Daily Anarchist Forum

General Category => General Discussion => Topic started by: templariomaster on March 30, 2014, 06:20:22 AM



Title: A question
Post by: templariomaster on March 30, 2014, 06:20:22 AM
The last day a question went to my head.

 Lets say that by... the power of imagination I go as a president of my country and say "lets create ancapia!"s so I cut all taxes(efectively destroying the state) and create a social contract like the Shire society one so people can choose to be part of ancapia or not by voluntarly acepting the NAP.

But, what happens with those who dont signt the contract? They cant stay in ancapia since they reject it but no one can initiate force against them since the NAP is universal.

Note: Any fellow spaniard here?


Title: Re: A question
Post by: Syock on March 30, 2014, 10:10:40 AM
Why would they have to leave?  They just wouldn't have the institutional power to steal anymore.   


Title: Re: A question
Post by: templariomaster on March 30, 2014, 11:09:15 AM
But they dont accept the NAP as the most basic principle, so they dont accept to be part of ancapia therefore they cant live in it.

Thats because they're not accepting that they cant initiate force, or private property.


Title: Re: A question
Post by: Syock on March 30, 2014, 12:11:06 PM
But they dont accept the NAP as the most basic principle, so they dont accept to be part of ancapia therefore they cant live in it.

Thats because they're not accepting that they cant initiate force, or private property.

Why can they not live in it?  What do you expect to do with criminals that are born there, kick them out to sea?   People need not agree to the NAP.   They will just hit the reality of people defending themselves. 


Title: Re: A question
Post by: Batchain on March 30, 2014, 12:30:37 PM
I think you'll never get to an ancap society until you've got to the point where you don't need a contract for the non-aggression principle.  There's no point in getting people to sign a contract saying that they won't murder, rape, steal... If people are willing to do those things, they aren't going to abide by a contract anyways.  In a free society, where most people accept the non-aggression principal voluntarily of their own choosing, many people will have realized they need to protect their self ownership because there will always be *some* people willing to use force, and your person who doesn't believe in the non-aggression principal won't last very long.  Using violence and force is very dangerous.... unless you've convinced the person you're using force against that what you're doing is good... but at the point where most people understand and accept the non-aggression principal,  I'm thinking we'll all have woken up to that particular scam...


Title: Re: A question
Post by: Seth King on March 30, 2014, 01:00:37 PM
I think you'll never get to an ancap society until you've got to the point where you don't need a contract for the non-aggression principle.  There's no point in getting people to sign a contract saying that they won't murder, rape, steal... If people are willing to do those things, they aren't going to abide by a contract anyways.  In a free society, where most people accept the non-aggression principal voluntarily of their own choosing, many people will have realized they need to protect their self ownership because there will always be *some* people willing to use force, and your person who doesn't believe in the non-aggression principal won't last very long.  Using violence and force is very dangerous.... unless you've convinced the person you're using force against that what you're doing is good... but at the point where most people understand and accept the non-aggression principal,  I'm thinking we'll all have woken up to that particular scam...

Well said!


Title: Re: A question
Post by: Syock on March 30, 2014, 04:39:59 PM
...  I'm thinking we'll all have woken up to that particular scam...

You know what they say, a sucker is born every minute. 


Title: Re: A question
Post by: templariomaster on March 31, 2014, 07:49:57 AM
Ok I get it, people can be part of ancapia whether they accept a Shire contract or not.

The only rule is accepting the NAP as ancaps do even if you refuse to follow it(And is not even a rule as itself just a social conclusion).

This is because I havent ever heard about how to stablish an anarchocapitalism at early stages, when most of the people is still statist, libertarian socialist, comunist... and they actively reject ancapia.


Title: Re: A question
Post by: Syock on March 31, 2014, 11:01:41 AM
Ok I get it, people can be part of ancapia whether they accept a Shire contract or not.

Close, but it should read: "Ok I get it, people can be part of ancapia whether they accept the NAP or not."

I don't say this to be nice and follow the NAP myself.  I say this because it is the reality of human nature.  A lot of people like to think they are moral and peaceful, but they are not.  You just have to deal with them when they press the issue. 

We have had thousands of years recorded of people violating others in the worst of ways.  Crime pays or it wouldn't happen.  That equation needs to change.  People don't live long enough and breed too fast to have every individual come to a moral conclusion that will cause societal change.  They will however act on nature and attempt to determine what is best for them.  If the price of violating the NAP is too high, they won't do it.  That is what will cause people to accept the NAP.  Currently we have people violating it on a daily basis.  They don't even think of it that way.  It is just a part of life and society.  They don't think about the fact that they live in the largest racketeering schemes in the world.  They just want to be happy.  Ignorance is bliss.

