Was he right...

>tfw people naturally form into hierarchies for the purposes of organization and settling disputes
>tfw those who don't tend to get BTFO.

That only holds if people A) are there to witness the fact that you were selected by such a being, B) are able to independently confirm that said being is divine, good, and a fair judge of character and ability

If you just say it happened, then nobody knows if it's something you made up or the chick was a satan or something.

>confirm that said being is divine, good, and a fair judge of character and ability

Even if you could confirm that, it still does not follow that this permits him to tell me what to do.

It does it he is also powerful.

Or likable/confident.

I suppose that depends more on the setting and how objectively good someone can be. In some, I'd argue that getting a thumbs up from a god pretty much means they're the best fit for the job, sort of like how a Paladin can function as judge/jury/executioner. In other settings, gods are less omniscient and things are more grey, so multiple good deities might champion different guy a with different motives to be king.

Either way, if you're a monarchy or a democracy, it's going to be hard to argue against him, either in claiming the throne himself by divine right or just using his obvious goodness and favor with the gods as a campaign platform

>people have the right of self-ownership

"Rights" are leftist bullshit designed to make you think you're free. All you have is what someone stronger has given you, but what you deserve is all that you can keep yourself.

>t. Autist

The original concept for rights was far more rooted in reality, since it wasn't things people give you, its things you have unless people take them from you.

Applied to government the idea was you'd give up some of these rights [like the right to murder, rape, or steal] in exchange for the benefits of civilization.

The realpolitik angle was that, just as a citizen has to obey the law or he'll be punished, the state must respect rights or it will be overthrown.

Of course now that "rights" has expanded to mean not only the above, but supposed duties of the State towards its people, what I said really doesn't apply as much and the idea is mostly a social form floating on foam and stolen money.

Neither of those give him rights over me from a moral or ethical standpoint. If he's powerful, I might obey him out of fear, or if he's likable/confident I might choose to obey him, but neither of those things give him the right to demand my obedience.

While this is true, OP is talking about a guy who rejects the idea of monarchy in the first place. None of this is going to matter one bit to him.

>Moral or ethical standpoint
>Rights

He gains the "Right" to demand your obedience by your inability to stop him.

He can be "wrong" by your philosophy as much as you like to believe, but barring a weapon in your hand to stop him, your morality is just an idea in your head.

Power doesn't always come from the point of a sword. It is much more complex than that.

According to whose authority?

i'm pretty sure you confuse positive freedom (which is a leftist invention) with negative freedom
it is a natural law, an axiom
hierarchies formed from mutual agreement are not a problem, because obviously they benefit all interested sides. hierarchies formed through the use of force are criminal and morally wrong

i advise you all to read some Rothbard

Political power doesn't come from the point of a sword, it comes from the assent of those who serve.

But it is always backed by a sword. Commands without force are just suggestions. There must always be a subtle "Or else" behind even the most agreeable commands, otherwise you have no power.

Your idea is a deeply unnatural, Enlightenment Era piece of trash.

Hierarchies backed by force are not morally wrong. Being a tyrant is morally wrong, but a ruler without force is a bird without wings.

Who was the lady in the lake anyway?
It never says shes a god or anything, her name is literally 'lady' not 'goddess'. the washwoman is also a lady technically.

Force is the only true power.

If I've said it once, I've said it a thousand times.

IF YA CAN'T DEFEND YER SHIT! YA DIDN'T DESERVE IT IN THE FIRST PLACE!

you are sick, you go to a doctor. the doctor examines you and presents you with his conclusion. he writes you a receipt for a medicine.
will you disobey the doctor? does the doctor have to use force to make sure you obey him?

you don't have any money. you search for a job. a person proposes to hire you. you agree. the person gives you your task to do for the day.
do you disobey your employer? does the employer have to use force to make you obey him?

you have voluntarily agreed to become part of some hierarchy, because it was beneficial to you.

