A term, when used in the context of contract law, meaning something of value given to someone for a service performed for someone , in a verbal or written contract, as a part of the deal in exchange for the other party’s fulfillment of said contract. If you pay someone 10 dollars to shovel your snow tomorrow, you have given them consideration and fulfilled your end of the bargain. –personal definition based on knowledge of business contract law
“system of rules and conventions that regulate social and professional behaviour. In any social unit there are accepted rules of behaviour upheld and enforced by legal codes; there are also norms of behaviour mandated by custom and enforced by group pressure. An offender faces no formal trial or sentence for breach of etiquette; the penalty lies in the disapproval of other members of the group.”
“etiquette.” Encyclopædia Britannica. Encyclopædia Britannica Ultimate Reference Suite. Chicago: Encyclopædia Britannica, 2011.
- Encourage or assist (someone) to do something wrong, in particular, to commit a crime or other offense.
- Encourage or assist someone to commit (a crime).
Google ‘define abetting’
I have said before, in other essays and on the ‘about’ page that just calling oneself an ancap doesn’t really say much about what you believe. Two atheists can have completely different and even incompatible worldviews. There really isn’t “anarcho-capitalist” philosophy, there is legal, moral and ethical philosophy. There are rules you might think people should follow, or discussions about etiquette.
It wouldn’t make sense for me to say “Recognizing intellectual property is illegitimate under atheist philosophy” because it has nothing to do with the underlying definition of the term. My definition of anarcho-capitalism can be reached by analyzing the meaning of the word anarchy and capitalism. It is on the ‘about’ page.
Everything else we discuss under this broad term is preferences. In the enclave method post, I identified the importance of summarizing a group of preferences and giving it a name. So for example, when someone refers to “Rothbardian Anarcho-capitalism” it means something more than just the sum of the meaning of the words anarchy and capitalism. The NAP is an ethical measuring stick, it has nothing to do with anarcho-capitalism as a term. Indeed, libertarians who are minarchists claim to uphold the NAP.
Here is my take on some of the heated and oh-so important debates I see going on about moral, ethical, and legal philosophy among self-identified ancaps.
“Nonaggression axiom (NAP)
According to the principle that libertarians call the nonaggression axiom, all acts of aggression against the rights of others—whether committed by individuals or by governments—are unjust. Indeed, libertarians believe that the primary purpose of government is to protect citizens from the illegitimate use of force. Accordingly, governments may not use force against their own citizens unless doing so is necessary to prevent the illegitimate use of force by one individual or group against another. This prohibition entails that governments may not engage in censorship, military conscription, price controls, confiscation of property, or any other type of intervention that curtails the voluntary and peaceful exercise of an individual’s rights.”
“libertarianism.” Encyclopædia Britannica. Encyclopædia Britannica Ultimate Reference Suite. Chicago: Encyclopædia Britannica, 2011.
There are camps that believe that the NAP somehow means a completely non-violent approach to things and that the use of force is always bad. These people often advocate ostracism in cases where applying force would solve a problem very easily. For example, a pacifists volunteerist might suggest that if someone steals something, they be shunned from the group until they return it or something. In my opinion, this view takes the idea that force is evil, to an absurd extreme.
Even if you don’t completely agree with the encyclopedia definition, the NAP does not apply to self-defense. It is always, has always been, and will always be legitimate to kill your aggressor and those who aid or abet your enemy in harming you. Yes, aiding and abetting is a crime, currently. The NAP does not mean no aggression or no violence or no force. It means the ILLEGITIMATE use of force is frowned upon. What you define as legitimate or not can be anything, and for most freedom movement types self-defense is seen as one of the only legitimate uses.
There is nothing wrong with applying violence where it is called for. I keep hearing about arcane and impractical examples of pushing people out the way of cars being counted as aggression. If you feel that taking the risk of being sued for assault because you push someone out of the way of a car is worth less than saving their life then do it. If not, watch them get hit. Whatever.
I also hear a great deal about violence towards children. I will cover this later. Yeah, let your kids run around in traffic because you don’t want to aggress against them by holding their hands and pulling them close while they struggle to get free. See how far that takes you. I’m sure if you explain to jimmy that the street is dangerous he’ll understand. Sometimes the debates take such absurd turns it is hard to take some of the shit that flies around seriously.
Let’s say you are aggressed against today. You don’t have a choice of what courts to go to or not, some prosecutor and/or judge will decide what to do with you and your assailant. In many cases you don’t have a choice of whether or not to press charges. If anyone reading this has a problem with someone aggressing against them, as a practical matter, they will more than likely call the police. This includes every philosopher in every institute out there.