The only rule is accepting the NAP as ancaps do even if you refuse to follow it(And is not even a rule as itself just a social conclusion).

Sorry, that doesn't make sense to me.  How do they accept it and refuse to follow it?  Isn't the refusal to follow it a rejection of it?


Title: Re: A question
Post by: templariomaster on March 31, 2014, 12:18:47 PM
I was trying to say, that non-ancaps should respect ancaps beliefs when they're in ancapia because even if they're are allowed to pass(because its not neccesary to make tolls for all roads in a private society)  they have to respect others property even if they come from a society of collective property because that would be initiation of force against others.

The NAP is for humans, not for other signers.



Title: Re: A question
Post by: Syock on March 31, 2014, 12:29:03 PM
The NAP is for humans, not for other signers.

Other species can write? 


Title: Re: A question
Post by: templariomaster on March 31, 2014, 12:46:34 PM
Im saying is universal but now that you ask

http://jkinnison475.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/elephant-painting-2.jpg

Art is a form of expression and identity.


Title: Re: A question
Post by: Syock on March 31, 2014, 12:54:29 PM
Im saying is universal but now that you ask

http://jkinnison475.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/elephant-painting-2.jpg

Art is a form of expression and identity.

You could also say a dog howling is music.  That doesn't mean they can understand and sign the NAP.  

I was trying to say, that non-ancaps should respect ancaps beliefs when they're in ancapia ...

They should, but to expect it would be risky.  Also, how would you keep them out?  I doubt an ancap society would be into border control. 


Title: Re: A question
Post by: templariomaster on March 31, 2014, 02:28:18 PM
Im saying is universal but now that you ask

http://jkinnison475.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/elephant-painting-2.jpg

Art is a form of expression and identity.

You could also say a dog howling is music.  That doesn't mean they can understand and sign the NAP.  

I was trying to say, that non-ancaps should respect ancaps beliefs when they're in ancapia ...

They should, but to expect it would be risky.  Also, how would you keep them out?  I doubt an ancap society would be into border control. 

1-It was a joke dammit.

2-I guess that or you cant because they are humans and you cant initiate force against them, just make the NAP so dangerous to violate that people will take care to read about it before entering and respecting it(and still there would be problems but thats why Im paying for weapons or private contractors right?)


Title: Re: A question
Post by: Montanarchist on March 31, 2014, 07:07:09 PM
The last day a question went to my head.

 Lets say that by... the power of imagination I go as a president of my country and say "lets create ancapia!"s so I cut all taxes(efectively destroying the state) and create a social contract like the Shire society one so people can choose to be part of ancapia or not by voluntarly acepting the NAP.

But, what happens with those who dont signt the contract? They cant stay in ancapia since they reject it but no one can initiate force against them since the NAP is universal.

Note: Any fellow spaniard here?

Most likely in my mind: the statists cannot grasp the concept of voluntary government or that nothing government gives you is free because you already paid taxes for it. They would throw some sort off occupy riot burning the property of free citizens who refused to join the new governments and communes they tried to organize (you better believe the Commies would be all over that chance) and it would all end with some statist country rolling in with tanks to "end the chaos" and "restore order" and "free the people".

One possibility though is if the state that ruled prior was a nuclear power or even just a large military power. What woul happen to the weapons? You can throw open a armory and start selling rifles, grenades, even RPGs and Tanks but the other states out there won't be to happy about ICBMs and Nuclear Subs on the market to the highest bidder.

Conversely if an organization exists (possibly included in your NAP contract) that uses the sellof of former government property to maintain the MAD systems of a former Nuclear State you could esentialy hold the world hostage and say "try to invade us statists, just try and find out what happens." There are problems there but I think working out something like that could get somewhere so long as supporting this group was voluntary and contract based. After all we don't oppose government, we oppose involuntary and coercive government.

Either way though I think whatever internal problems there are would normalize and dissipate when April rolls around and people realize they don't pay taxes anymore. People have notoriously short attention spans. The real threat to AnCapia is States. They will inevitably see AnCapia as either an opertunity to expand their influence into what in their minds is a Somalia-esqe black hole, or see it as a threat, a becon for disidents where anything is available, where freedom seeking people flock, and where businesses migrate en-mass. The economic exodus of corporate HQs and factories to an AnCap nation alone would cause enough economic instability to make most industrial nations shit their pants.

That's why we need a global revolution. Just as republicans and democrats hate eachother untill its time to talk two-party system, States fight eachother non-stop until there is a "hole in the map".


Title: Re: A question
Post by: Syock on March 31, 2014, 07:21:12 PM
Conversely if an organization exists (possibly included in your NAP contract) that uses the sellof of former government property to maintain the MAD systems of a former Nuclear State you could esentialy hold the world hostage and say "try to invade us statists, just try and find out what happens."

