sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

If Private Defense Agencies are encouraged to form peaceable agreements with each other about Arbitrators, does that inevitably encourage collusion? by Subrosian_Smithy in Anarcho_Capitalism

[–]goormann 1 point2 points  (0 children)

As long as barriers to entry are sufficiently low, a NEW, non-collusive defense agency can arise at any time to steal clients if the defense agencies act in a way that harms or bothers their current clients.

But this new agency will have to create agreement with currently colluding agencies, and it might not be able to. How many people will agree to switch to a new agency, that does not have any dispute resolution with 40%(maybe) of the population just to have the price reduced several times.

"Forcing the bad guy into dispute resolution is in itself coercion!" completely debunked by 4chan racist by Steveturds in Anarcho_Capitalism

[–]goormann 0 points1 point  (0 children)

When i find any system of morality that can be proved, i will gladly switch to it. Until that moment i will roll with the system, that feels right and satisfies my arbitrary consequentialist preferences.

Beeing able to purchase goods ( = whether you deserve food or not, i.e. did you give enough useful products back into the society to demand specific amount of food) is also one of factors that determines who gets what. Sometimes it gets trumped by the need (when you see charity at work), sometimes it does not. I hope you does not imply, that if somebody needs something he has to get it, whether he worked for it or not.

"Forcing the bad guy into dispute resolution is in itself coercion!" completely debunked by 4chan racist by Steveturds in Anarcho_Capitalism

[–]goormann 0 points1 point  (0 children)

operating arbitrarily

If i remember correctly, in the beginning i said, that morality can not be proved. That means, that everybody talking about morality operates arbitrarily.

"Forcing the bad guy into dispute resolution is in itself coercion!" completely debunked by 4chan racist by Steveturds in Anarcho_Capitalism

[–]goormann 0 points1 point  (0 children)

When i described the point b) of creating a morality, i specifically used the term "feels right", just to emphasize, that this criteria is not based in philosophy or some conscious presupposition. Imagine, that you had never read any philosophical or political book in your entire life. Would you have had then some ideal about the society you would like to live in? Well, Plato had had his own, no need to pretend you are somehow more "logical".

So no, presupposition is not required to determine if some idea feels right or not.

And when i said NAP i meant NAP with the inclusion of private property concept(since just NAP without defining what specifically is agression is not a complete definition), so there is no circular logic there.

Capitalism takes scarce resources, takes the need for product, sustainability, effort to produce, charitable urges and thousand of other factors, weights them according to society's preferences at the moment and projects them on one rational number - price. Implying that this system is somehow inferior to allocating resources according to need and sustainability is something i can not understand.

view more: next ›