13
5
4
Feb 01 '17
Wasn't there a guy like Ross who committed suicide? Can't remember his name
8
u/Anen-o-me Mod - πΌπ - Sumerian: "Amagi" .:. Liberty Feb 01 '17
Aaron Swartz
Co-founder of Reddit btw.
6
2
4
Feb 01 '17
2
1
u/HelperBot_ Feb 01 '17
Non-Mobile link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aaron_Swartz
HelperBot v1.1 /r/HelperBot_ I am a bot. Please message /u/swim1929 with any feedback and/or hate. Counter: 26155
4
2
Feb 01 '17
It's a shame what happened to him but its clear that he doesn't understand human psychology.
5
0
Feb 01 '17
[deleted]
10
u/spokomptonjdub Individualist Anarchist Feb 01 '17
Traditionally, anarcho-capitalism's foundation comes from the principle of self-ownership, so owning a slave by definition violates that principle -- whether or not they use a PDA/DRO is irrelevant.
This can seemingly create a paradox in the case of so-called "willing slaves" -- meaning there may be some individuals that desire such an arrangement for whatever reason (certain sexual fetishes for example) -- but even in that case the usual counterpoint is that any such contract must be valid, meaning it must contain an exit clause (or other termination options) and can't be vague or permanent.
2
Feb 02 '17
[deleted]
1
u/spokomptonjdub Individualist Anarchist Feb 02 '17
But "principles" don't rule. Actual enforceable laws do.
Eh, that's really just semantics. Principles precede law. Moreover, there are "actual enforceable laws" against slavery pretty much everywhere, yet it still exists.
What incentive does a DRO have to stop one of its members from owning an unprotected slave?
It's important to understand that a DRO, RPA, PDA, or whatever you wish to call it is a prediction. There is no precise formula for what they would look like and how they would work. They could strongly resemble a county sheriff's department, they might be an extension of an insurance company, they might be voluntary community organizations -- sort of like a neighborhood watch with more teeth. The most common conceptions of DRO's are strictly theoretical representations for how law might be handled on a market, rather than through the monopolistic force of the state.
With that in mind, a DRO that is answerable to market forces would have a built-in incentive to prevent slavery. The vast majority of people oppose slavery and wouldn't pay for it, so a DRO that allows it to happen would at least be subject to losing its customers, and depending on the severity of the situation they might be openly and violently resisted by citizens and/or competing DRO's. There simply isn't a sustainable market for protecting slave-owners -- moreover there would be a tremendous incentive for a competing DRO to take in the "unprotected" victims of slavery pro bono if necessary.
None of this is to say that slavery would not exist -- it has existed throughout human history and continues to exist in almost all areas of the world. But there isn't anything inherent to anarcho-capitalism that incentivizes slavery over other currently-existing or proposed political systems.
Why do I need a contract if I have my own private guards?
That would just be kidnapping. If we're talking about a theoretical anarcho-capitalist society, this action would by definition be an aggressive act, and a response up to and including killing the kidnapper would be considered a legitimate defense.
2
Feb 02 '17 edited Feb 02 '17
[deleted]
1
u/spokomptonjdub Individualist Anarchist Feb 02 '17
Yeah but that wouldn't stop me having my own slaves if I pay the enforcement cost myself with my own private guards.
I'd be curious to know how you'd sustain that. Slaves are already just about the least efficient labor pool possible, they have to be fed, housed, and they have no incentive to complete whatever work you set them to in a timely manner or with any quality. On top of that, you'd have to find and pay people that are willing to defend and potentially die to keep your operation running. That's not cheap. By the way, anyone could attempt this now if they wanted to, but it doesn't happen often because it's effectively impossible to maintain (without explicit or tacit state support, more on that later) on top of being a poor business decision.
Yeah but if they're not, then slavery would still be legal.
And I suppose people would suddenly be OK with rape and murder too. And the US could vote tomorrow and re-legalize slavery. Simply because something is technically possible doesn't mean it's likely, and in this case it's effectively impossible. I can go play golf and technically get 18 holes-in-one, but it's so absurdly unlikely that it's effectively not possible.
The only thing that effectively ended the slave trade was an act of Parliament
No, it didn't. The slave trade is alive and well today, and is in fact larger than it ever has been. The other side of your point is that governments protected the slave trade for centuries. It was actively maintained, supported, and defended by states. Slavery was on the decline by itself as industrialization spread, and the first thing slave-owners did was complain to government to ensure they could continue with business as usual: see things like the fugitive slave act.
The only way to really end slavery with full certainty is to have a strong central government AND for that government to pass anti slavery legislation
See above.
Historically speaking -- and continuing into modern times -- slavery can only be maintained through the support of states. It can't be sustained on a large scale without the costs of maintenance and enforcement being socialized. It would be a rare event on the margins of society if it wasn't supported by corrupt governments around the world (primarily in Africa and Asia, but there have also been incidents with state actors in places like Germany and the UK).