People aggress against each other all the time for little or no reason at all. It is a reality we have to deal with here and now. Furthermore, as far as I know there are no ancap private defense agencies, private military companies, or even well-organized militias. If there was ever an ancap territory, it would exist among many aggressive states. And the individuals living there would have to decide what threats they faced and what the appropriate thresholds for action are given the circumstances on the ground. Yes, you may have to strike at a group committed to destroying you that has demonstrated its will, ability, and intent, even before they actually attack you.
Intellectual Property (IP)
“…Some Western legal systems still deny the possibility of property in intangibles. In all Western legal systems, however, the great increase of wealth in the form of intangibles (stocks, bonds, bank accounts) has meant that property or property-like treatment must be given to such intangibles. Certain government-created rights such as patents and copyrights have traditionally been treated as property.”
“property.” Encyclopædia Britannica. Encyclopædia Britannica Ultimate Reference Suite. Chicago: Encyclopædia Britannica, 2011.
There is an argument that says that property can only be tangible and that items that can be infinitely copied without depriving the original owner of that item cannot be stolen. What I would like to explore is what are some of the different types of I.P
Can intangible things be property? Of course they can! Property is a behavior. You can behave like you own anything if you can enforce it.
Trademarks are used to designate one product or company from another. However, there is a “joe’s pizzeria” in almost every town or city. Trademarks can easily be handled my region, by contract.
Practically: Trademarks are handled by region. If a company wanted a name, they would have to use marketing techniques to differentiate their products and their company from others. Companies today, in this well copy written world always have to fight against imitators. Companies have celebrities endorse ‘official’ releases and ‘official’ websites. Companies contract with media outlets to have ‘official’ channels and accounts. If someone is committing fraud n the company’s name, they often go after them by legal means. This would not necessarily change in an ancap society.
These are secret processes, recipes, or techniques a company uses that gives it an edge. How could this be handled without a state?
Trade secrets, such as secret recipes and processes are usually handled by business practices a company undertakes to keep those things secret. Sections of a recipe can be parceled out so that it can never be assembled except when necessary. Multiple codes might be needed to gain entry to a secret safe, for example.
Non-disclosure contracts can be made with key employees with stiff penalties attached. Only senior and committed company executives can have access to certain secrets. As an example, the military doesn’t let just anyone handle their nuclear codes.
Technology can be used to make sensitive features difficult or impossible to reverse engineer. If , for example, there is a special chip with a special ship architecture, companies can and do apply a special hardened black adhesive over the chip making it impossible to reverse engineer. I have personally taken apart electronics and seen these hardened shells over sensitive items.
Note that most of these techniques do not require the state. Come on guys, we really can’t think of a way around this?
Patents are supposed to be monopolies given to companies over a particular invention or technological innovation. The rationale is that since the company put money into research and technology, they should be rewarded for it. Can/ should there be patents in an ancap society? The argument is that patents retard technological progress.
Money put into Research and Development in not new products is money risked. Companies will always act to minimize their risk and therefore, I would not be surprised of companies employed methods meant to protect their technology. This, like everything else being discussed, would be accomplished through market means and not court means or law.
Even with an effective patent system, a company can just purchase a license and use the technology.
Still the patent concept could be pushed by companies that want to do business in given area. It would be up to the company to think of ways to implement the patent system, and it would be up to th population to resist any measures that company took by boycott or active resistance if those actions were out of line with the wishes of the community.
Why are we pretending like it works anyway? One minor change and under patent it is literally a different product. In fact, many companies now opt for the “patent pending” options since it is cheaper and less convoluted.
Right here, in this country, with a very powerful IP body of law in place and you still see knockoffs and cheap versions of popular products. In fact in any given grocery store or pharmacy you will see the imitation product RIGTHT NEXT TO THE NAME BRAND with a phrase on it “try this if you like Noxema”, for example. We see al kinds of iPod clones, iPad clones, luxury good clones, even pharmaceutical drug clones on the market legitimately and illegitimately. Seriously, try Chinatown in NYC.
If it can’t be imposed now, worrying about it in an ancap society is a complete waste of time. The market will determine if such rules emerge and how they emerge and you as the consumer, will have the final vote, with your money, on whether or not they should continue their practices. A company trying to protect its investment through market means is not in violation of some principle.
Someone creates a song, book, work of art, picture, or other form of print or digital media. Since I can use it without depriving them of their use of it, how can it be considered property?
The question, of course, has to do with compensation paid to the people who put time and effort into producing it.