>He gains the "Right" to demand your obedience by your inability to stop him.

No, he gains my obedience, and that's all. It doesn't cease being wrong for him to do so. Even small children can understand that "do what I say or I'll hurt you" is the cry of the bully. It's the very core of injustice.

>Volentary.
>Working a job, in order to get paid, so that you can afford the food, water, and shelter that you need to survive.
>Volentary.

The doctor is not ordering you to do anything, he is advising you in return for your money. In effect, the customer is the one with the power there.

And yes, for the second example... your employer uses the threat of firing you if you don't do your work, which is backed up by security guards to keep you out, which is force.

You live in a city with Anki the Shepherd.
You rape his daughter.
King Enki sends his guards to arrest you.
You come along because being executed is in your best interest.

Wait.

>Although hierarchy and society in general are based in large part on the principle of reciprocity and self-interest, the reality is that in a society where conflicting interests exist, an arbitrating power is a necessity, and to carry out its edicts it must have the use of coercive force so that it can rule in favor of one interest over another.
>The alternative is a society where conflicting interests cannot be peaceably resolved by fiat if negotiations fail, resulting in bloodshed.
>Liberty is better understood through the concept of negative rights applied as a limitation on the powers of the state backed by the threat of invoking the right to revolution, then as the concept that all social relations must be strictly voluntary, which is an unobtainable, undesirable pipe dream.

The employer can simply stop paying you. You won't work for him if he doesn't pay you. Economic power is more efficient than brute force.

Economic power is backed by brute force. That is literally what money is. It even says this note is legal tender for all debts public and private. And this is backed by by the government saying it will enforce the acceptance of that currency in any way it can.

You can grow your own food, get water from the river and build your own house. What's the problem? No one's stopping you. You just won't get that smartphone you like.

>Go build a house on public land
>Get shot for trespassing.

GG no rly.

>although hierarchy and society in general are based in large part on the principle of reciprocity and self-interest, the reality is that in a society where conflicting interests exist, an arbitrating power is a necessity

You were doing fine up to here. But

>and to carry out its edicts it must have the use of coercive force so that it can rule in favor of one interest over another.

Does not follow. For instance, on pirate crews, arbitration was generally done by the quartermaster, not because he had any means to enforce his pronouncements, but because he had been elected to his position by the crew because they all felt he was a fair and honest man.
This is not atypical in history, plenty of societies have gotten by just fine by having disputes settled by respected third parties, with no force involved.

He may not be ordering you, but a hierarchy exists - he advises you and you listen and comply.

If you don't do your work and the employer stops paying you, it's *you* who broke the voluntary contract you signed with your employer. *You* initiated aggression and the employer has a right to defend himself from economic loss and remove you from his property.

And how would you propose getting ahold of the seeds for the crops that would be needed, the tools to tend to the farm and build the house, and the rights to the land you intend to build on so some pissant can't complain to the government about you squatting on some land he just bought?

The idea of someone voluntarily submitting to punishment or agreeing to an arbiter's ruling is definitely possible, but the question is what to do when someone doesn't comply.

What happens when you live in a city with a violent or unreasonable person who simply refuses to play ball?

The answer is the same answer that has been sounded through history. You put your hands on him and violate him. You imprison him or kill him, against his will, because it pleases you, because it is necessary.

A society that runs mostly on voluntary arrangements can work. I would go so far as to say most societies work like that. But the sword MUST exist. You cannot get away from the sword. You can cry about it, you can call it immortal, you can complain to God Himself that its not fair that everyone's will cannot be accommodated, but the reality is that when push comes to shove "Lets agree to" must give way to "Thou shalt" or you're not a ruler, you're a life coach.

wasn't the quartermaster the one who dished out the punishment? Like, he had the power to have you locked in the brig.

What is property tax?

You can find a piece of land that isn't anyone's property and claim it along with all its resources. It's called original appropriation.

