Archived Look at the guy eating shit because his delusion of property is papers gets smacked. (reddit.com)
submitted ago by Rudd-O
Posted by: Rudd-O
Posting time: 5.5 years ago on
Last edit time: never edited.
Archived on: 2/12/2017 1:51:00 AM
Views: 519
SCP: 5
5 upvotes, 0 downvotes (100% upvoted it)
Archived Look at the guy eating shit because his delusion of property is papers gets smacked. (reddit.com)
submitted ago by Rudd-O
view the rest of the comments →
[–] mikenewhouse 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
Why are you calling out others for what they think? I'm sure there are some people who are moralists that don't think it is a legal phenomenon.
[–] capitalistchemist 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
It's not so much that they see it as a legal phenomena as much as they see it as an ethical phenomena, and that the categories are close cousins. There is no shortage of people claiming rightful property can only come about through homesteading and deriving trade, that this is 'natural' and an objective truth.
I do this calling out because this whole line of reasoning is anti-practical. It references the game theoretic underpinnings of the institution when convenient, such as in animals. And it simply condemns them when inconvenient, when they drive people to act 'immorally', this condemnation is made instead of actually addressing any of the underlying incentives. The majority of ancap property theory is preaching to the choir, it is proclaiming what we all want to be the only logical, correct, and ethical way of doing things. And it ends there. There is no way to jump the gulf to implementation. Passive incentivization and reenforcing the institution through feedback mechanisms is generally the minor mention while the justness of the system is the bulk of the argument.
I do this calling out to begin to try to get ancaps to think about these things. To stop re-hashing how righteous they are and to focus on how what they want can be made evolutionarily stable, to ponder what environment gives rise to their emergence and stability. And not in the superficial 'we should all learn ethics' sense, in a deeper incentive based and strategic sense.
[–] mikenewhouse ago
right, its the gun in the room thing. I'm not saying I don't understand what you are saying. But is it necessary to draw so many lines and distinctions between people. You seem to claim 'if everyone is consequentialist, then there will somehow be a bridge build of some kind towards implementation of ancap ideology. There really isn't any reason to believe that.
People are going to continue make awesome solutions that appeal to both 'groups' of people. These solutions will get used. Things should improve. For example, does everyone that starts using bitcoin, undermining fiat, have to buy in to Rothbard. No, obviously not.
You basically are opining that people aren't good enough at economics/risk vs. reward thinking, if only! It sounds like when a liberal democrat thinks if only everyone was as smart and good as me, but they aren't, so I am going to make their decisions. Obviously you don't get to that conclusion, but I think there is a similarity.