User talk:Hogeye

World	Blogs	Clogs	Elections	The Bar
(talk)	(talk)	(talk)	(talk)	(hic)

Welcome to RationalWiki, Hogeye!

Check out our guide for newcomers and our community standards!

Tell us how you found RationalWiki here!

If you are interested in contributing:

Read what our articles are intended to be
Check out the to-do list
See our help page and Wikipedia's formatting cheatsheet
If writing a new article, consider writing up a draft
And most importantly: Pull up a goat and have some fun!

Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 16:58, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Listen[edit]

N00bs who show up and undo reverts by established contributors while calling them "vandals" don't do well here. Take your concerns up on the talk page, get a consensus, and then make the edits based on that consensus. If you undo the reversions again, I will lock the page for a day, and then three days, and then a week, and so on. Thanks. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 17:14, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

The intro goes:

Anarcho-capitalism’ is a fringe political ideology that valorizes the freedom of the individual from any constraint on his or her actions …

This is false and absurd. What does “valorize freedom” mean? My alternate description was better: “...prioritizes freedom of the individual over other political values.”

“...from any constraint” Is someone ignorant or kidding? Anarcho-capitalists have a very clear constraint - non-aggression.

The current version reads more like a statist biased hit piece than a legitimate article. But I realize statist cliques can win by ganging up with more people rather than debating rationally. Hogeye (talk)

I am giving you fair warning if you do it again i will bin you, just go to the talk page next time. Bubba41102 ^{Taste the shortness} 18:45, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

So Bubba turns up out of nowhere and threatens to erase any edits I make! What an asshole! No three revert rule, just censor anyone who disagrees, huh? LOL! Maybe this should be called BraindeadBruteWiki. Hogeye (talk)

"But I thought this was supposed to be RATIONALWiki!" Drink! Bubba41102 ^{Taste the shortness} 19:45, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

RW:3RR... Oh look it's a redlink! Nice job quoting a rule that doesn't even exist here! Truly libertarian, that! 104.5.9.13 (talk) 19:41, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Its common courtesy here, Agining hippy has said it to many people, its called edit warring btw. also alot of us here dont really listen to random BoN's Bubba41102 ^{Taste the shortness} 19:45, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

I can get you to listen. 104.5.9.13 (talk) 19:50, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

even better RW: isn't even a namespace. Bubba41102 ^{Taste the shortness} 19:57, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

WP:Wikipedia:Namespace#Pseudo-namespaces See a brief explanation here. Walker Walker Walker 20:01, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

But but, I thought this was supposed to be called RATIONALWiki! Driiiink. CorruptUser (talk) 19:47, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

What the hell, let's make it three. Drink! Walker Walker Walker 20:10, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

I got ninja'd, drink anyway. Wait, more? Umm... let's start over. One tequila, two tequila, three tequila, floor. CorruptUser (talk) 20:22, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Authoritatianism =/= Statism[edit]

States can exist without oppression (think a universally-voluntarily-agreed-to democratic government); states can also exist without 100% control over citizen's lives (which is the definition of authoritarianism). Stop. FuzzyCatTomato (talk/stalk) 17:51, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

You are incorrect about the definition of authoritarianism. Here’s Merriam-Webster:

authoritarian : expecting or requiring people to obey rules or laws : not allowing personal freedom

Thus authoritarianism and libertarianism can be relative. E.g. This policy is more libertarian/authoritarian than that one. Also, when describing people both terms are use relatively. E.g. “Ron Paul is libertarian.” He’s not 100% libertarian, since he is not an anarcho-capitalist. “Obama and Bush were both authoritarian.” This is again a valid usage in the relative sense.

But not all authoritarianism is statism. There are authoritarian personalities, authoritarian parents, etc. which have nothing to do with statism. Statism is a particular kind of authoritarianism - the political kind. A statist believes that compulsory government is generally benevolent and/or beneficial. In the relative sense, a statist is someone who favors more government aggression, as opposed to a libertarian who favors less.

> “States can exist without oppression (think a universally-voluntarily-agreed-to democratic government)”

False, since that contradicts the definition of State - compulsory government. If it is agreed to (and people are allowed to opt out) then it is not a State. Libertarians generally go by Max Weber’s definition of State/government: An organization with an effective monopoly on the legitimate/legal use of force in a particular geographic area.