In practical sense, producers who do not invest in protection measures on their productions have their media spread around. This is not necessarily bad if the producer’s name is on the work. Also, many people release their work for free and ask people to donate or pay if they like the product to support it.
Again, companies can handle this without a state and without appealing to some higher principle. Similar to how each individual in an ancap society would be free to purchase how much or how little security they want, so to would companies be free to implement as few or as many copyright like measures as they see fit according to their revenue model.
If a company had a donation or honor based revenue model, they wouldn’t invest a lot into this area. If a company had a subscription or pay per view model, they might.
Today these issues are handled by technology and contracts with distributors and consumers.
Digital Rights Management (DRM)
DRM is a way of controlling distribution of electronic products. Some products require an internet connection and verification that the user has bought the product. There could be parts of the file that lock it and need a special key to be unlocked or decoded.
Some companies that sell software can encrypt or lock their software via encryption algorithm or cd keys. There are many other ways that I am sure I don’t even know about that companies COULD employ. Sometimes companies just take the losses because employing these measures complicates compatibility issues and alienates customers.
Companies can make purchase of a product conditional. A well-known example of this would be car sales. Many car dealers have a clause in a purchase contract that says if the user makes any unauthorized changes the warranty is voided.
Every book sold, say, in Barnes and Noble has a copy right on it, it says if you buy this book, you agree to not copy it without the author’s or publisher’s permission. I don’t see why this couldn’t be replaced with a private agreement.
Every tape has the now cliché FBI warning that says by purchasing this tape you agree only to use it for personal consumption.
If you join a porn site, and they distribute video or photos to you digitally, they may have a lengthy ‘terms of service’ agreement where they say you agree not to rip the content off the site, etc. etc.
Manufacturers can be choosey about where they allow their products to be sold. They may only sell to distributions with a certain reputation for honesty. They may only sell to distributors who have controls on content. For example, Gucci will not sell its products to just any retailer; you have to meet several requirements.
When manufacturers of counterfeit goods try to sell in legitimate stores they are turned away. Hence, you have places like Chinatown where these goods are sold in back alleys, and the consumer takes risks for lower prices
This is not abstract, this is current. It’s not implicit, there’s an explicit notice on these products when they are distributed.
If you, as a producer, release a product with no such conditions, or have no technical protections for it, then you open yourself up for replication.
Haven’t you ever seen an agreement to join or use a website? Ever read them? That is an explicit agreement to act a certain way. In these agreements you can agree to be held liable if you are caught leeching content. This would usually result in a ban, at the very least.
Again, even with all these measures and a full body of IP law under a state at full power, how well does this work? P2P anyone? If you’re primarily worried about getting free stuff under the guise of being against IP in principle, you won’t be disappointed in an ancap society.
In summary, all of these intellectual property issues can be determined by company policies, contracts with distributors and consumers, and technological means of content control and distribution. It is not a matter of what a government does, it is a matter of consumer and company choice in determining what type of products and services to offer.
It is not really a subject for debate from a principled point of view. It is a subject for someone in a board room to bring up when discussing the revenue model that will be followed when selling a new program they have developed.
“…in U.S. law, an amalgam of principles embodied in the federal Constitution or recognized by courts or lawmaking bodies concerning what Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis described in 1890 as “the right to be left alone.” The right of privacy is a legal concept in both the law of torts and U.S. constitutional law. The tort concept is of 19th-century origin. Subject to limitations of public policy, it asserts a right of persons to recover damages or obtain injunctive relief for unjustifiable invasions of privacy prompted by motives of gain, curiosity, or malice. In torts law, privacy is a right not to be disturbed emotionally by conduct designed to subject the victim to great tensions by baring his intimate life and affairs to public view or by humiliating and annoying invasions of his solitude.”
“privacy, rights of.” Encyclopædia Britannica. Encyclopædia Britannica Ultimate Reference Suite. Chicago: Encyclopædia Britannica, 2011.
Can privacy be enforced in an ancap community!? But no one was harmed or aggressed against by me peeping! Do people have a right to privacy and how is it enforced?
As a practical matter, whenever you are there are privacy statutes. Generally, whatever you do in plain view is fair game and whatever you do inside with your curtains drawn and your door closed is your own business. In terms of communications, security of your phone and internet communications is between you and your company. There are many prompts on the internet that let you know when information can be easily intercepted. Even in emails, I see messages such as “this message is unsecure and may be intercepted by a third party” Or When leaving a secure website you might see “you are now leaving a secure site” etc.
Generally, Bank and insurance and other companies that handle personal information will likely have privacy agreements with you.
