosing to define anarchy that way because it suits your agenda which is a corrupt and disgusting agenda.
I have only defined anarchy as the system which preferences freedom as its ultimate maxim. Not sure how I'm committing any stimulative fallacy.
The reality of anarchocaputalism is that not only in practise is it caveman politics but even in theory it is.
Since you are so confident in this position, I'm interested in what sources have you consulted to arrive at this conclusion - what informs your understanding of ancap?
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
You assume US Vs Vietnam happened under Ancap conditions.
In my argument, I never once mention ancap. At all. It's completely irrelevant. The only thing I am addressing is the proposition that "the strong and fit will always defeat the weak and unfit" - this statement is the only thing I am interested in at this point in time.
You seem to not realise the limitations of anarchy and just throw the word around all fancy and shit a bit like Benjamin does when he says there can be genuine legal systems and laws that require them to even exist let alone be enforced, in anarchy.
All an anarchy is, is a system in which voluntary interactions are of utmost priority. This doesn't mean that somehow every system we see needs to be abolished, but rather they are provided for in the free market, and made better by market forces. Take the police for example. Under the state, it is provided by one organisation, who are payed through involuntary taxes (meaning they will always be payed). In an ancap society, state police is abolished in place of private security who do the exact same thing as the police, with the only difference being that there are multiple (as opposed to one) provider, and they are payed through voluntary transactions, meaning there is an imperative for quality.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
Who are the four, let's analyse how high intellect and worthy of my concern it is that I lightened up their day.
If you think back on your life, is there any moment where you realised you were wrong and had to concede the fact gracefully?
Can you write out the issue they find with my logic? Or is laughing at me the depth of it?
I've already done this so I'll draw on what has been said.
You make the claim that "ancap is survival of the fittest, point blank period", and gave an example that "guys built like Huemer would get tossed like rag dolls within the first week of anarchy, left in rags (pun intended) bleeding". So with these statements, we can take the maxim "the strong and fit will always defeat the weak and unfit".
So taking this maxim, we can test it and see if it has been successful in history - is it true that the strong and fit will always defeat the weak and unfit? Well we can use the Vietnam War as a case study. If we look into history, particularly USA occupancy of Vietnam, we can see a power dynamic in which the former can be considered "strong and fit", an the later can be comparatively considered the "weak and unfit". So by your logic, the former must beat the latter - yet, we know that this is not what happened. So the maxim that the strong and fit will always defeat the weak and unfit is simply untrue.
As a counter, you cited how the US had pity for Vietnam, to which I had three responses. First, if they had pity, it doesn't change the fact that your maxim is still faulty - the weak and unfit can illicit pity as a means for winning. Second, it is an ahistorical understanding of the Vietnam War - the USA did not have any pity at all for North Vietnam, because they could be considered an extension of the Soviet Union who I am sure we can agree they hate. Third, the "pity" you site is called "Vietnam syndrome" and came after the loss in the South - it is because of the failure which led to this phenomenon in the 1980's so to use it as an explanation of why the US lost is completely wrong.
You keep asking why I bring up Vietnam - it is an example in history where we can test if your claims are true. If you do not like the Vietnam example, there were several other's which I posed;
- Why didn’t the USA occupy Afghanistan so miserably (they were literally fighting against people living in tents?
- Why doesn’t the USA just take over Mexico and Canada, who are not as “fit” as them?
- Why has Russian failed to occupy Ukraine?
Also as an aside, I it insane that you are bashing on Dr Heumer as unqualified when he is a PHD philosopher with over 80 published articles. Would you mind sharing what qualifications you have?
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
Of the four people laughing at you, three are not ancaps.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
Just give it up you’ve been fraud checked and you’re embarrassing yourself now.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
P1. If the big guns always win, the US would have won against North Vietnam.
P2. The US did not win against North Vietnam
C1. The big guns don't always win
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
The US people themselves didn't like the Vietnam war and began to see Vietnam as the good guys.
