AnCaps: Help required. What's the free market solution to this?

[Spleanicus]

G'day philosophers, newbie to FDR here ::)So I was on Youtube recently and one of the channels I follow has recently started weighing in on Libertariansim/Anarchism/Free market.He's a pretty clever bloke but seems pretty deeply rooted in Statism. Because I'm still rather new to a lot of this I don't think I can make the arguements for anarchism efffectively.Here's one such uploadhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kd0h1QI8gV8I'd personally enjoy listening to a debate with him and Stef if they were up for it.Thoughts on any of this?

[Tyler Durden]

You only need to listen to the first 11 seconds to find out that he's not pretty clever.

 

Pretty clever people show curiosity when they ask a question, this guy is showing the exact opposite right from the start.

 

I didn't feel like listening to the rest of it so I'll leave the remaining 5 minutes and 49 seconds for someone else to comment on.

[abcqwerty123]

Yah. I am about a minute in and not planning to watch anymore. In that minute, it is pretty easy to tell that he is just trying to talk crap about something that he refuses to understand while claiming that his masters are responsible for the solution, without ever bringing up the reason for the problem in the first place.

 

So, in a free society, you don't have government creating most of the worlds problems. Many if not all of the reasons for the abuse of children, whether it be parental abuse, sexual abuse, kidnapping, or anything else, are caused by government and Stefan has made a video talking about this (probably many actually). On top of that, in a free society, parenting would be a pretty important thing and you wouldn't have government there doing there best to make sure all parents abuse the crap out of kids, so parent in a free society would more then likely, act like real parents.

 

Hopefully this helps answer your question or at the very least, gives you ideas to think on. And again, I didn't watch the video, only about 1 minute of it because people like that make you want to destroy your monitor in hopes you will reach the source. But ya, remember... The goal isn't to fix problems. The goal is to prevent problems.

[Brentb]

You can buy life insurance policies on your kids as soon as they are born. These policies are very inexpensive because kids typically don't die for a very long time. Such policies can have riders for abducted kids stating that they'll pay out the value of the policy  to recover your child. This would make it profitable for a company to track down your child and bring him back to you.

[Wuzzums]

He's a cop. All you need to know.

[Magnus]

The fact that the State spends millions of dollars on something is not proof that millions of dollars are required to accomplish the same (stated) goal.  Maybe the speaker has not realized that governmental inefficiency is well-documented phenomenon.

 

Also, I agree that sexual slavery is a grotesque and outrageously hideous phenomenon.  But since it is such a persistent and horrible problem, why, then, is the US government spending money on things like space exploration and corn subsidies, before fixing the sexual slavery problem? 

 

Even if we agreed that rooting out the scourge of sexual slavery is the greatest evil (and I can't think of anything worse at the moment), AND believed that only a State can fix it (although this is where I disagree), then why has he not made a video decrying the State's decision to spend money on ANYTHING else? 

[NumberSix]

1. He hasn’t proved that the government is an effective solution; this is just assumed in his argument.  Generally government is horribly inefficient and ineffective.

 

2. Charitable organizations could fund this sort of thing; most people have a soft spot for children, not a hard sell.

 

3. Which is worse, a few hundred exploited children or a million dead in the Iraq war?  If you look at all the negative consequences of government and compare that to the positive good that is done there is a huge imbalance on the negative side. 

 

4. He is using an emotionally charged issue to cloud people’s judgment, pure sophistry. 

 

5.  If prostitution was legal, there would be less demand.

[RyanT]

The fact that the State spends millions of dollars on something is not proof that millions of dollars are required to accomplish the same (stated) goal.  Maybe the speaker has not realized that governmental inefficiency is well-documented phenomenon.

 

Also, I agree that sexual slavery is a grotesque and outrageously hideous phenomenon.  But since it is such a persistent and horrible problem, why, then, is the US government spending money on things like space exploration and corn subsidies, before fixing the sexual slavery problem? 