In terms of prying behavior, all of this can be done with a code of etiquette. People forming a community can easily agree on what is and is not considered ‘spying’, put it in writing, and allow people to agree, disagree, or offer rebuttals. The agreement becomes the basis of enforcement (not necessarily violent). In terms of technology, encrypt your shit if you want to keep it secret. This is not a difficult issue.
“condition in which one human being was owned by another. A slave was considered by law as property, or chattel, and was deprived of most of the rights ordinarily held by free persons.
There is no consensus on what a slave was or on how the institution of slavery should be defined. Nevertheless, there is general agreement among historians, anthropologists, economists, sociologists, and others who study slavery that most of the following characteristics should be present in order to term a person a slave. The slave was a species of property; thus, he belonged to someone else. In some societies slaves were considered movable property, in others immovable property, like real estate. They were objects of the law, not its subjects. Thus, like an ox or an ax, the slave was not ordinarily held responsible for what he did. He was not personally liable for torts or contracts. The slave usually had few rights and always fewer than his owner, but there were not many societies in which he had absolutely none. As there are limits in most societies on the extent to which animals may be abused, so there were limits in most societies on how much a slave could be abused. The slave was removed from lines of natal descent. Legally and often socially he had no kin. No relatives could stand up for his rights or get vengeance for him. As an “outsider,” “marginal individual,” or “socially dead person” in the society where he was enslaved, his rights to participate in political decision making and other social activities were fewer than those enjoyed by his owner. The product of a slave’s labour could be claimed by someone else, who also frequently had the right to control his physical reproduction.
Slavery was a form of dependent labour performed by a nonfamily member. The slave was deprived of personal liberty and the right to move about geographically as he desired. There were likely to be limits on his capacity to make choices with regard to his occupation and sexual partners as well. Slavery was usually, but not always, involuntary. If not all of these characterizations in their most restrictive forms applied to a slave, the slave regime in that place is likely to be characterized as “mild”; if almost all of them did, then it ordinarily would be characterized as ‘severe.’ “
“Slaves were generated in many ways…Another source of slavery was self-sale, undertaken sometimes to obtain an elite position, sometimes to escape destitution.”
If you own yourself can you sell yourself? What about slavery and slaves and stuff?
Of course people can contract to enslave themselves. The entire basis of contract law is enforcing the agreement two parties had at a given point in time in the past, regardless of how it changes in the future.
And so contracting, receiving consideration, and then saying woops I change my mind breaks the contract.
Can you shoot him for it? Can you shoot the evil slaveholder in the face because “slavery is wrong” even if all his slaves were in a Somali refugee camp before, eating shit, and they sold themselves to him in order to rescue themselves and their families and now they are in a mansion and works a few hours a day and are off the rest of the time. If I did this you high and mighty moral types want to shoot me and “set my slaves free” is that right? Even though they voluntarily agreed to do my bidding in exchange for a better quality of life?
Well look, if bill gates would give me 2 million dollars I’d happily become his slave for a while. The entire idea of employment is based upon work and obedience in exchange for consideration. I see no reason why I couldn’t agree to be restricted to his service exclusively by just agreeing to it as a term.
Whatever someone contracts to do with their property at the time they make a contract is binging so long as they do it with full consent of all parties directly physically affected. Furthermore, all wise contracts have enforcement clauses and default clauses. If the person thinks that death is an acceptable default term then so be it. The very point of a contract is to enforce future behavior according to a past agreement. It is the imposition of the will frozen in time. A contract IS your will, only in the past, and you have foregone the ability to change your mind without consequences in the future. The questions is can those consequence involve physical punishment and the answer is yes. Just changing your mind doesn’t mean a contract is null and void.
This happens now… as an example- US soldiers sign a contract saying that if they commit treason they will be punished severely, up to and including death. At the time they carry out the sentence, their mind may have changed, but so long as the other party gave them consideration the contract is binding. Soldiers are often tempted to change their minds, say, in the midst of a tough battle. Just because someone’s will changes does not mean their obligation changes. Furthermore, deserting the obligation has consequences, all of which are spelled out explicitly in the terms of the agreement.
As an aside, it annoys me to no end when these soldiers go fishing for sympathy as if they weren’t repeatedly explained all the ins and out of the agreement. As if their friends and family didn’t beg them not to go. As if I am supposed to feel sorry for them when they get blown apart knowingly invading someone’s country. Then they get on TV and act surprised and claim they were misled YEAH OK. If anyone, I feel sorry for the goat herder whose family you just massacred.
What if a state arises in a free territory?