That is an absolutely illiterate perspective on the Vietnam war. The US partook in the war at least in part because of the falling domino theory and their fear that Vietnam's downfall would entail the spreading of communist ideals - thus they had absolute motivation to participate. This is because the Vietnam war served as a proxy for conflict between the US and Soviet Union (the US supporting the South and the Soviet's supporting the North) and so not only would the fall of the South entail a Soviet takeover (hence the domino theory), but loss of the South of Vietnam would be by extension a loss of the United States to the Soviets. The "pity" you mentioned is called "Vietnam syndrome" and came after the loss in the South - it is because of the failure which led to this phenomenon in the 1980's so to use it as an explanation of why the US lost is completely wrong. Also, you equivocate on the term "Vietnam" - I can assure you there was no on in the US in the 1970's who thought North Vietnam were the "good guys" because to think this would be to think the US viewed the puppet of the Soviet as the good guys.
Even so, your completely and unequivocal historical illiteracy is besides the point, because my initial critique still stands - that the biggest guns and fittest parties do not always win.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
Do you know you're doing both strawmanning and goalpost moving?
Throwing around buzz words which you've heard smart people use doesn't prove your point.
How the hell is US losing to Vietnam and argument for the Ancap movement? Do you know which side of the cold war Vietnam was on?
You're clearly having difficultly tracking this conversation. If you recall, you made multiple claims
- Guys built like Huemer would get tossed like rag dolls within the first week of anarchy, left in rags (pun intended) bleeding. He has no clue what anarchy is.
- Ancap is survival of the fittest, point blank period. That's all it is. He isn't the fittest. It's that simple.
So basically you have the superficial position that under anarcho-capitalism, the strongest and fittest win. So then by the logic that the "biggest guns win", why did the US, who had the biggest guns, lose to Vietnam? If the "biggest guns win", why didn't the US, who had the biggest guns, occupy Afghanistan successfully? If the "biggest guns win", why doesn't the US, who had the biggest guns, just take over Canada and Mexico?
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
Sympathy for Vietnam, hence they decided to waste 176 billion dollars, lost 60 thousand men and faced humiliation for such an unlikely defeat?
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
Ok so now you’re failing to answer the question, so I’ll dictate it more clearly for you. If we assume the biggest guns and the most powerful entity wins
- Why didn’t USA sweep Vietnam?
- Why didn’t the USA occupy Afghanistan so miserably?
- Why doesn’t the USA just take over Mexico and Canada, who are not as “fit” as them?
- Why has Russian failed to occupy Ukraine?
Reducing anarchy to some primitive Darwinian battle is frankly pitiful.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
Wait but if it’s “survival of the fittest”, are you suggesting Vietnam was better armed than the USA?
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
If everything is “big guns win”, why didn’t the USA dominate Vietnam or successfully occupy Afghanistan? Why doesn’t it just invade Canada for the sake it?
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
This is such a poor understanding of anarchy, it is literally the dunning kruger effect that you take this caricature of anarchy and “slam” it so proudly.
Created:
-->
@WyIted
It’s funny this guy who even by debateart standards sucks at debating is trying to discredit the PHD philosopher with over 80 published articles.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
Fantasizing that someone like Huemer, who gave his time to educate people on his political philosophy, would be bashed and robbed whilst saying you would take a 2 v 1 against thugs seems like Dunning Kruger.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
Have you heard of the dunning Kruger effect, RationalMadman?
Created:
-->
@Savant
Some questions I've had for anarcho-capitalism.
- If we are to take the NAP as sufficient in grounding moral claims, would this not leave out acts we see are immoral, such as using someones likeness (deepfake) in explicit content?
- By extension, if a hacker appropriates someones personal videos and posts it online, wouldn't the NAP have nothing to say about this? Taking video or photograph would not qualify as theft under the ANCAP's philosophy (because it is neither scarce nor rivalrous), and it doesn't necessarily violate the NAP because the individual doesn't need to know about it.
- Suppose we have an ANCAP world in which there some exists some legal dispute between two people - a pro life and pro choice person, where the pro life person is laying charges because they believe the pro choice person, who owns an abortion clinic, is committing murder everyday. Per the ANCAP model, they would each be represented by some arbitration agencies who converse on the facts of the matter. Let's say both of them agree on the descriptive facts - that there is an abortion clinic being run, but not the prescriptive facts - whether this is wrong. This is because the two arbitration agencies apply the NAP differently - one believes it applies to all humans whereas the other believes it applies to sovereign agents who can reciprocate the respect of liberty. So per the ANCAP model, these two will then seek a third arbitration company, and agree that their decision will be final. My question is this - how will these two parties ever agree on an arbitration company - it would seem that the pro life party would only agree to a third party which they have seen will likely rule in their favour principally, whereas the pro choice party will do the opposite. That is to say, an agreement on the third party will be impossible, because they will respectively only want a mediator which has a precedent of ruling in their favour.