He advises and you can choose to comply or not. That is because you, as a paying customer, are above him in the hierarchy.

Just because he is a doctor doesn't mean he is "above" you, he is just as much a tool for his customers to use as a retail worker is.

Legitimate power can only be derived from the consent of the governed!

Yes, and? So what? It's backed by force. Force is what matters. Force is all that matters.

but you only have protection as far as the law allows it. If the law is "no you can't", then what are you going to do?

And when someone else claims that land and they don't give a shit about you claiming that land because they have guns?

Find a parcel of unowned arable land large enough to support a single person and paste the google link here.

Go ahead, I'll wait.

Fact is, all the land that can sustain humans is claimed at this point.

>hierarchies formed from mutual agreement are not a problem, because obviously they benefit all interested sides

only if you think people are rational, which is demonstrably false

Disregard this. I'm like a child who walks into a room

The idea is: if a person violates the non-aggression principle against someone, he loses any rights (stemming from NAP) he could have. He could be killed without breaking the law. If that person did not violate the NAP - for example he's obnoxious and rude but never attacked anyone, then other people can ostracize him - they can refuse to trade with him, refuse him access to their private properties, etc. This will either change his mind, or make him move away on his own.

No, it's a valid point.

This kid is claiming that mutual consent is all that matters, not force.

I would love to see how he defends his claim on his unowned land without using force.

Except the NAP is just an idea in your head. I don't believe in it. Most people don't believe in it. So this question can be viewed in two ways.

The first is the purely philosophical, where I say you can't run a society on the NAP period, because like all moralities its open to interpretation. You need a force-wielding arbiter, otherwise you'd just have random honor-killings where Ancaps claim that their enemies violated the NAP, or violated it first [giving them right to retribution, which is effectively what you're advocating in practice].

And secondly the simple pragmatic point that even THEN your ideas only have as much merit as you're willing to defend. You can be "right" as long as you want, so long as you are dead and I rule the earth.

If you want your ideas to survive you must be willing to use force to ensure their survival and enforcement.

You can choose to comply, but it will not benefit you. But you are right, you have a choice.
In every mutually agreed hierarchy you have a choice to leave at any time and lose benefits stemming form that hierarchy. Just like in employer-employee example: you can leave your job and no once can stop you, you just won't get paid.

Not when you came to him to settle a dispute.

so... what happens when you and I have a dispute, see the quartermaster, he says you're right, and I still don't agree?

>This kid

Arguments for Adults!

>Just like in employer-employee example: you can leave your job and no once can stop you, you just won't get paid.

Yeah, but you can incur responsibilities that make "don't get paid" an unacceptable outcome, rendering the choice moot in practice. This is why unions need to be a thing - any employer with more than a handful of employees has far less to lose from one of them leaving than does the leaving employee.

>Most people don't believe in it
Just try an experiment - go to a place where law enforcement is virtually nonexistent. I don't know, Somalia? Then start beating up people on the street. Count how much time it will take until people organize to fuck your shit up.
This is why NAP is a natural law: virtually everyone wants to live in peace, wants to be left alone. If you don't let them, they will eventually organize and kick your ass.

Well the two of you can fight it out if you really must.

beating you up with no force tho

That is not true, there are countless people that live off their land and are self-sufficient. There were millions of them in history. Hell, there are books teaching self-sufficiency. You can survive without ever having a job. You take a job voluntarily to get better stuff more efficiently. That's it.

so, if he doesn't actually wield any power/force to stop that from happening, why is it even a position?

You initiated aggression - you lost any rights to be protected from it.

you missed reading

No, people defend THEIR people because in absence of a legal authority, society consists in family, friends, and neighbors.

If I kill someone in Somalia, the people who like the person I killed might come after me true.

But its also the case that its just as likely that people will group together for protection and abuse others for their subsistence.

In absence of the State the rule of nature isn't "Lets all be friends" its society reduced to small related social-groupings.