GO Libya on them. Do to them what the Libyan people did to ghaddafi and his family. It really is that simple. Government is force. PERIOD. If you really believe this statement, then you understand that there isn’t any other way to get rid of them in a society that has the masses against a government’s rule. This solution is not practical under current conditions here and would not be effective, but in an ancap society, just shoot the fuckers.
What about WMDs?
What about them? A landlord can write one clause and ban all dogs from a property. There are communities that only allow 55+ people to buy houses. Is there no such thing as a weapons free clause? Can one not contracts to prohibit certain dangerous items or behavior? How is this even a legitimate question?
Killing, Assisted Suicide.
Could you contract to kill someone? OF course you could! There are such things as contract killers or contract thieves. Would I recommend it? NO. Who the hell is going to enforce that contract? It would not be difficult for a court to say “We will not honor contracts involving hits”. I am not saying it is impossible, it has happened in the past, but given the risks involved, it would be extremely dangerous.
Could you voluntarily have someone kill you? Yes. Assisted Suicide. If you own your life you can end your life. Certainly if you can kill yourself, you can sell yourself into slavery. Which is worse from the perspective of continued survival and the expression of will?
What about equality without the government? Who would make sure we are all treated the same? I have a question: why are supposed ancaps posing questions form a statist paradigm.
Equality can have a few meanings. Here are two common ones. One definition is based on the idea that everyone has the same abilities and therefore should receive the same rewards. This is more commonly known as egalitarianism. Fuck that shit. Everyone is different and has different skills and abilities. Nobody owes you anything for existing. The poor and other disenfranchised groups people always chime on about will be helped by people who actually contribute time, money, and jobs.
The other definition is based upon the desire that discriminating in contracts, business agreements, ownership of property, and recognition of personhood is not based solely on age, race, sex, and other biological factors. I would support this definition and find it a desirable trait in the people in a community I would form. I have to stress, you don’t necessarily pass some law or act. You find people who have these values and exclude people who are racist, sexist, etc.
Now, COULD there be a community of ancaps that says, “we won’t let any niggers in our community cuz they iz bad!” *spit*
Yes. Just because a group of people forming a community can form contracts or policies that are racist, doesn’t mean they SHOULD do it.
It also doesn’t mean that you, on the outside, need to interact with them.
What does practicing equality, as defined, mean? No mens and womens bathrooms? No women only fitness clubs? No, it means that people will be free to associate with who they want and just like life now, people should pick their friends carefully based on a desirable character as it might not be wise to trust someone simply because they are the same color as you. People should also be conscious of what businesses they patronize.
Let us face the fact also, that despite our designs, some of these discriminating types will get through and, even if due to superior looks, richness, or superior prestige, some people will get preferential treatment. Nepotism(family favoritism) and cronyism(favoring friends) will persist EVEN THOUGH one can try to filter out people who engage in these practices. Accept the fact that life is unfair.
I wasn’t going to talk about this but I GUESS some people who follow the NAP argue that the NAP extends to animals somehow. Arguably, vegetarians have an even lower impact on the world than libertarian voters. I have seen people try to argue that ancaps should adopt vegetarianism for some reason. I won’t spend much time with this one.
Practically, if it is really that important to you that the people around you not eat meat, find or found a vegetarian enclave OR, you live with the fact that some people might decide to eat different things. I spoke in an earlier post about being able to determine what differences are arbitrary and what differences are material. Still, people who feel so strongly that eating a burger is murder that they will proselytize all day long probably should not be in a meat eating enclave.
Can people be prevented from abusing animals? Should they be? Free market : free range, orgs that watch different companies, This is somewhat related to the vegetarianism.
Animal cruelty, when brought up as an issue, assumes the person cares about animals in the first place. It might hurt your feelings that ‘so and so’ smacks his cat around every now and then. Or perhaps he starves his dog in his yard or something. The question comes down to – Can you shoot him for it without legal recourse?
This is a similar answer to the issues above: it depends. If you are an animal lover you can mind your own animals however you want. Furthermore, if you are setting up a charter for an ancap city, for instance, you can try to get some kind of animal cruelty issue instated. If these protections were not agreed upon beforehand And the animals isn’t yours, then any action you take to stop whatever you determine is abuse would be at your own risk. This is up to the preferences of the group. Personally I don’t care about animals and I view animals as the property of their masters.
What about Child violence? How about child porn? What about schooling? WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDREN?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Awwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww :’(
When all else fails, when all propaganda fails, when all arguments fail, the powers that be can always fall back on one fool proof argument to justify their murder and theft : it’s for the good of the children. It seems like a large part of the freedom movement has fallen for this bullshit excuse to control other people’s lives.