- Personal book recommendations for ANCAP theory?
Created:
He’s a legit anarcho capitalist so anyone who had questions for my AMA would be infinitely better served asking him.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@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?
- People would care more because they are directly paying for the service (not having their income involuntarily expropriated by taxation).
- 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.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
Are you in favour of mandatory procreation?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@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.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@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.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
Do you believe that when two liberties are in contradiction, that the smaller liberty should get destroyed in favor of a greater one, as opposed to greater liberty being destroyed in favor of the smaller one?
Initiation of aggression is the foundation of the ancap moral philosophy.
As you must know, child marriages do increase birth rates, and by result, birth rates increase amount of people, which in turn increases amount of people being able to exercise liberty of living. So do you not think that preventing people from being born destroys their liberty, or does in your view only the liberty of born and conceived counts?
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.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
@ADreamOfLiberty
There are reasons to doubt that the State would provide better law than that of the free market. These are some of my thoughts, as well as notes from texts I've read.
Under the state law
- What is the state
- The State, according to the standard definition, is not a regular, specialised firm. Rather, it is defined as an agency characterised by two unique, logically connected features. First, the state is an agency that exercises a territorial monopoly of ultimate decision making. That is, the state is the ultimate arbiter in every case of conflict, including conflicts involving itself. It allows no appeal above and beyond itself. Second, the state is an agency that exercises a territorial monopoly of taxation. That is, it is an agency that unilaterally fixes the price that private citizens must pay for the state's service as ultimate judge and enforcer of law and order.1
- Stability
- Legislation, or law by decree, is by its nature less predictable than decentralised legal systems whose development is limited to extrapolations from previously established legal principles”. Because of lower predictability, less contracts are made owing to the uncertainty of their enforceability.
- Lacks no access to pricing mechanism.
- An arbitrary edict-based legislative system lacks access to a pricing mechanism, which would otherwise serve as an invaluable indicator of the effectiveness or desirability of a law relative to consumer or societal preference. With a pricing mechanism, one can judge such things by measuring their profitability
- Hence, the pricing mechanism enables such a decentralised free market legal system to continually refine and reinterpret various legal codes more rationally relative to consumer preference.
- The state is fundamentally a monopoly
- Most economists do the following: monopolies, being the instance where there exists an overly dominant sole distributor of a given good or service, are bad for society.
- To extend, we can see that the state is an entity which is the totally dominant sole distributor of a given service (the word of the law).
- By modus ponens then, the states monopoly over the law is equally harmful.
- Individuals are less likely to shape and improve the rules they are governed by.
- The relationship between the impact of one's vote on one's life, and the effort required to cast it renders voting unlikely. To vote according to one’s interests, one must determine what policies are actually in line with his interests and who represents these policies.
- The very use of such representation is flawed
- Politicians can change their position at any time
- Often ones full breadth of beliefs are not in accordance with politicians, and therefore they must compromise their views.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
So what is anarch's opinion on child marriages and at what age does person become capable of making contracts in anarchy?
Anarchy basically allows for ones liberty to be maximally exercised - in the case of children, it is clear that such a capacity is not yet learnt, and it would constitute aggression if some older figure groomed them into marriage.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Because the Karen screams the loudest and uses deception and the normies don't have the time nor interest to figure out who is right the boards of HOAs become infested and often monopoized by karens.You can roll the answer into the answer to Wylted's question: 2. If the neighbor is playing loud music or shining a light through their window at night, would these beams of light or sound waves be considered trespassing?How would "normative principles in market based law" thwart the karens and their evil schemes? (and yes that is the goal, liberty is the root objective value regardless of government or societal organization)
I think this exposes an additional issue with government issued programs. Because they are not in risk of termination, nor are incentivised by market forces, those most irritating wind up having the most power. In a truly free market, this will not happen - any business model preference the interest of the 70% - 90% and cater to their needs for basic economic reasons. If there is a niche 2% causing a hassle, this isn't really a cause for concern, given they will be overwhelmed by the majority and more logical individuals of society.