The ingroup/outgroup stops being citizens vs criminals or citizens vs foreigners, it becomes my small group vs your small group. If my small group wants your shit, it may take it. If you would prevent me, then stop me.

People organize just as likely to provide for themselves or their own, as they do to protect themselves and their own. There is a reason your own fucking example is a bloody wasteland.

exactly! peace is maintained through threat of force! He gets it!

His idea is that force will only be used to answer force, and it will be done so spontaneously through the community without any authorities, officials, or interpreters.

He's effectively advocating for tribal Arab society. What an idiot.

It depends on when and where you live. It's simply not practical to do that in, say, modern America - you simply can't compete with, say, an industrialized farm, except by selling your produce as luxury goods to the upper class. And, by the definition of luxury goods, you can only have a relatively small proportion of the population surviving that way - and if you weren't born into a family that already owned enough land to do some farming, good fucking luck. If you don't own land by default, you're going to need to get a job to earn the money to buy some, if nothing else.

Because most human beings don't WANT to fight over everything, and would like to have a reasonable third party who can help them settle disputes fairly without the risk associated with violent resolution? Duh?

Somalia actually has its own law; just not a formalized Western-styled one. They went back to rule by tribal elders after they got sick of being robbed by various foreign-styled governments.
Calling Somalia an anarchy is for snotty liberals (in the classical sense) who don't consider their government to be a "real" government, many of whom want to impose another "proper" one on them in order to get the national robbery train going again.

That said, there are things you can learn about alternative societal organization from Somalia, especially if you look past Mogadishu. (Which looks like an armed camp out of Mad Max because it's had to repel multiple foreign invasions over the years)

>muh mudslimes

There are other examples throughout history.

>in b4 lengthy post about the differences between pedophilia and ehebophilia

You're advocating rule by the violent mob. A law without a law-giver, law-interpreter, or law-enforcer, which serves as nothing more then a license for people to assault each other on the grounds that their enemies did so first.

Any Ancap society that makes enough compromises to function ceases being an Ancap society and becomes a libertarian society.

It starts with "No force, everything is voluntary!" then it becomes "Okay except for dicks who violate the NAP, retaliative force is okay!" and before you know it you have institutions dedicated to interpreting NAP case law and professional law enforcers and a pseudo-state running your society.

>on the grounds that their enemies did so first.

Well, did they?

>all that theoretical musing presented as if it were well-researched and documented fact

>Well, did they?
What's your socially accepted standard of proof? Can't have juries or judges or anything like that without rule of law, and you can't have rule of law without a state.

Please name me five functional Ancap societies from history. To quality they must

1. Have no governing authority.
2. Have no law enforcement officials.
3. Be relatively successful [a tribe in Africa that never discovered math or a town in Iceland that no one has ever heard of does not count.

I'll wait. Until then your political philosophy is Commie-tier dysfunction.

it's only my word against yours in the most basic settings. people will naturally tend toward having legal protection, hopefully provate and voluntary, that will help them solve any such disputes.
for example if i claim that you broke into my home and attacked me, you may present your location information that you've voluntarily shared with your protection agency that shows you were in your house the entire time. if i then claim that this data is fake, the protection agency can hire a 3rd party expert that will prove the logs were not tampered with.

the main thing is for the protection system to be privatized, then it will fall under laws governing free market and any competition will ensure the protection agency has the best interest of their clients in mind, not the interest of any government and that no monopolies will survive in the long term.

>Be relatively successful [a tribe in Africa that never discovered math or a town in Iceland that no one has ever heard of does not count.
Why shouldn't they. If they didn't fucking implode themselves and the people are happy who gives a fuck if they won't be putting men on the moon or advancing calculus.

Except that just moves the problem one step removed.

If you have private law enforcement agencies, what happens when the agencies cannot reach an agreement. The answer is always two things.