MAD is all but obsolete at this point.  There are automated defensive systems around the world that shoot them down. 


Title: Re: A question
Post by: Montanarchist on March 31, 2014, 07:58:01 PM
Conversely if an organization exists (possibly included in your NAP contract) that uses the sellof of former government property to maintain the MAD systems of a former Nuclear State you could esentialy hold the world hostage and say "try to invade us statists, just try and find out what happens."

MAD is all but obsolete at this point.  There are automated defensive systems around the world that shoot them down. 

You are absolutely wrong I'm afraid.


The sheer volume of ICBMs possesed by major nuclear powers far exceeds the capacity of defensive systems to handle. There are only three large scale ABM systems in the world with the majority of other AMB defence being short range interceptors who's performance is so poor that atleast a dozen are needed for them to be considered an effective counter for a single ICBM. Further, the advent of Multi-Warhead ICBMs has further outgunned defensive systems and Cold War tensions prevented the building of truly comprehensive and effective systems.

Even the most favorable estimates of defensive capeability still accept dozens of hits in a US-Vs-Russia Nuclear exchange with successive waves gaining higher hit rates as the supply of ABMs is drained. Nuclear Subs further as to the hit rate with their ability to strike suddenly from anywhere with a short fire to impact time and ability to remain hidden through initial salvos.

Even if a ABM is effective only one system in the world, the new and reletively small system put in by the US in Alaska, uses Kenetic missiles, with the rest being nuclear and still causing EMP and radiation. The US's Kenetic system covers a very limited area and has reletively few missiles. Similarly proposed laser built systems (and those few working ones not already scraped) still leave a mass of radioactive debris falling to earth.

MAD is alive and well.  Who the hell told you otherwise?


Title: Re: A question
Post by: Syock on March 31, 2014, 09:50:31 PM
The sheer volume of ICBMs possesed by major nuclear powers ...

You are jumping between theoretical and actual.  I am not going to go in depth on the actual as it is irrelevant to this thread.

The tech to defend is there, and actually has been for decades in various forms.  The political will... not so much. 

If we were making an ancap society, we wouldn't have the arsenal of a big nuclear state.  The funding would be lacking because most people do not like nukes.  We would be the rogue nation they are all hopped up about.  We would be the biggest target in the world.  Whatever we have wouldn't be enough to defeat their existing meager defenses (making MAD obsolete), would be immoral (if you care about that), and amazing propaganda for governments around the world.  Personally I would abandon a nuclear ancap ASAP, and never would financially support it in the first place. 



Title: Re: A question
Post by: Montanarchist on April 01, 2014, 12:05:09 AM
The sheer volume of ICBMs possesed by major nuclear powers ...

You are jumping between theoretical and actual.  I am not going to go in depth on the actual as it is irrelevant to this thread.

The tech to defend is there, and actually has been for decades in various forms.  The political will... not so much. 

If we were making an ancap society, we wouldn't have the arsenal of a big nuclear state.  The funding would be lacking because most people do not like nukes.  We would be the rogue nation they are all hopped up about.  We would be the biggest target in the world.  Whatever we have wouldn't be enough to defeat their existing meager defenses (making MAD obsolete), would be immoral (if you care about that), and amazing propaganda for governments around the world.  Personally I would abandon a nuclear ancap ASAP, and never would financially support it in the first place. 



Your making a theoretical leap too by assuming we would have few ICBMs. If it was a uprising of the people a committed group could make sure to capture our nuclear arsenal. There could potentially even be an uprising or mutiny in the final days. We know the location of silos, why couldn't we take them. Then if any nation began an invasion we threaten to turn them lose. It dosnt matter what the world thinks there is no forgien policy. What I'm saying is nukes are the ultimate trump card, the thing that makes world oppinion irrelivant. Should you use nukes? Fuck no casualties of civilians would be massive. there is no way to ever justify using those things, but they don't know we won't. Those people's fear of anarchism may be puffed up by the press but atleast anarchism will exist.

Rather than figuring out how to fight as an anarchist nation just prevent the fights in the first place. All the statists care about is not losing what they have and in a nuclear war everyone loses.


Title: Re: A question
Post by: Syock on April 01, 2014, 03:37:40 AM
Your making a theoretical leap too by assuming we would have few ICBMs. If it was a uprising of the people a committed group could make sure to capture our nuclear arsenal. There could potentially even be an uprising or mutiny in the final days. We know the location of silos, why couldn't we take them. Then if any nation began an invasion we threaten to turn them lose. It dosnt matter what the world thinks there is no forgien policy. What I'm saying is nukes are the ultimate trump card, the thing that makes world oppinion irrelivant. Should you use nukes? Fuck no casualties of civilians would be massive. there is no way to ever justify using those things, but they don't know we won't. Those people's fear of anarchism may be puffed up by the press but atleast anarchism will exist.