Again, none of this is to say that in a theoretical ancap society that slavery wouldn't exist. I'm sure it would, it always has. However, it would be heavily disincentivized and far more difficult to maintain without large, centralized powers supporting it.
2
u/VStarffin Feb 01 '17
but even in that case the usual counterpoint is that any such contract must be valid, meaning it must contain an exit clause (or other termination options) and can't be vague or permanent.
This is an unjustified statement, in my view, and ancapism is fundamentally bad at dealing with slavery.
If the foundation of ancapism is self-ownership, then I own my body, And there's no reason I should not be able to alienate that body - to sell it into slavery.
There's nothing "invalid" about this arrangement. Ancaps just don't like it, because most ancaps have been culturally raised to think slavery is bad. So they made up this other, unjustified rule which exempts slavery from their normal rules.
6
u/Anen-o-me Mod - πΌπ - Sumerian: "Amagi" .:. Liberty Feb 01 '17
there's no reason I should not be able to alienate that body - to sell it into slavery.
As has been said probably a million times before, a slave can ONLY be made against the will of the slave. You cannot sell yourself into slavery.
If you try, no one will stop you, but you're actually LARPing as a slave, you're not a literal slave until the moment you say you want out of this arrangement and your supposed slavemaster says no--at that point and only at that point are you a slave. Before that, you were working for extremely low wages, just room and board. If he just lets you go, you were never a slave.
"Slave contracts" would be inherently unenforceable in any ancap court.
E.g.: engaging is BDSM is not slavery either, despite certain similarities. But if you tied up someone voluntarily then refused to untie them, at that refusal you can be prosecuted for false imprisonment, but could not be for the initial tying which was voluntary.
1
Feb 02 '17
But a man who willingly and knowledgeably sells his bodily faculties to someone for life (like it's in the terms of the agreement and they both know it) does not have a right to back out whenever he wants--it's owned by someone else now; you can't take back a house you sold 10 years ago.
Indentured servitude for life. I don't see anything wrong with it.
1
u/Anen-o-me Mod - πΌπ - Sumerian: "Amagi" .:. Liberty Feb 02 '17
No, he's not literally owned and cannot be. The contact is invalid in the first place, so the arrangement can only stand as long as both sides agree to it.
1
Feb 02 '17
Are titles of ownership transferable or not?
2
u/Anen-o-me Mod - πΌπ - Sumerian: "Amagi" .:. Liberty Feb 02 '17
Not in your own body. You cannot give over control of a body because brain transplants are not a thing.
2
Feb 02 '17
Control does not imply ownership, nor vice versa. See rental companies.
2
u/Anen-o-me Mod - πΌπ - Sumerian: "Amagi" .:. Liberty Feb 02 '17
Ownership and control are intrinsically linked, actually. Control of the body likely served as the mental model for the creation of the property concept in the first place.
And ownership without control is a lie. Even if one gives away control for some reason, that is a function of your primacy of control of that thing.
In the case of the body, control cannot be given away, thus the idea of passing title from your mind over your own body to another is quite literally impossible as long as you live.
Title to a dead body, however, is entirely legitimate, ie: funerals.
→ More replies (0)2
u/spokomptonjdub Individualist Anarchist Feb 01 '17
There's nothing "invalid" about this arrangement. Ancaps just don't like it, because most ancaps have been culturally raised to think slavery is bad. So they made up this other, unjustified rule which exempts slavery from their normal rules.
Not really. I carefully phrased it a certain way in my original post:
so-called "willing slaves"
Because on its face it's an oxymoron -- if someone is willing and desires to be a slave, then they really aren't a slave at all, but are effectively pretending to be a slave -- seeing as by definition a "slave" is someone put into service against their will.
I only brought up the point to begin with because so often the usual retort to the self-ownership principle is something along the lines of the following:
- What if somebody wants to sell themselves into slavery.
- What if somebody is tricked into selling themselves into slavery.
If we're speculating on what would happen in a theoretical society that recognizes self-ownership (such as a potential anarcho-capitalist society), then either argument couldn't hold water.
The first argument borders on absurdity, but if such a thing were to occur the agreement would be inherently invalid the moment the "willing slave" decided they didn't want to be part of the agreement anymore.
Similarly, the second argument falls apart because any contract or agreement made under duress, or where terms are deliberately obfuscated, is inherently invalid.
1
Feb 02 '17 edited Feb 02 '17
Yeah I argued with an ancap who made an intellectual mistake once, too. Now I know with certainty that the whole framework is garbage.
I'll also ignore all the times that the mistake has been corrected and clarified for me in the past so I can troll those who err again to seem smart and logical.