1. There is an established authority to judge between them [in which case you have a pseudo-state, as I described above as the inevitable outcome of an Ancap society seeking to become functional by adopting state-like traits in private institutions]

Or they don't, and they fight for their clients. The notion of privatizing law runs counter to the entire concept of law.

I have no response to this other then to call you a nigger, so I'm going to call you a nigger.

Nigger.

There.

well, "ackchyually", ancap society is libertarian society (just taken to logical extreme). ancaps inherit all the libertarian moral framework.
most ancaps would welcome a change from current state to minarchism, they just wouldn't want to stop there.

if two private agencies have a dispute between themselves, they hire a third party arbiter. this recursion either ends somewehere, or becomes like a world war...

Except the libertarian society is functional and the ancap one isn't.

Libertarians keep the basic framework of proven, functional large-scale societies in place, and can point to several large-scale pseudo-libertarian societies in the past that show their ideas can work in practice.

Ancaps have nothing but conjecture that flies in the face of experience and contradicts everything we know about social relations.
So you're basically admitting your ideal society is one disagreement away from feuding warlords?

Fantastic.

Honestly, it might be a sign you're supposed to become a champion of the land. Might be a sign that you are destined to become a mighty warrior and defeat an unspeakable evil.

Or maybe the lake lady was giving out swords that day.

The motivations of the divine are inherently unknowable. What is important is what you take it to mean and how you act based on that. Arthur used it to leverage himself into a position whereby he could unite the Britons so they may defend themselves.

no, where am i admitting that? my post was an exaggeration. the way to resolve a convoluted legal dispute is to find an impartial third party arbiter.
unless you have a scenario so exaggerated that literally entire world is involved, you will always find such an arbiter.
what's more, the private protection agencies will have an economical incentive to solve as many matters as possible non-violently. doing other wise will lose them clients. would you like to be a client of someone that escalates a conflict instead of resolving it, costing them (and you) money? any private organization will likely prefer not to lose money.

Because Great Britain comes kicking down the door with their math and guns and enslaves your people, that's why.

Kneel before the King, Peasant.

Why seek a neutral third party to arbitrate when I can just buy a bunch of guns and take your shit? I'll cut the third party in for half so he doesn't intervene, since he is neutral and has no stake in the conflict otherwise.

Your entire political theory rests on the notion that everyone is going to act completely reasonably and somehow always come to an agreement no matter what the nature of the dispute.

The mere existence of emotion or stubbornness completely overthrows your whole political system.

So I'll restate my test. Start listing historical precedents, or go back to the kid's table with the Reds who also think their ridiculous philosophy can work in the real world.

>t. Projecting autist

no, my entire theory rests on the notion that people are egoistic and will always try doing what's best for them. any mutual agreement means that both sides benefit.

But I could benefit more by screwing over this guy instead of coming to an agreement! Ah ha!

Said half the world leaders ever.

Whether you are RIGHT or not that both sides will benefit, the question is whether the people living in your system will actually behave that way.

Saying "My system is perfect, as long as everyone acts perfectly moral per my definition" is the same as saying "My system is dog shit"

>any mutual agreement means that both sides benefit.
what are you smoking

Remember kids, there's no government like NO GOVERNMENT!

Hoist that black flag.

I mean, he is TECHNICALLY correct.

You can just refuse to agree until you benefit.

The problem comes when you reach an impasse. If one side says "I think you will benefit by not being shot, and I will benefit by getting all your stuff." then that doesn't fit the definition of a mutually beneficial agreement for any sane person.

Basically he is relying on magic fairy space magic to make everyone reasonable and eliminate greed.

but this guy could benefit more if he screw me over! if i screw him over, he might get butt mad and never deal with me again! but wait! if i give him a teeny little bit more, i still get a profit and he'll be less likely to screw me over!
(repeat until both sides agree)
people already behave that way *today* - it's called capitalism and it obviously works.

black and gold flag!