Basically, is it more profitable to appease the loud 2%, or the quiet 90%?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
There's a book authored by Morris which puts forth the idea of a free market of laws, which argues that natural forces will find the must just laws to govern the people.I think we've seen what a "free market of laws" looks like, it's an HOA and that's not good.Why is my impression wrong?
It is theorised that in a market based law, normative principles will be more streamlined and better reflect the interest of the people. You might ask whether the interest of the people is good, and I would think that it is - people generally have a good understanding of right and wrong through their reaction to when certain acts are done to them - when something bad or unjust is happening to them, they generally know and want to prevent it. And so a market of law would simply scale this system up.
I do not see the point in calling the new model anything other than "police" though.
You can call it anything you want, but the main factor is that it will not be a monopoly and it will not be run by the "state".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
For each new occupant that exists, there would need to exist a new contract, ensuring both parties wish to involve themselves in the union. For instance, this new individual might not approve of the police force, and for this reason, refuse to opt in and pay the taxes.well like I was trying to say. The original owner basically has given this self formed government ownership of the property and essentially transfer rights to the property to his child. So I guess if the son did not want to agree to pay taxes and use the police force etc., property ownership would have to go back to the self formed government and he would have to leave the community and hope all of the lands in the surrounding communities have not formed similar self styled governments with the land they own.
I'm not sure why in this instance anyone would give their home to the government when it could instead just be their private property. If someone transferred ownership of their home to the government, that would open up to multiple vulnerabilities, like the right for the government to instantly kick you out, because the home is not "yours".
1. What if somebody or many people buy the land surrounding them and cut them off from resources?
This is called Blockean Proviso. Stephan Kinsella writes quite a succinct response.
Remember that property rights is a fundemental part of the libertarian ethic, and so the above circumstance can only actualise if there is no one in the unoccupied area. However, as you illustrate, if there is somewhere there, then an entitlement to the land would be unjust.
2. If the neighbor is playing loud music or shining a light through their window at night, would these beams of light or sound waves be considered trespassing?
I'll have to think about this one in more depth but there may be a degree where it does become trespassing - although not physically transgression, you are using some means to impede on someones private property at an extreme level.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
Is it okay for a person to trespass on land they do not own in an anarcho capitalist society?
"Trespassing" implies that some piece of owned land is being transgressed upon so no, that would not be allowed. However, if the land has not been claimed in any way then they have the right to travel on it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
You would agree that somebody could deed property to their children wouldn't you? And that if those children obtained property in a community that formed some sort of central party that presides over the land than that would have to be respected as honestly when you put it this way only the rights to the land is passed down, the community would retain ownership?
For each new occupant that exists, there would need to exist a new contract, ensuring both parties wish to involve themselves in the union. For instance, this new individual might not approve of the police force, and for this reason, refuse to opt in and pay the taxes.
Also, when you describe "a community of people who come together and form a government among themselves for the land they occupy", I would presume that given the freedom they are afforded, that other agencies which provide the function of the government would arise. And so the State function would then again open to the market forces - that is unless the community you are describing forbids their citizens from choosing other services.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
How would contracts and property rights be enforced?
Regarding contracts, these will be agreed upon in the presence of a third party arbitrator. Here, this company would presumably be in the business of writing up contracts and ensuring they will be upheld by each party. In the case that a contract is not upheld, such an agency will be incentivised to take action, or else risk their public image being damaged and by extension losing business. Furthermore, individuals will have an incentive to uphold contracts given they themselves have a reputation to maintain. If they are the kind of person to break contracts, then this will make it difficult for them to engage in further contracts, or dealings with individuals.
The defence of property rights will be the responsibility of the home owner. Because of this, they have the right to bear arms, as a means to ensure their property is defended. Furthermore, homeowners can contract defence agencies which will serve the purpose of surveilling and maintaining peace. We have some reasons to believe this will be done better than the police.
- These agencies, unlike the state police, risk extinction, if their performance is poor.
- These agencies, unlike the state police, have an active incentive to do good.
- These agencies, unlike the state police, will offer contracts detailing what services they owe their customers.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
What if the communities surrounding that community do similar things and they can only realistically migrate to owned country sized pieces of land that have adopted constitutions, various forms of government etc. Etc.