Rather than figuring out how to fight as an anarchist nation just prevent the fights in the first place. All the statists care about is not losing what they have and in a nuclear war everyone loses.

I never said we wouldn't have access to them.  I am saying almost no one would pay for them, to keep them operational.  It kind of does matter what the world thinks.  Not what the politicians think, but what the individuals think.  If you ever want the threat of the state to go away, you are not going to do it by scaring the world into embracing government nukes to shoot you with.  We should lead by positive example, rather than looking like a xenophobic hostile place.  

Lots of countries survive just fine without nukes, or even a military.  They are only needed if you are being a bully in the world.  You said it yourself that you would never use them.  They are an offensive weapon in every sense of the term.  We would be better served financially and morally with a defensive setup and just tell the world that their nukes represent.  They are just an atrocity waiting to happen.  

Even if you had them, and the will to use them, you can't.  Even if no one returned fire, the ancaps themselves would take you out.  The enemy could still invade.  All that money would have gone down the toilet.  

How is this for a solution?  You get your nukes and threaten the world.  I'll move somewhere that won't get nuked.  New Zealand seems like a cool place. 


Title: Re: A question
Post by: Montanarchist on April 01, 2014, 11:23:35 AM
It's an intimidation thing. If noone moves to invade then never bring up nukes of our little militia group who now controls them. But if someone comes the threat should atleast be made against his troops not necisarily his city's. as I said you could never use them, they are for intimidating people into leaving you alone. I understand what your saying and yes it makes sense but I think maintaining an existing Ancap system is worth being sneered in the Statist media like we already would be. Eventually the truth about the freedom and economic might of this country would bring people around. Everyone would be stashing their savings there, investing, building factories, ect without a government to tax and slow growth. We only need the nukes untill we reach the point of being economically indespensible to the world. That is why the US andChina can't fight, they are tied to the hip. With Ancapland full of their Swiss bank accounts and factories and investments forgien stateists will be in a similar position to the US now with China. Once that point comes, make a public show of disarming the nukes. They are only a weapon of intimidation to ensure the revolution survives long enough to fully establish an Ancap society without interference.


Title: Re: A question
Post by: Syock on April 01, 2014, 12:50:12 PM
It's an intimidation thing.

Oh, I got that from the first time you posted.  I think it is an incredibly dangerous bluff though.  To top it off, you would be diverting resources from an actual defense to try it. 


Title: Re: A question
Post by: Batchain on April 01, 2014, 01:32:53 PM

I never said we wouldn't have access to them.  I am saying almost no one would pay for them, to keep them operational.  It kind of does matter what the world thinks.  Not what the politicians think, but what the individuals think.  If you ever want the threat of the state to go away, you are not going to do it by scaring the world into embracing government nukes to shoot you with.  We should lead by positive example, rather than looking like a xenophobic hostile place.  

Lots of countries survive just fine without nukes, or even a military.  They are only needed if you are being a bully in the world.  You said it yourself that you would never use them.  They are an offensive weapon in every sense of the term.  We would be better served financially and morally with a defensive setup and just tell the world that their nukes represent.  They are just an atrocity waiting to happen.  

Even if you had them, and the will to use them, you can't.  Even if no one returned fire, the ancaps themselves would take you out.  The enemy could still invade.  All that money would have gone down the toilet.  

How is this for a solution?  You get your nukes and threaten the world.  I'll move somewhere that won't get nuked.  New Zealand seems like a cool place. 

I very much agree with everything said here.
 
And I wanted to add... when it comes to the intimidation factor, citizens of other countries might not know we aren't willing to use nukes... but I don't think the rulers are that stupid... What's to stop them from false flagging by nuking their own people, and blaming us in order to inspire them to fight us?

In this hypothetical scenario, I'll be putting my money toward any organization that wants to take the nukes, disassemble them, make something productive out of the scrap, and have a massive marketing campaign to the world that says something like, "Peaceful people don't destroy, they create.... come help us make things!  All peaceful people of the world are welcome here!".   


Title: Re: A question
Post by: MAM on April 01, 2014, 05:33:33 PM
I can see using nuclear but if we did we'd have to use something like Thorium as fuel.

If you're going to acquire nukes you have to be willing to use them, there can be no idle threats.

Syock is right. If you don't have nukes right now you probably aren't going to get them, trying to will put a huge target on your back.

Governments have teams and agencies dedicated to preventing the proliferation of nukes.


Title: Re: A question
Post by: kelvinwo on May 10, 2014, 09:41:50 AM
Why they can not live there?


Title: Re: A question
Post by: Syock on May 10, 2014, 10:04:46 AM
Why they can not live there?

Why who can not live where?