Even hardcore super principled types think its k to initiate force for the sake of child protection. REALLY now?
All someone ever has to do is say a child is in danger and all of a sudden all rights are thrown out the window and all transgressions are forgiven. It’s interesting, the very same people that are so principled that they won’t even get a driver’s license and are therefore in and out of jail, will easily support initiations of force against parents they deem irresponsible.
First of all, please realize that the government will claim to care for and solve any problem you care about in order to emotionally manipulate you into supporting it.
People die all the time, some of them are children, furthermore, from a perspective of knowledge, experience, skills, friendships, and families, and awareness of the world, an adult’s death is far more costly than a child’s death, especially a young child. Stop this Hollywood, ‘innocent women and children as sacred’ fairytale bullshit everyone is sold about children being special. Children are easy to make and replace , especially the young ones.
People are abused all the time. Children getting abused is not anything special. Grown men and women crawl back into relationships where they are smacked and punished every night. That’s their fucking problem. Do I agree with it? No. Can you take my property under the guise of combating it? No.
Children are like the pets of their parents, their property and their responsibility. This is primarily because of dependency and not necessarily an age number. Just because something came out of your vagina doesn’t mean that I have to feed it, protect it, care for it, clothe it, clean it, teach it, whatever, unless I explicitly agreed to beforehand.
One of the basic components of the concept of freedom is not having any positive responsibilities that are not voluntary.
If you don’t want a kid, there are options available to you other than locking it in your closet and putting cigarettes out on it:
- Male and Female birth control
- Adoption (a pretty term for selling)
- If you can’t afford to support it you can always appeal for charity if she can’t afford to support the child.
- Orphans- Something called god parents- informal parental structure that takes over in case of parental death or inability to provide care, this happens all the time.
- Grand Parents- many people in lower class families are raised by their grand parents if their parents are bums
I can see the objections to initiating force to ‘save the children’ already: Children are helpless, it’s not their fault, what if it was dying in the street blah blah blah. Some of these people who are so staunchly against the social contract will shamelessly invoke the ‘it takes a village to raise a child’ bullshit or the ‘children are commonly owned by society and are the future’ or some other socialist argument for central policing of child rearing. Part of living free, to me, is to be brutally realistic. Reality is harsh. If you let your emotions alter your judgment you will be manipulated. Let me say again, if the only thing you support initiating force for is children you bet that the state or some group looking to become the state will use that as an excuse to gain power.
Let me make it clear, I don’t give a FUCK about what happens to your kids. Why should I? They are excuses to get into my pocket. Personally, MY KIDS will be well fed and clothed, protected, and nurtured to the best of my ability, and I will look out for the kids of my friends and family and anyone in a social organization (like a militia, neighborhood assoc., or club) with me should they desire it. If you let your kids starve it’s your fucking problem.
I am so tired of this showy moral outrage at ‘child abuse’.
OK, so I’m a bad person now. Well, I can go on and on about the bloated, welfare rolled, baby machines who are ignorant, smoke, drink, fuck, and curse all day, who I am working to support, and who I don’t even get to bone. If eliminating these trashy whores from my community means that some of their kids have to starve OH WELL. I can show you my school taxes or my county taxes that go to pay for their children’s government daycare and their food stamps and rent.
There’s another argument for policing parenting. The argument is that bad parenting leads to bad adults and increases crime. Maybe his kids will become some kind of thief or something? Shoot the fucker when he commits an act of violence. That’s it. It sounds cold, but it is emotions that are primarily exploited by the state and other institutions. If some guy is crawling through my window I will not ask him about his fucking childhood. The fact that you had a bad childhood is tragic, although I won’t pretend to be moved. Deal with it some other way. Furthermore, I personally know many people who had shitty childhoods and are not criminals nor have ever been criminals. Not all people deal with stress by stealing, killing, raping, or breaking shit.
So, to return to the question of what to do about child abuse, if Jim is starving his kid in a closet, can you break in and take the kid without recourse? What if he’s making bunny movies?
Well it depends, doesn’t it? What rules are in play. Presumably Jim does not exist in a vacuum but in a community of some sort. Has he agreed to any codes of behavior? Who does Jim know. Will Jim resist. If you do it, do it because you think you need to save the children and just admit you are using the same excuse the state does and also admit that you want to do it because it makes you feel better. It hurts your feelings to think that some kids is being hurt, even though if you ‘save this kid’ there are 1 million more in worse condition you do nothing about.