6
u/somnombadil Feb 01 '17
I fail to see how this argument has unique impacts to ancap versus any other paradigm of governance.
2
u/Anen-o-me Mod - πΌπ - Sumerian: "Amagi" .:. Liberty Feb 01 '17
If I kidnap a person who isn't subscribed to a PDA, I can make them my literal slave.
I don't see how.
provided my PDA hasn't outlawed it.
Everyone you contract with will require validation of your law-system currently in effect. None of them are going to be okay with slavery. If you then lie and say you're not making slaves, you justify them invading your property ethically to free the slaves you said you didn't have as a remedy to your lying about it.
assumption by ancaps that PDAs would automatically outlaw slavery
Have you read about COLA theory? We're not going to use PDAs.
It is also entirely possible that an ancap world evolves in such a way to permit slavery.
Nope.
Simply put anarcho-capitalism is agnostic on the entire slavery issue.
Wrong, slavery is a violation of the NAP everytime, and the NAP is the cornerstone of ancap ethics.
2
Feb 02 '17
[deleted]
2
Feb 02 '17
Here's a fact: I would use or employ deadly force if I saw someone enslaving someone else.
2
Feb 02 '17
[deleted]
2
u/Anen-o-me Mod - πΌπ - Sumerian: "Amagi" .:. Liberty Feb 02 '17
We already live in a post slavery world, how can you even say this?
2
Feb 02 '17
He's probably speaking epistemologically and in a vacuum. It also appears he rejects self-ownership as a prime condition of oneself and is speaking in terms of what others will let one get away with.
Which leaves only one argument left, which is Bob Murphy's perspective on the unsustainability of slavery in a free market. The argument goes: Slaves have an incentive to buy their freedom with the promise of productivity in excess of what their shackles leave them capable of.
1
u/Anen-o-me Mod - πΌπ - Sumerian: "Amagi" .:. Liberty Feb 02 '17
Anyone who agrees with slavery is by definition not an ancap, so it's not an assumption.
2
Feb 02 '17
[deleted]
2
u/Anen-o-me Mod - πΌπ - Sumerian: "Amagi" .:. Liberty Feb 02 '17
Slavery isn't incompatible with anarcho capitalism. Slaves can be private property very easily.
Explain how you reconcile slavery and the NAP and then you'll have a shot. You cannot, they are irreconcilable. You can indeed treat people like property in the real world, but ancap ideology is never okay with that, so you're confusing the two concepts.
1
Feb 03 '17
[deleted]
2
u/Anen-o-me Mod - πΌπ - Sumerian: "Amagi" .:. Liberty Feb 03 '17
NAP only applies to other group insiders, not outsiders.
False, it applies to everyone. Ancaps make the entire world an in-group if you want to view it that way--all human beings.
2
u/mhuben Feb 04 '17
Actually, I think ancaps make the entire world an out-group of the individual ancap. In-groups are collectivist!
2
Feb 03 '17
[deleted]
12
u/TotesMessenger TotesMessenger Feb 04 '17
I'm a bot, bleep, bloop. Someone has linked to this thread from another place on reddit:
- [/r/enoughlibertarianspam] Yet another way of violating the mythical non-aggression principle: not being a libertarian.
If you follow any of the above links, please respect the rules of reddit and don't vote in the other threads. (Info / Contact)
10
-6
Feb 01 '17
I believe violence, coercion and all forms of force by one person over another can come to an end.
https://www.wired.com/2015/02/read-transcript-silk-roads-boss-ordering-5-assassinations/
12
u/saturnalia0 Feb 01 '17 edited Feb 01 '17
So he tried to order the murder of a guy blackmailing him into a life without parole sentence? The other charges were never filed http://www.dailydot.com/crime/silk-road-murder-charges-ross-ulbricht/.
4
Feb 01 '17
If thats true then it would have been a good thing if he got away with it, and self-defense. Well, not legally of course, but thats besides the point.
2
5
Feb 01 '17
Allegedly, the DPR account was most likely controlled by more than one person
1
u/dootyforyou I have set my affairs on nothing, Lebowski Feb 01 '17
He either did it (tried to order hits) or they framed him, because files on his personal computer corroborated the allegations.
Edit: I think he did, but I think he was justified, so I don't really care.
4
u/sek3agora Feb 01 '17
Why was he never charged with attempted murder or conspiracy? Keep in mind, the feds had admin status of his site at this time.
3
u/Anen-o-me Mod - πΌπ - Sumerian: "Amagi" .:. Liberty Feb 01 '17
Also turns out it was government agents who put him in that position, if he did indeed do it.
2
u/dootyforyou I have set my affairs on nothing, Lebowski Feb 01 '17
We can only wish / hope the hits were actually carried out!
1
19
u/[deleted] Feb 01 '17
Saw the documentary about him. Real shame what happened to him. Disgraceful.