 

Even if we agreed that rooting out the scourge of sexual slavery is the greatest evil (and I can't think of anything worse at the moment), AND believed that only a State can fix it (although this is where I disagree), then why has he not made a video decrying the State's decision to spend money on ANYTHING else? 

 

That really struck me too,

 

I made it to 1:47 and though to myself, 'how can you take someone seriously when they're claiming to be really concerned about how an problem might be dealt with in an anarchist society, the chances are, none of us will live to see?'

 

...kinda a big red flag, that you're being trolled.

[prolix]

1. He calls it "your little magical free market". Already he shows a bias.

 

2. If we have a free society. Then we have a society that has overcome the Initiation of Force (IOF) of the state which kidnaps millions of people. Not hundreds or thousands. Child slavery is an IOF. So an IOF will be responded to in a free society. So people, namely parents of missing kids, will donate and support such a venture. And without the state taking 1/2 your income, people will be able to set aside money for insurance and charity of such things.

 

3. He says in a statist society, finding sex slaves is a net loss. So thus in a free market it will also be a net loss. This is not correct because of what I pointed out in point 2. 

 

4. He assumes that a free society will have "little communes". This is not a valid assumption. To think you have to violate property right to travel around a free society is wildly absurd.

 

5. If his child is taken from Washington to Florida, he will not be interested in paying to get his kid back? He will not be interested in getting re-compensation from the perpetrators of said IOF?

 

6. Under what authority could someone investigating an IOF intrude on others property rights? In a free society, if we can even have one then the NAP and responding to IOF will be top priority in such a society. Innocent people will probably let you look on their property for sex slaves, unless they actually have sex slaves.

 

7. In the video this guy actually refers to a free society transition as; "Taking the whole system and tearing it down" Ok, this guy is basically making a "roads" argument assuming that the state currently solves the problem and that a free market must be xyz pejorative things that support his bias.

 

8. This is like the analogy, "If you cut out my cancer, there is a possibility that I will get a cold or flu in the future, so let's leave the cancer in to avoid future cold/flus".

 

Look, if a free society never solves the problem of child sex slaves to the tune of a couple 1000 a year, unlikely, but let's assume. It has still, by definition, solved the problem of a distorted market, millions imprisoned, millions dead in wars and so many greater horrors. Not to mention that the only route to a free society is to treat children with the highest regard.

 

 So the question becomes, where are all these children being taken from in a free society? A society, that by definition  puts a premium on child well-being and adverting violations of the NAP. It simply wont be a problem. Not because of the magical hand of the free market, but by the very nature of the kind of society we are talking about...

[Spleanicus]

...kinda a big red flag, that you're being trolled.

He seems to be rather serious about his attack (I don't think criticism is an apt word in this case) on Libertarianism/AnCap.There are more uploads than just this.And yeah he was a cop and I think also ex military so that whole structure/law/order thing I imagine is internalised.

[RyanT]

He seems to be rather serious about his attack (I don't think criticism is an apt word in this case) on Libertarianism/AnCap.There are more uploads than just this.

 

Ah don't get me wrong I don't think he was  doing it to annoy libertarians 'for teh lulz'

but just that he was being totally disingenuous.

 

Tyler nailed it,

 

He acted as if he was concerned/curious about how these problems might be handled in a voluntary society, 

yet showed practically no evidence he'd actually taken even a cursory glance at the mountains of witting,

videos and podcasts that are available on the topic.

 

[Livemike]

Ok, off the top of my head, sue the bastards.  Look if you enslave someone that's a tort, right?  And while it may be hard to organize how children are represented in court, they still have rights.  Someone might have to act as a trustee handling the money until they are old enough to pass whatever test of responsibility AC society sets (it won't be pure age).  So where there are torts there are lawyers, conceivable taking 10, 20, 30% or more of the judgement.   The judgment for sexual enslavement of a child will be at least 6 figures, maybe seven.  I know that the Catholic Church often pays $30K or less for it's abuses but we're talking about a just system.  So 10-30% of 6-7 figure amounts.  Plus you add the costs of finding the children and rescuing them to the suit, directly.  Because that's a cost inflicted by the rights-violator and you shouldn't have to pay it, the child shouldn't have to pay it, they have to pay it -directly to you once it's shown they did this.