Don’t pretend that breaking into someone’s house who did nothing TO YOU and stealing his kid is not an aggressive action. Instead of trying to claim to be in agreement with a principle of not initiating force, just admit that you are initiating force because your feelings are hurt.
I would not collaborate with anyone who I knew engaged in pedophilia. Having some kind of porn doesn’t really phase me as much as engaging in violent acts. Furthermore, absent some clause in a community charter defining ‘consent’, I would not support force to stop it. It sounds bad, but I really don’t care. Look, right now somewhere in Bangkok some kid is being fucked because he was sold into the sex trade by his parents. Kids get fucked all over the world all the time in REALITY. Not my problem. I don’t like it, and I don’t support it, but it simply is not within my power to stop it nor is it in my interests to go out of my way to stop it. If I learn about it, you can bet I am going to avoid any dealings with those people. They are going nowhere near my children. If a group has some clause in a charter they agreed to in order to found a community for stopping slavery or rape, and it can be shown these children did not consent, then yes based on the charter, I would gladly assault the child playboy mansion. Other than that as long as they are not my children or the children of anyone I know it’s unfortunate, but not my problem.
If someone is beating someone else in the street, you have no idea what is going on there. If someone takes something out of someone’s purse, you have no idea what is going on there. To get involved in a state of ignorance puts you at risk.
Now as a practical matter, If I Choose to have children, I might move to a more child friendly area, as many people do today…(save up and buy a house in the suburbs or in a bigger house with good schools and low crime) and this common practice would likely continue. For example, people who plan to have children could very well indeed go to a community where there were assurances against child abuse and some kind of safety net for children. Good for you.
If no such agreement exists, there are no grounds for initiating force to ‘save the children’.
Any community I am with will cover all this shit is some form of agreement if it’s a concern. If it isn’t a concern, it’s not a problem.
Does voting violate some sacred non-aggression principle? Is voting a form of aggression?
Not when there’s a gun to your head, no. We have already said that the NAP only counts when you have choice. You don’t have a choice whether or not to follow what the politicians say and therefore voting is a valid form of self-defense. Whether what you vote for passes or fails, you are not the one enforcing anything. And furthermore, to the extend the voters on the other side were seeking to fuck you with their vote, fuck them.
We (the people in the freedom movement subject to the state) are not in a voluntary arrangement. We are constantly being aggressed against which means the NAP, if you choose to follow it, is null and void. Even in your sleep, the state is stealing your money through inflation. You wake up and literally overnight your money is worth less in terms of milk, gas, eggs, and other staples of existence. That alone would be grounds for disregarding the NAP, never mind all of the other things we suffer through up to and including physical assault at the hands of pigs.
I might have said this elsewhere, but in the event that you are going to be raped and you can choose the size of the cock, choose a smaller cock. Local elections would probably be easier to influence, and likely be cheaper to bribe …erm I mean lobby.
Look, I can care less about fireworks. But every year around the same time, the local government decides to literally burn some of the money they steal from me in a light show. (At the very least, one day a year it is apparent that my money goes up in smoke.)Whether 10 or 1,000 people show up they hold the show. Going to the show doesn’t mean I support it, it’s something that is going to happen regardless of my participation and my input does not count. Therefore, I might as well try to make the best of it and get as much benefit from it as possible. ( I am referring to fireworks on July 4th…) I can’t see how this is somehow unprincipled. I do not have the militia it would take to bomb city hall to ruble and track down all the “public servants” and their families and therefore I suck it up and play ball. (hypothetically speaking of course, I would never dream of doing this in real life…) In fact, they don’t even publish when the town hall meetings are so I can’t even go complain, and even if I could it would change nothing. There’s not even a token vote!
If I could go on welfare (which I can’t) I would, if only to reclaim some of the money they have stolen from me in the past. I am not concerned with the impact my participation, if any, in the state has on the ‘mass man’ as they are mindless lemmings who openly support the state.
“Justice”, like all other human endeavors is imperfect. Idealism, logic, the scientific method, reason, all of these are great tools and concepts but are imperfect. Accept the fact that there will be some injustice in the world based on whatever definition you come up with.
I find something intellectually dishonest about turning preferences into principles. Most moral arguments stem from the fact that the people that are making the argument find something morally reprehensible and want to make a rule against it. However, because they realize that law is arbitrary and they have already openly denounced it, they have to use some other tactic to get other people to behave the way they want. To do this, they make up principles instead and say they apply in all times and all places in the universe. The answer is not a principle, the answer is people, finding people who also find whatever it is you find morally reprehensible and working within that group.