So you are correct that authoritarianism is not equal to statism. Statism is a subset of authoritarianism - the political variety. Hogeye (talk)

Since we're going argumentum ad dictionarium, here's "State":

"a nation or territory considered as an organized political community under one government."

Doesn't sound coercive to me. FrizzyCatPotato (talk/stalk) 18:08, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

So, in the libertarian and anarchist articles we can go by the definition libertarians use, or we can go by a generic definition that libertarians and anarchists and political theorists do not use. It's pretty obvious which is better for our purpose. Here are typical definitions by actual libertarian theorists:

"A state is a human community that (successfully) claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory." - Max Weber

the organization of legitimized plunder (Franz Oppenheimer)

Or Rothbard's combination definition: "The State is that organization in society which attempts to maintain a monopoly of the use of force and violence in a given territorial area; in particular, it is the only organization in society that obtains its revenue not by voluntary contribution or payment for services rendered but by coercion. While other individuals or institutions obtain their income by production of goods and services and by the peaceful and voluntary sale of these goods and services to others, the State obtains its revenue by the use of compulsion; that is, by the use and the threat of the jailhouse and the bayonet." - The Anatomy of the State, Murray Rothbard

Hogeye (talk)

Cites Webster's in an argument. Then gets countered by another cite from Webster's. Then says we shouldn't be using Webster's. Then begs the question by insisting on defining terms in a way that supports the argument he wants to make. No wonder nobody takes you guys seriously. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 18:22, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

AgingHippy rejects Webster for “authoritarianism,” and makes up his own ad hoc definition. Then embraces Webster for a technical term a moment later, even though that’s not how any libertarian ever uses it. How can I take you seriously? Hogeye (talk)

I neither rejected nor embraced Webster, dummy. Show me where I did so. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 18:45, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

I see. So now you are admitting that your earlier claim that “states can also exist without 100% control over citizen's lives (which is the definition of authoritarianism)” was incorrect. Very good. Now, can you admit that generic definitions from dictionaries are sometimes inappropriate for technical discussions? And that a good critique of anarchism or libertarianism should use the terms as anarchists and libertarians use the terms? I think we are making progress! Hogeye (talk)

Where did I write the words that you have in quotation marks? Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 19:08, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, that was FuzzyCatTomato who wrote that, in the first post of this section. Hogeye (talk)

Dummy. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 19:58, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ All rules are by definition restrictions on freedoms. What An-Caps can't grasp is that a reduction of a freedom doesn't necessarily mean a net loss of freedom. The "freedom to drive dunk" isn't worth more than the "freedom to walk down the street without getting hit by drunk drivers". CorruptUser (talk) 18:50, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

>”All rules are by definition restrictions on freedoms. What An-Caps can't grasp is that a reduction of a freedom doesn't necessarily mean a net loss of freedom.”

False. Ancaps understand that quite well. That’s why people use dispute resolution organizations and can rationally agree to submit to unbiased arbiters. We realize that there is coercion in law enforcement. We oppose coercion with respect to which legal organization one joins. We think competing legal systems, rules, and firms are better than monopolies. Here’s a good essay about polycentric law, which is just another name/frame for anarchism.

Your example is instructive. In a free society, it would be up to the road companies what policy they use, not up to monopoly government. Some may fine (or expel from their roads) those possessing alcohol in their car, others hassle all inebriated drivers, and yet other let drivers drink all they want so long as they drive safely. (That was the policy in Costa Rica last time I was there. No harm no foul.) The “wise” rulers would not impose their preference on others. People decide (by their buying choices) rather than ruling assholes deciding one-size-fits-all for everyone. Freedom! ^{— Unsigned, by: Hogeye / talk / contribs}

Hypothetical. Alice rapes Bob. Bob goes to Charlie's Law, which prosecutes for rape regardless of gender. Alice then turns to Dennis's Law, which does not recognize female on male rape. How do you determine which set of rules apply? CorruptUser (talk) 19:25, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Ancap 101. If Alice’s PDA A gives a different verdict from Bob’s PDA B, then A and B go to an arbiter C to settle it. Cf: Rothbard’s “Power and Market” chapter one, or David Friedman’s “Machinery of Freedom,” or various other writings on the subject. For a wonderful video of D. Friedman explaining it in a lecture, see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IcxGXcmr4ig