I only believe that there are two ways of acquiring property - original appropriation or trade. So the government doesn't have a right to simply proclaim they own land and then write their laws and rules in place. Individuals in their own homes control the rules of their domain completely. So the government you describe wouldn't have the ability to impede on your rights if you want to live in an anarchical way.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
You seem to have answered a lot of your own questions with quite a good understanding. If this topic interests you, you should read me and Savants debate.
In anarchy, if there is no democracy, then there is no any way to make any consistent laws, as who would make them?
There's a book authored by Morris which puts forth the idea of a free market of laws, which argues that natural forces will find the must just laws to govern the people.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
Yes, within all communities, any rules which one may wish to impose can be done so. However, I think that such a community would see neighbouring jurisdictions, where there aren't oppressive forces like taxation, or the necessity to adopt certain security firms (state police) and favour their model. Furthermore, in this world you describe, it would be unjust to compel some individual to stay within the system.
Created:
Posted in:
Recently had a good debate on Anarcho-Capitalism - the idea that the state apparatus ought to be evicted from its normative functions and replaced by privatised organisations. Because of how radical this idea is, I'm interested to hear some questions or concerns with the theory and hopefully answer them. Some questions which may be of interest might involve;
- How can economic monopolies be contained?
- How do we prevent malevolent terrorists from taking over?
- What organisation writes and enforces the law?
- Don't socialised programs help people in need?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
Thanks for the welcome! I would have loved to debate you, as I think you are not one of those members who are sadly crippled by ego, who avoid competition to preserve their perceived acumen in debating. If you change your mind, feel free to let me know.
Regarding your first question, I as an atheist oppose abortion on non-religious grounds. I go through it in depth in my debates, but the general gist is that I consider the only logical time to bestow personhood to an individual is the first moment of their existence - conception.
With regards to the second question, the issue of policy in debating is far more complicated. Obviously, as a pro life thinker, I would restrict abortion to the greatest extent that is possible. I think the reductio that abortion ought to be allowed because it would prevent over population is absolutely stupid - because you could then employ the same justification in the case of infanticide, which would serve the same end.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Not sure why you're talking as though you are some formidable competition when you've had such insignificant competition throughout your cherry picked debate run.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
I personally believe that personhood is an emergent property, not an inherent one. That it is the agregate of many important mental functions. Things like abstract intelligence, self awareness and capacity for moral considerations. When these psychological qualities mature, personhood emerges.
I would take issue with predicating moral value on emergent properties, as oppose to an absolute metric. If you take moral agency to be contingent on psychological qualities, you would be committed to saying that the absence of such qualities entails the absence of moral worth.
Furthermore, a continuum based perspective on personhood would yield "more" and "less" humans. Given that "intelligence, self awareness and capacity for moral consideration" all exist on a spectrum, it would follow that those who exhibit these characteristics more forcefully would be, under your analysis, more of a human than their peers.
Also, I'm sure you've heard of the uncertainty principle - it would seem that your idea of personhood would be damaged by it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Barney
@oromagi
@Intelligence_06
@Benjamin
Above
Created:
Posted in:
Uncertain as to how long I'll be back, but with some free time, I'm seeking a debate with some high level competitor.
Topic proposals (preferred but not limited to)
- That abortion is immoral (pro)
- Trans women are not women (pro)
- Efficacy of gender affirming care (con)
- God's existence (con)
- Subjective morality (pro)
- Competing accounts of mind (dualism v. physicalism etc)
- Competing accounts of economic doctrines (capitalism, socialism, marxism)
PM if there is anything else you would be interested in clashing in.
Edit: If a sufficient debater wants to, I'm happy to run the Israel v. Palestine clash as well.
Created:
There's this trend where people become so progressive that they wind up being highly bigoted. A common trend is, for example reprimanding women for the benefit of transgendered individuals - this can be seen in the concerning new rhetoric regarding the abolition of women's sports entirely, in place of a gender neutral competition, with the purpose of pushing exclusivity for trans folks.
Created:
-->
@Nyxified
@Public-Choice
Where the debate?
Created:
Posted in:
I think this is a good exercise - it's always healthy to keep in touch with those you disagree with.
- William Lane Craig
- Nick Fuentes
- Cenk Uygur
Created: