Why Anarcho-Capitalism Is a Canard and Its Implications for Atheism

[The Grand Nudger]

Where is it that you live, and who the hell do you live with...that the only means of maintaining societal order is to threaten people?  Most of us don;t need the slightest compulsion...we don;t even give it thought.  We wake up, we have our coffeee, we go to work, we pay our bills.  Not once in the course of a day do I think to myself

 "Did I forget to steal my neighbors cattle and burn his house to the ground?  No, no..I didn't forget, it's just that if I did that -someone would kill me-!"

[log]

Ineffective as in -there's still societal conflict even amongst those who follow it, as there was before someone decided that it might make christ sound smart if he'd said it. It;s simply not in the same class as things like civil law.

What's incompatible with the rule?  If a person wants to be forced or done violence to then forcing them or doing violence to them is perfectly within the remit of the golden rule.  Not just the remit, the golden rule explicitly tells them to do violence -to you-.   The trouble with the golden rule is that it assumes normative cultures and individuals...it cannot cope with sadism or masochism or a warrior culture, for example - things that modern law has no problem addressing.  Doesn;t matter whether or not you want to die in glorious battle to gain entrance to valhalla...you can't, on that basis - the basis of the golden rules provisions - attack me.     

It appears as though people who -do- believe that a sky fairy is watching break the rule about as often as people who don;t believe that a sky fairy is watching follow the rule.  

I'd prefer the third option, those who follow our better developed and better thought out laws.  I;m already surrounded by golden rulers, obviously it's not enough, the prison is full of them.

You're correct about it not being in the same class as civil law, which is the control of behavior by threat or application of force.  The golden rule is a law of self-governance.  And there is no conflict among those who follow it - there are few, or none who do follow it.

That's a good start on the limitations of the rule - it is on considerations like those that there are few, if any, who follow it.  I have not found many who actually and truly want to be forced - such would lack initiative - nor have I found many who want violence done to them outside limited bedroom kinkiness.  I think it's fair to say I haven't actually physically met any. 

And people who *claim* to believe in a sky fairy may not, in fact, believe at all.  There are social-hierarchical benefits to pretending to believe what one doesn't believe.

[The Grand Nudger]

You're correct about it not being in the same class as civil law, which is the control of behavior by threat or application of force.  The golden rule is a law of self-governance.  And there is no conflict among those who follow it - there are few, or none who do follow it.

Remarkable dishonesty from a person concerned with what a sky fairy might see them doing.  

That's a good start on the limitations of the rule - it is on considerations like those that there are few, if any, who follow it.  I have not found many who actually and truly want to be forced - such would lack initiative - nor have I found many who want violence done to them outside limited bedroom kinkiness.  I think it's fair to say I haven't actually physically met any. 

Which is to say that you don't get out much.  

And people who *claim* to believe in a sky fairy may not, in fact, believe at all.  There are social-hierarchical benefits to pretending to believe what one doesn't believe.

The True Christian™ gambit.  Meh, seen it.

[log]

Where is it that you live, and who the hell do you live with...that the only means of maintaining societal order is to threaten people?  Most of us don;t need the slightest compulsion...we don;t even give it thought.  We wake up, we have our coffeee, we go to work, we pay our bills.  Not once in the course of a day do I think to myself

 "Did I forget to steal my neighbors cattle and burn his house to the ground?  No, no..I didn't forget, it's just that if I did that -someone would kill me-!"

You've grown up and been acculturated to the omnipresent system of threats.  It's like the Matrix.

You call them "laws."  I bet you don't go 90 down past the local elementary school during school hours - at least in part because of the threat.  Even if you voluntarily go along with those who would otherwise compel you, you're not exactly "free" in some social sense to do otherwise, are you?  The laws or agreements and penalties attached thereto form part of your risk assessment, whether you perform the calculation explicitly as I do or not.

[Aegon]

Where is it that you live, and who the hell do you live with...that the only means of maintaining societal order is to threaten people?  Most of us don;t need the slightest compulsion...we don;t even give it thought.  We wake up, we have our coffeee, we go to work, we pay our bills.  Not once in the course of a day do I think to myself

 "Did I forget to steal my neighbors cattle and burn his house to the ground?  No, no..I didn't forget, it's just that if I did that -someone would kill me-!"

You've grown up and been acculturated to the omnipresent system of threats.  It's like the Matrix.

You call them "laws."  I bet you don't go 90 down past the local elementary school during school hours - at least in part because of the threat.  Even if you voluntarily go along with those who would otherwise compel you, you're not exactly "free" in some social sense to do otherwise, are you?  The laws or agreements and penalties attached thereto form part of your risk assessment, whether you perform the calculation explicitly as I do or not.

I.wouldn't go 90 in a school zone because I wouldn't want to kill a kid running across the street.

[log]

And people who *claim* to believe in a sky fairy may not, in fact, believe at all.  There are social-hierarchical benefits to pretending to believe what one doesn't believe.

The True Christian™ gambit.  Meh, seen it.

Well, do you deny that people claim sides or join social organizations - neighborhoods, cities, states, countries, PTAs, churches, and the like - for the social benefits like enhanced security, property accumulation, moral superiority, sexual access, and so on?

Of course not.  How can you tell if one is a TrueBeliever™?  Maybe they only like the Raiders because... well, I don't know, are the Raiders even still a thing?  But the point is, people do things for reasons sometimes different than stated, and that difference is detected when they behave in ways precluded by their stated beliefs.

---

You've grown up and been acculturated to the omnipresent system of threats.  It's like the Matrix.

You call them "laws."  I bet you don't go 90 down past the local elementary school during school hours - at least in part because of the threat.  Even if you voluntarily go along with those who would otherwise compel you, you're not exactly "free" in some social sense to do otherwise, are you?  The laws or agreements and penalties attached thereto form part of your risk assessment, whether you perform the calculation explicitly as I do or not.

I.wouldn't go 90 in a school zone because I wouldn't want to kill a kid running across the street.

Yes, they do tend to frown on that.

[Whateverist]

Seems gratuitous to drag atheism into your thesis. Not really interested in anarchy as a political system. Thanks anyway.

[The Grand Nudger]

You've grown up and been acculturated to the omnipresent system of threats.  It's like the Matrix.

Or...and I'm just spitballing here, no one is threatening me?  See, that's the trouble with linking a wiki on the monopoly of violence and then bullshitting me about property law and god and jesus and atheism. 

You call them "laws."  I bet you don't go 90 down past the local elementary school during school hours - at least in part because of the threat.

I don't go 90 anywhere, shits dangerous.  If you're the kind of person who doesn't do it because "they" frown on it...those punishments were meant for you, not me, lol.  I don;t have to be compelled to slow down for schoolchildren any more than I have to be compelled not to burn my neighbors house to the ground.  

Even if you voluntarily go along with those who would otherwise compel you, you're not exactly "free" in some social sense to do otherwise, are you?  The laws or agreements and penalties attached thereto form part of your risk assessment, whether you perform the calculation explicitly as I do or not.

I find that, by and large, the risk of punishment is far removed from both myself and my actions.  I don't even worry about the punishments when I -do- break the law.

---

Well, do you deny that people claim sides or join social organizations - neighborhoods, cities, states, countries, PTAs, churches, and the like - for the social benefits like enhanced security, property accumulation, moral superiority, sexual access, and so on?

Of course not.  How can you tell if one is a TrueBeliever™?  Maybe they only like the Raiders because... well, I don't know, are the Raiders even still a thing?  But the point is, people do things for reasons sometimes different than stated, and that difference is detected when they behave in ways precluded by their stated beliefs.

We're playing an elaborate game of apologist bingo at this point.  If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, bury them in bullshit, eh?

[log]

You've grown up and been acculturated to the omnipresent system of threats.  It's like the Matrix.

Or...and I'm just spitballing here, no one is threatening me?  See, that's the trouble with linking a wiki on the monopoly of violence and then bullshitting me about property law and god and jesus and atheism. 

You call them "laws."  I bet you don't go 90 down past the local elementary school during school hours - at least in part because of the threat.

I don't go 90 anywhere, shits dangerous.  If you're the kind of person who doesn't do it because "they" frown on it...those punishments were meant for you, not me, lol.  I don;t have to be compelled to slow down for schoolchildren any more than I have to be compelled not to burn my neighbors house to the ground.  

Even if you voluntarily go along with those who would otherwise compel you, you're not exactly "free" in some social sense to do otherwise, are you?  The laws or agreements and penalties attached thereto form part of your risk assessment, whether you perform the calculation explicitly as I do or not.

I find that, by and large, the risk of punishment is far removed from both myself and my actions.  I don't even worry about the punishments when I -do- break the law.

---

Well, do you deny that people claim sides or join social organizations - neighborhoods, cities, states, countries, PTAs, churches, and the like - for the social benefits like enhanced security, property accumulation, moral superiority, sexual access, and so on?

Of course not.  How can you tell if one is a TrueBeliever™?  Maybe they only like the Raiders because... well, I don't know, are the Raiders even still a thing?  But the point is, people do things for reasons sometimes different than stated, and that difference is detected when they behave in ways precluded by their stated beliefs.

We're playing an elaborate game of apologist bingo at this point.  If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, bury them in bullshit, eh?

Well, I guess the honeymoon is over.  It was fun while it lasted, but when the personal attacks start flowing, I be a-going.

[Jesster]

That was a personal attack? Huh. Tough crowd.