In short, the discipline of repeated transactions motivates PDAs to solve problems peacefully by negotiation. Unlike a State, private businesses can’t plunder hapless citizen-serfs to pay for wars. Firms that refuse to settle and go to war instead have greater expenses, lose customers (since battles do not keep people safe and secure), and go out of business, ceteris paribus. It is not nirvana, but it is vastly better than a monopoly State. Hogeye (talk)

You're describing the emergence of the modern concept of the state almost perfectly. Think on that. 104.5.9.13 (talk) 19:52, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

"Unlike a State, private businesses can’t plunder hapless citizen-serfs to pay for wars." That claim would seem to rest on some very particular definitions of "private businesses", "plunder", and "war". It also ignores that PDAs can have strong financial incentives not to resolve conflicts peacefully for the simple reason that this would destroy their own market.

These kinds of hypothetical scenarios seem always to play out in some kind of "economistic" La La Land based on such patent nonsensical dogma as self-correcting markets. They also ignore the simple fact that markets are only around because regulators provide a host necessary infrastructure in terms of both rules, physical infrastructure and enforcement.

If these bartering systems were so fantastic, why do we even have firms? If firms are okay, why aren't states? It's not like firms can't compel employees in manners similar to states - and before you raise the "Well you can just find another job"-objection, I'll point out that this applies to states as well. Similarly, while it's possible to claim that you can't avoid states altogether, the same goes for firms: Whatever firm you chose to work for (incl. being self-employed) you can't really escape the influence of the corporation.

In so many words, once we leave the hypothetical scenarios and actually start looking at the empirical data (aka history), then an-cap comes off as either wholly impractical, or completely different in practice than in theory (kind of like communism, come to think of it...). I guess that's why an-cap tends to flourish in ivory towers and in various forums on the interwebz, rather than in the real world. ScepticWombat (talk) 22:49, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Assume I am PDA B in this hypothesis. I refuse to go to an arbiter and maintain that the ruling issued by my PDA is the valid one. I and PDA A go to war; at the conclusion of the war, I have achieved victory and conquest and appropriated PDA A's assets, the assets of the employees PDA's assets, and the assets of Alice as spoils of war. What happens next? --Castaigne (talk) 18:53, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

And why bother with PDA A and B if no matter the answer one of Alice and Bob are going to disagree with the outcome? Just go straight to arbiter C. But how do Alice and Bob choose C? And for fucks sake, if Alice is raping Bob, where are the police stopping it rather than deciding after the fact? What if Bob can't afford a PDA at all, by having less money you should get less protection? I mean, yeah, the rich get "more" protection than the poor currently, but only An-Caps seem to think that is a good thing. CorruptUser (talk) 20:20, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Noticing a Pattern[edit]

So I notice that as soon as "one" user obsessed with the "religion of state" disappears, another "one" pops up. First it was LogicMaster, then FedTruther, now Hogeye. Do you plan to ramble on about us "Statheists" too? CorruptUser (talk) 18:19, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

I saw fedtruther was more of a conspiracy nut than this guy. Bubba41102 ^{Taste the shortness} 18:21, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

No. I intend to correct some gross errors in the anarcho-capitalism and libertarianism articles. I notice that already a statist clique has been reverting everything I write. I have not found much rationality here yet, just statist dogma. I was hoping for rational, freethinking, skeptical analysis. I'm quite disappointed so far. Hogeye (talk)

Are you sure you don't hang out (at least online) with FedTruther and LogicMaster? The "evulz statist cabal" is certainly a common trope to all three of you... And before anyone beats me to it: Cheers! ScepticWombat (talk) 18:35, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

And what makes you think you know more about An-Cap than us? How do we know you aren't just one of "them" sent to suppress the truth? CorruptUser (talk) 18:38, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

The ignorance about anarcho-capitalism here is obvious from the article. I've already pointed out some really stupid errors. I think I know more than the people who have posted so far because I am well read on the subject, and am the author of the world famous Anarcho-capitalist FAQ. Some questions asked here are really basic, such as "What happens when PDA A and PDA B disagree?" Hogeye (talk)

if it is world famous then how come I have never heard of it, he'll I didn't even know what anarchist capitalism was before now, but anarchy has so many flaws in its design they are probably uncountable. Bubba41102 ^{Taste the shortness} 20:17, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

"Do you know who I am?" "No, which means you aren't as important as you think are." CorruptUser (talk) 20:20, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Why is coercion inherently or instrumentally bad? (pick one)[edit]

Why's ancap so good, eh? What's wrong with loss of freedom? FuzzyDogPotato (talk/stalk) 19:43, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

No it's vocally bad, not instrumentally bad! 104.5.9.13 (talk) 19:44, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

[1] Cømrade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 19:53, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Libertarians believe that persons are not rightfully owned by others. This notion of self-ownership, individual sovereignty, is one basis for libertarianism. This can be based on the nature of man and how he lives and thrives (Rand, Rothbard,) on contractarianism (Narvison,) on amoral egoism (Max Stirner, but not too many Stirnerites these days,) on the Kantian notion that one should be the author of one’s own life, on game theoretic notions such as ESS (evolutionary stable strategy per Richard Dawkins, but this ties in with #1) and even on Hoppe’s argumentation ethic (weak IMO.) For details, read this chapter of my book Against Authority: “Listen Egoist!” http://www.ozarkia.net/bill/anarchism/library/aa/p027.html ^{— Unsigned, by: Hogeye / talk / contribs}

And rules = ownership? Good job. When is the rant about state as religion coming? Walker Walker Walker 20:08, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

(1) Why does anyone own anything at all, even themselves? When I die, do I still own myself? What about before I was born? If I own myself, couldn't I voluntarily sell myself into slavery? (2) You listed a bunch of moral systems. Do you care to actually defend any one (or multiple, if you think you can avoid contradictions) of them, or just list potential ways you could defend your ideology? FuzzyCatPotato™ (talk/stalk) 20:10, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ > “And rules = ownership?” No. Where did that come from? I didn’t say anything remotely like that. Ownership is disposition over some aspect or use of a scare entity. But a property system (e.g. sticky property, mutualist property, and various forms of “collective” corporate property) can be thought of as a set of resource usage rules.

> “Why does anyone own anything at all, even themselves?”

It is an obvious natural fact that you have some disposition over your own body.

> “When I die, do I still own myself?”

No, when you die you don’t exist qua mind/self. Duh! You didn’t exist as a person (moral agent) before you were born either.

>”If I own myself, couldn't I voluntarily sell myself into slavery?”

You could, but it is unlikely that courts would enforce such a contract. I would argue that it is a fraudulent contract on the part of the seller, and hence invalid. Walter Block, among others, has written about this, as has Rothbard.

I favor (1) the nature of man and how he lives, (2) contractarianism, and the Kantian duty of moral autonomy. Here’s how Robert Wolff put it in “In Defense of Anarchism:”

“The defining mark of the state is authority, the right to rule. The primary obligation of man is autonomy, the refusal to be ruled. It would seem, then, that there can be no resolution of the conflict between the autonomy of the individual and the putative authority of the state. Insofar as a man fulfills his obligation to make himself the author of his decisions, he will resist the state's claim to have authority over him. That is to say, he will deny that he has a duty to obey the laws of the state simply because they are the laws. In that sense, it would seem that anarchism is the only political doctrine consistent with the virtue of autonomy.” - http://www.ozarkia.net/bill/anarchism/library/DefenseAnarchism.html

Except you live in a world provided for by everyone else you filthy parasite. You didn't discover vaccines, you didn't discover engineering, you didn't defend your country from invaders. What makes you think you should be allowed to live in the comparative paradise that we built without contributing anything in return? Go move to Somalia if you want to live in a world without evil government. CorruptUser (talk) 20:12, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Weak. You seem to be saying that everyone should be a slave to the collective because he enjoys the wonderful subsidy of history, the great and increasing gratuitous domain as Frederic Bastiat called it. No, I don’t owe dead people anything, nor live people anything that I have not contracted for. If I receive an unsolicited gift, I am not obligated to pay. “Parasite” is not the correct word for enjoying positive externalities. “Freeloader” maybe, but I see nothing wrong with freeloading on the cumulated progress of mankind. Tell me, why do you think some gang has the right to “allow” me to live on earth and enjoy free and cheap stuff?

Somalia? LOL! When someone brings up a failed State and calls it an example of anarchism, you know they are clueless! That’s like using “the terror” France and framing that as normal statism. The other statist cliché we laugh at is “Who will build the roads?” Hogeye (talk)

>tfw when an ancap talks about "free" stuff

where does it come from, Hog? this "Free Stuff" of yours? does it just appear out of thin air, or is it one of the benefits of living in a coercive society? 32℉uzzy, 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 20:51, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

I propose Corruptionism. Everyone is to give me their money and attractive men and women. In turn, I'll give some of that money and the less attractive men and women to my band of thugs, who will keep everyone in line. Anyone that starts anything will wind up on a pointy stick. People that I or my thugs don't like will be forced to work in the asbestos mines, because apparently that was actually a thing. It's right because of this book I wrote, talking about how awesome I am. Anyone else think my system has a better chance of working out than An-Cap? If you do, I'll let you be one of my thugs. CorruptUser (talk) 20:52, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Fuzzy, the gratuitous domain comes from society, and is retarded by the State. The increase in free and cheap stuff, like knowledge and technology and cheap toilets, generally happens where States are weakest. Society reaps more when the State plunders less. I really don’t see what your alternative is. Would you prefer that everyone is a slave of dead past society, or what that amounts to, slaves of State rulers pretending to represent past society?

CorruptUser, you are setting up the quintessential State with your scenario. Must I really argue that freedom and individual autonomy is better than your proposed slave State? Why do you think subservience to a State is inherently or instrumentally good? Hogeye (talk)

Has north korea failed yet, well then i think CorruptUsers society works well enough. Bubba41102 ^{Taste the shortness} 21:10, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

It's better for me, and I have a band of thugs. What will protect you against me and my thugs? What YOU must argue is not whether "Freedom" is better than my society, but whether YOUR society will be better than mine. CorruptUser (talk) 21:11, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

I already refuted that silly rogue PDA argument, provided supporting citations, and even linked to David Friedman's Porcfest lecture with a detailed explanation. Get with it, dude! Hogeye (talk)

Is it better? Possibly. It depends on what those individuals do with said autonomy. Perhaps a more pertinent question would be: Is it feasible? 141.134.75.236 (talk) 21:21, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't give two shits about your "logical" arguments. The human mind was never "meant" to do logic; the only "purpose" of your brain is to figure out how to get 80 kilos of pork substitute to naked wrestle. The human mind is full of shit and can rationalize anything if it can ignore the world around it. Thus, logic and reason are always second in importance to empirical evidence, and many of us here will outright ignore anything that can't gather any evidence nor be tested in some manner. I have empirical evidence that anarchy has always failed. Not that it "would" fail, but that is "has" failed; by induction it will most likely fail if tried again. You have yet to show me any evidence of anarchy ever succeeding. CorruptUser (talk) 21:32, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

I don’t know how you define success or failure for a society, archist or anarchist. You don’t mean permanent, unless you want to show that all States fail. I can give a long list of more or less anarchist societies, so it is unlikely that you have looked for evidence. Some of the standard examples are Celtic Ireland, Classical Iceland, Holy Experiment (Quaker) Pennsylvania, the not-so-wild Wild West, not to mention various indigenous cultures. Today there are de facto stateless regions, such as parts of the Ozarks and Rockies, and (my favorite) certain coastal areas of Costa Rica. (Speaking to random expats, most agreed that they had de facto anarchism.) Here is my list of polycentric law links for your perusal: http://www.ozarkia.net/bill/anarchism/PolycentricLaw.html Here’s one famous example, which lasted for several centuries - longer than most States: David Friedman - Private Creation and Enforcement of Law: A Historical Case http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Academic/Iceland/Iceland.html Hogeye (talk)

The Wild West was Ancap? If you honestly believe that, then I've lost all respect in your historical analysis. The lawmen followed the settlers, followed the cowboys, with a gap of tops 5 years. And if they hadn't, then the "Wild" West would have remained exactly that -- a lawless backwater, with high amounts of undocumented violence. I suggest reading A History of American Law, to see the pervasive influence of the government at all stages and all times in all parts of American society. FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 23:30, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

It would be really nice if Mr. Friedman knew what the fuck he was talking about. If he thinks Iceland was such a successful case of "private" law enforcement then he forgets a couple of things:

A) To define the clannish Icelandic society and its law code as a "non-state" is about as meaningful as claiming that a tribal society or an aristocratic one without a centralised state in the modern sense is an example of "private" law enforcement.

B) Mr. Friedman has obviously not read much in the way of Icelandic sagas. If he had, he would probably not have chosen Iceland as an example (unless his idea of good law enforcement involves prickly codes of honour and a penchant for blood feuds...). His attempts at explaining away these aspects are rather lame, amounting to nothing more than "It is difficult to tell whether such judgments are correct." Sure, authors have clearly exaggerated the blood 'n guts (e.g. a guy getting his leg chopped off who simply props his stump up on a tree stub and continues fighting), but that the tendency towards long-running blood feuds and violence was simply a literary invention is a silly suggestion. In fact, considering the similar trends seen in other clan societies, the sagas seem very plausible on this point.

C) Mr. Friedman also forgets that Icelandic society also did not conform to his ideas of equality of individuals (nor have any pre-modern society, that I know of, held such notions). Thus, the Icelandic case is a bad template for the market-based solutions that it's supposed to be a favourable model for.

D) Mr. Friedman's complete lack of understanding of the context and how this affect the style of the sagas comes forth in passages such as this one: "The quality of violence, in contrast to other medieval literature, is small in scale, intensely personal (every casualty is named), and relatively straightforward." Duh, yes, Iceland is a very small society and everyone is related to each other with well-known genealogies (hence why the DNA sequencing business really loves the Icelanders). The description of the violence is a function of this small "in your face" society - unlike in larger societies where no one gave a rat's arse about every single peasant killed, simply because the victim was distant in both time, space and genealogy from the audience.

And these four rather obvious problems are only the first ones to spring to mind from a rather cursory reading of this piece (of ....). This is unfortunately rather typical of people too enamoured of their pet ideas who go leafing through The Big Book of History^TM in search of cases to illustrate these ideas: Such people tend to fit the historical cases to their model, rather than using the historical cases to test their ideas (for a book-length example, see Acemoğlu & Robinson Why Nations Fail: The Origins of Power, Prosperity, and Poverty (2012) - their Maya example is especially atrocious in that regard). ScepticWombat (talk) 23:49, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ A) But the fact remains that people could switch defense agencies, a voluntary market mechanism. This does in fact contrast with monopoly systems. Your differences from modern times seem frivolous in this light. B) As Friedman noted, the violence was rather rare, especially compared to societies of that time. The “feuds” often had one or two deaths a century. C) is irrelevant. Obviously society and norms were different then. We are looking at legal systems - polycentric law versus monopoly law. D) You seem to agree that there was a very low level of violence. Cool! Again, the fact that it was a pre-modern society does not in any way invalidate the comparison. You asked for successful examples from the past, so why are you surprised that they are in the past?

You obviously didn’t even read the Not-So-Wild West piece, since you are unaware that the crime and murder rate (before the Feds took over) was lower in the West than in the “civilized” East. The accounts of voluntary wagon train “constitutions,” claims, mining, and cattlemen’s associations are fascinating.

I notice that you haven’t given your criterion for success or failure. Perhaps you are noticing that statelessness comes out looking a lot better than States.

A couple more examples: One ancient stateless civilization was Harappin India - 2000 BC or so. One good book I read was about the stateless peoples of SE Asia highlands, aka Zomia, including the Hmong, called “The Art of Not Being Governed.” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aVwrUsib4vU Hogeye (talk)

A) No, if Friedman thinks Iceland is a good PDA template then he simply doesn't understand what he's looking at (or he's deliberately engaged in constructing either a red herring or a false analogy).

B) Iceland was a pretty small and isolated society, hence could be expected to suffer less general violence than the incessant small wars in larger feudal societies. The claim that "The “feuds” often had one or two deaths a century" I simply disregard, since it's PIDOOMA. What Friedman references is about 350 violent deaths over a 52-year period, i.e. about 7 violent deaths per year. He claims that the population at the time was 70,000 (which might be a bit high, I see other sources putting the population at 40-60,000, but never mind), or about 10 per 100,000 inhabitants which is more than double the current homicide U.S. rate (4.6) and, in contrast to Friedman's claim, 16% higher than the U.S. homicide rate in 1976 (8.8). In fact, U.S. homicide rates have only been beyond 9.0 during thre short periods since 1950: 1972-'75, 1978-'82 and 1990-'94. To put the medieval Icelandic death rate into perspective it was similar to the homicide rates you find in countries like Zimbabwe, Angola or Haiti today.

C) No, it's actually quite relevant since Friedman is (again) using a template that doesn't conform to the one he's actually arguing for. You can't just cut and paste the bits of your historical case material you like into your argument and then claim that you have made a proper illustration in which history has vindicated your idea.

D) No, and that's not what I wrote. Friedman simply assumes that the sagas were completely off in their death toll (something that sits very ill with his praising of the very accurate description of the victims and their genealogy - something which would be hard to make up in a small close-knit society such as Iceland). What Friedman misses is that the level of detail doesn't indicate a less violent society, but simply a smaller one. As I've already pointed out, Icelandic society seems to have had a violent death rate equivalent to some of today's less than stellar examples of well-run states.

As for calling India during the Harappan age a "stateless society" seems about as accurate as calling Hellenic Greece a "stateless society". The Hmong is a tribal/clan society, so instead of having a state, you have clan leaders; this is not a lack of governance, since you could argue that tribal societies are simply small-scale organisations which impose similar types of obligations on their members as what an-caps call "coercion" when done by the state.

Perhaps a concept like "statophobia" needs to be coined for the arbitrary disdain that an-cappers hold for the state while gladly citing societies that relies on non-state coercion. It appears that the actual problem is not the coercion, but who's carrying it out: As long as it's the state it's bad, if other types of organisations/institutions do it, it might be a-okay, and if it occurs in "the market", it's always good. ScepticWombat (talk) 01:00, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

And just for shit & giggles I'll call your Not So Wild West and raise you an article from an actual history journal that reached the opposite conclusion in 2011: That murder rates in the Wild West in the 19th century ran anywhere between 25 and 150 per 100,000 inhabitants (contrast with the highest murder rates in the continental U.S. in 2011 being Detroit metro's 20.3 and New Orleans metro's 23.7, while notorious outlier, the U.S. Virgin Islands runs in the 40s and 50s). A free source likewise tackling the Not So Wild West is found in The Wild West is Wild: The Homicide Resource Curse, a 2014 research paper. ScepticWombat (talk) 01:34, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

You know what....[edit]

You are really starting to get on my nerves, if you want to promote anarco-capitalism do it somewhere else, make a anarco-capitalism wiki for all i care, just don't do it here, this is no the place for you and your views, if you wish to continue arguing thats fine, but i would recommend finding a place better suited for your beliefs. Bubba41102 ^{Taste the shortness} 20:46, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Bubba, are you the owner of this Wiki? Do you normally chase off anyone with dissenting views? I hope the owner is someone looking for rational discussion, in which case I will be welcome here. I really expected rational discussion and objectivity here, thinking it was a freethinker pro-science site. If this is just a few ideologues promoting authoritarianism, then I definitely should leave! Hogeye (talk)

You assume a lot. CorruptUser (talk) 21:00, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

"But I thought this was supposed to be RATIONALWiki!" Drink! Bubba41102 ^{Taste the shortness} 21:02, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Strange. Point 3 of the RationalWiki mission statement is "Explorations of authoritarianism and fundamentalism." Yet everyone but me seems to be a hardcore authoritarian, and Bubba threatens to ban me if I dissent! Sheesh! Hogeye (talk)

You probably tihnk we are authoritarian because you are anarchists so any kind of government is authoritarian, therefore your argument is invalid, because we arnt authoritarian, the Nazis were authoritarian we are not nazis Bubba41102 ^{Taste the shortness} 21:19, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, Bubba, any compulsory government (State) is coercive by definition, since it enforces a territorial monopoly on legal violence, and finances itself by plunder.