Whenever someone states a principle, there’s usually an ulterior motive behind it… It’s never, animals are people… that’s my opinion. Its animals are people THEREFORE, you can’t eat meat, shut down all slaughter houses, stop animal testing and genetic experiments, blah blah blah. It’s never violence against children is wrong, so I won’t hit my kids,. Its violence against children is wrong so we need ……. CPS, schools, raids, mandatory vaccines, school board taxes, ect ect ect.
There are Four easy solutions to all of the issues mentioned and many more that I am sure will be brought up in the future:
Planning, Contract, Etiquette, Free market
Plan where you want to go, what kind of people you want to be around. Plan out what rules the society will abide by.
Use contracts to record the intent of agreements made between parties. Lay out what happens if and when these contracts are broken. Spell out the terms clearly.
Etiquette: Have the people in your community agree to behave a certain way around other people in order to minimize conflict.
Free Market: That thing that allows companies and groups to emerge in order to solve problems people face. The free association of talented and smart individuals and the exchange of ideas as applied to companies competing to solve problems in the most efficient way might be able to resolves some of these issues. If a company can’t solve something, people will group up and figure it out.
Accept what you do and do not have control over.
- You could not stop Obamacare
- You cannot stop any war with Iran or any other nation
- You cannot stop the welfare state from expanding
- You cannot stop the fed from expanding the money supply
- You cannot stop defaults, bailouts, CISPA, or any other act they do
- You cannot stop the government form borrowing money
- You can’t even stop some pig from harassing you tomorrow, if he so chose
All of these things are outside of your control and possibly even influence. No amount of voting, marching, or civil disobedience people with your political set can do will change anything.
Therefore, do something with that which you CAN control:
- You can control how you apply your skills and to what end
- You can control what new skills you put time into learning
- You can control who you interact with
- You can control income after taxes
- You can control what business you invest in
- You can control what you buy and who you patronize.
- You can control where you live and how you behave.
- You can control your diet, physical training, and conditioning
Even if you wanted to try to resist the government, how are you going to do this effectively when isolated and unorganized with little or no money? It is a fantasy.
What practical measures and YOU going to take to improve life for YOURSELF.
A business professor told me once”
“ A dream without resources is hallucination”
We were discussing business plans and business ideas, and he was trying to drive home the point that everyone can throw around lofty ideas and talk about fantastic arrangements, but at the end of the day, it takes money and manpower to put ideas into action.
The dream on an anarcho-capitalist territory, let alone an anarcho-capitalist world will forever remain a dream without resources. I do not believe that one can merely argue their way into a different set of circumstances.
My enclave idea is based upon entrepreneurship and community building.
You don’t need many people, and you don’t need to water down theory for the sake of membership. Even 2 or three people can start an enclave.
What is the primary difference between those who are successful, rich, and powerful and those who are not.
From reading many books about success, I have concluded that the primary determining factor for success is the ability for a group of people to network effectively and to leverage that network to gain advantages over local competitors.
In the corporate world, Interlocking Directorates are a key to power. In the government, the revolving door is an issue that allows companies to write and enforce law. (google ‘government revolving door’, and ‘interlocking directorates’)Many corporations own lots of competitor’s stocks. This is pervasive in the car industry and the banking industry, for example.
In short, difference between those with power and influence and those without it is the level of development of their organizational structure that enables them to bring resources to bear on problems when they arise.
For example, an endeavor with a dozen people, all generating income, and applying it towards a common project is far more likely to succeed than other similar endeavors with fewer investors.
The ability to organize is critical for any group that wants to make an impact on the world. Organizing is essentially the ability to gang up on your enemies. It is the lone wolf vs. the wolf pack. Even a super extraordinary lone wolf can be defeated by a below average wolf pack working together.
Until and unless the people in a given movement are able to network in order to share capital and ideas and exert influence, they will always be marginalized.
Let’s suppose tomorrow, some libertarian demigod solved all of the logical and argumentative issues definitively. Let us further His/Her arguments were irrefutable.
- Statist still wouldn’t listen to your shit.
- Tax beneficiaries aren’t going to give up their checks.
- Soldiers and cops are not going to just drop their guns.
- Bloods and Crips are not going to kiss and make up.
- Yelling “appeal to authority fallacy!” At a cop does nothing to stop his baton.
Do you think Peter Theil, Doug Casey, and Jeff Berwich would have been able to make their money if they didn’t use corporations, exploit tax law, and use legitimate business practices?
I think it is high time for ancaps to try to organize into coherent, well-structured business groups and to put some capitalism into practice. Feel free to join the Forum if you are actually ready to do something.