 

Of course this solution is only even relevant to children who aren't covered by a DRO agreement.  Almost every child would be as part of a family plan.  I mean could you imagine driving a car with insurance if you get injured, but not your children in the back?  Of course not.

 

Those who stopped listening he really goes off the deep end about 3 minute mark.  He talks about how "communities" wouldn't care about this problem and so the people who are saving the children would be barred from going places.  I mean he's claiming that the rescuers would have to "trespass everybody's property alone the way to rescue your child".  Err... no, there's these things called roads*.  People would trade and therefore move, over these distances as much or more than they do now.  

 

Of course the offenders themselves would presumably refuse access to their property, just as thieves would forbid access to their warehouses of ill-gotten gain.  So what?  If you have a reasonable case to search a property for evidence of crimes then you can do that.  If this wasn't the case then AC would have far bigger problems than child sex rings.  Any murderer could just hang out at his mom's house until the witnesses were killed.  So it's not a real objection.  If he honestly believed this would be a problem, that would be what the video was about. 

 

I mean he asks if we care enough about our child being raped and murdered to cross somebody else's property.  That's not the problem with finding or rescuing these children.  The police don't have to cross that many property lines to do that now, other than the actual offender's property lines.  These are, as I already mentioned, not relevant.  

 

 

I mean he must know that AC has enforcement mechanisms for protection people.  His only reason to pretend that they wouldn't work in this case is that he believes private law enforcers wouldn't be allowed to cross property lines.  Which is absurd.  

 

Oh and one thing I will say for sure about the response to child sexual slavery in AC.  We won't be giving the power to detain them to people with no accountability in the hopes that the people detaining them aren't serial sex offenders. 

 

* Oh god we're onto the roads again.  

[Livemike]

You only need to listen to the first 11 seconds to find out that he's not pretty clever.

 

Pretty clever people show curiosity when they ask a question, this guy is showing the exact opposite right from the start.

 

I didn't feel like listening to the rest of it so I'll leave the remaining 5 minutes and 49 seconds for someone else to comment on.

 

Justicar is clever.  I've seen him being clever, being both witty and incisive.  If he isn't being clever in this vid, (and he isn't) it's because he doesn't want to be.

[PatrickC]

I've been following this series of videos over the past couple of weeks quite closely. Justicar is certainly no dumb cookie that's for sure. But it's a useful exercise in understanding some of our more cleverer opponents.

 

His argument is that since we choose to remain within society, therefore we have chosen to be taxed and ruled over. Since we could leave it and the state would leave us alone.

 

Of course that would require giving up on all the benefits that society brings, such as manufactured food, transportation, clothing and housing. But he sees those as 'entitlements' that our principles should be able to withstand. This is a fait accompli in his mind. It's a pure logic take on the social contract as he sees it.

 

Regarding this particular video, for the first time he actually begins to dabble in ethics, although he'd probably deny it. The moral argument is the only way you wiill start to demolish his argument logically. But I strongly suspect he will disappear into relativism of some sort or another.

[Magnus]

His argument is that since we choose to remain within society, therefore we have chosen to be taxed and ruled over. Since we could leave it and the state would leave us alone.

 

 

Where have I seen this argument before?

 

Oh, right --

 

[PatrickC]

Where have I seen this argument before?

 

Oh, right --

 

 

Ha nice one Magnus. Yup, that is Justicar. He likes to play logic games with people. Not so much into reason, other than to make others look foolish.

[JohnH.]

Read some of his responses in the comment section.  A few people have given him possible solutions but he refuses to accept any of them.  I doubt his sincerity.

[jacbot]

These are mostly utilitarian arguments and not helpfull

 

Best argument would be "why do you think you are a better human because you wear a uniform"