If I may ask, why do you believe that people have a duty to obey a State? Or conversely, what gives a State the right to command people? I doubt if you are as authoritarian as a typical Nazi, but as a statist you are authoritarian to some degree. I worked up a rough way to measure it. Take this 2 question political quiz: http://www.ozarkia.net/bill/anarchism/HogeyePoliticalQuiz.html

I’m A4, extreme libertarian capitalism. What are you? Hogeye (talk)

Something's wrong with that test, though. Laissez-faire capitalism is anti-property as it results in all being owned by a small elite of rich, while socialism is pro-property as it seeks to make property accessible to all. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 22:21, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ > “Laissez-faire capitalism is anti-property as it results in all being owned by a small elite of rich.”

That’s an extraordinary claim that must be justified. I totally disagree. History and logic indicate that laissez faire leads to a broad diffusion of wealth and relative equality compared to statist economies (whether statist socialist or fascist.) History shows that large corporations are beasts of the State, the result of special privilege bestowed by rulers on their “1%” flunkies and cronies.

>”Socialism is pro-property as it seeks to make property accessible...”

All political systems have some sort of property, so I agree. (Most socialists would vehemently disagree!) The kind of property socialism promotes is corporate property, corporate in the sense that certain “blessed” collectives get a monopoly on ownership rights for certain types of goods - capital goods aka “the means of production.” This contrasts with neo-Lockean “sticky” property, for which people keep ownership until they consent to gift/trade it (more or less) and which has no restrictions on who can own what. I.e. Any individual or group can own capital goods. In the quiz, “pro-property” should be interpreted as favoring sticky property. Hogeye (talk)

You can check my political compass, which is probably much more accurate, on my user page. Bubba41102 ^{Taste the shortness} 23:03, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't see it. What did you score on mine? Hogeye (talk)

This user's Political Compass coordinates are (-3.75,-4.21).

there is my compass yours says im a statist authoritarian, but the test is based off 2 values, this is based off many, you can find the about page [2] This takes in to account many values, while yours takes into account 2, and im apparently a statist authoritarian, but if you look at this it isnt that simple. id recommend you take it yourself. Bubba41102 ^{Taste the shortness} 00:55, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Tucson to Tucumcari[edit]

Joint beats the jigger? Well maybe so, but weed, whites, and wine are the holy trinity, or so I've been told. I should go listen to more of your stuff, and thanks for sharing.

It will be tough to keep an even tone in the face of, well, you know. Please continue... I'm not fond of libertarian ideas, nor ancap, but willing to listen for a while. Aging Hippie is a respectably scholarly fellow, if a bit brusque sometimes. I can't speak for the rest. MaillardFillmore (talk) 22:11, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for checking out my music. A more recent reefer song I wrote is “Stoners with Guns.” A libertarian reefer song! http://www.ozarkia.net/bill/music/HogeyeBill/StonersWithGuns.html Hogeye (talk)

Global Warming[edit]

Go to the talkpage first, kiddo. Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 23:31, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

But on a less serious note, regarding your "source" (that is clearly a bunch of climatologists, not economists)... Walker Walker Walker 23:55, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

They dare defend their ~~rights~~ parking. Too bad it isn't a worthwhile cut-through. Walker Walker Walker 23:55, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Seriously, though, adding what amounts to a whole section straight out of the climate change denialist's handbook based on a single reference to that well-known bastion of climate research, the Ludwig von Mises Institute? I mean it's not even subtle or clever. ScepticWombat (talk) 23:59, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Every single edit you have made to an article has been reverted.[edit]

A wise man would take the hint. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 23:44, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

M8[edit]

You've been at it for multiple days, stop edit warring, if it is such an issue to you, put it in the talk page. Bubba41102 ^{The place where you can scream at me} 19:04, 1 March 2016 (UTC)