[Pants-of-dog]

All irrelevant. Please provide evidence that ancient marriages don't constitute contracts between groups of people.

I did show how ancient marriages do not fit the current definition of contract, and you dismissed it as irrelevant.

Again: the parties involved in the marriage are not the same people who made the deal. With contracts, the people who sign the deal are also the ones involved in the deal.

The actual discussion was about legalistic frameworks. Please note that the ancinet Judaic legal system provides said framework.

What makes you think that under anarcho-captialism there can be no legal trials?

No Ancap believes this, the era of the judges is described in scripture as not having a state, but being confederated among tribes/family-clans.

If you consider the community executing justice among their own after a religious leader made a ruling statism, then you either don't understand anarcho-capitalism that you are presuming to critique, or you have an excessively broad understanding of statism.

Family claims executing judgment on their own lands against perpetrators of an accepted moral code in those lands, after the ruling of an accepted religious authority, is definitive of AnCap thought. There is not third-party overriding the ability of justice to be reckoned on their own lands in this system, thus it does not qualify as a "third party monopolist of coercion" as Ancap's define those terms.

If I own 1,000 acres of land, and on my land I have peasants working my farms and living in their homes, they are under my authority as the owner of the property (proprietorship) and thus I have the authority to set the terms of their staying on my lands. These can include, and usually do, laws and covenants etc.

If someone violates this law, and as a term of living on the land, agreed to obey it even given its potential consequences, I can enforce their punishment on my land. That does not make me a state according to AnCap thought. Likewise, If I had a local bishop come and determine that the person was guilty via a trial, that is not a violation of Ancap thought either.

If the church said that "they should be the ones to carry out the execution", and I let them based on a covenant I have with the church, that is not a violation of Ancap thought either.

You are just mistaken on this and are trying to change the definitions now to save face on your clear embarrassment.

I have bigger fish to fry, I don't have time to deal with the silliness that you post weeks after I give a response.

I was done with this talk awhile ago.

I am not discussing your an-crap. You seem to have trouble following the conversation.

My point was that marriage is not an example of a contract that requires no legal framework or state. Even in ancient Biblical times, this was the case.

And so, we now get back to your desert island example and we can see tha5 while deals made on that island may be considered agreements, they are not contracts.

[Victoribus Spolia]

the parties involved in the marriage are not the same people who made the deal. With contracts, the people who sign the deal are also the ones involved in the deal.

No, I can sign contracts on behalf of my children, and family clans in ancient times made contracts on behalf of theirs regarding marriage.

This proves nothing.

So yes, it is irrelevant.

My point was that marriage is not an example of a contract that requires no legal framework or state. Even in ancient Biblical times, this was the case.

I never claimed that it required no legal framework, just that it did not require a third-party-monopolist of coercion for its enforcement, which is absolutely true, both historically, as has been discussed, and logically (as there is no necessity in such).

In fact, in this thread, it has been insisted that a common-law code based on common morality is essential for contracts to work, even in Ancap societies.

Now, if you are defining a contract as necessitating a state, you are just begging the question. The definition I gave from Webster does not necessitate that interpretation and neither does the concept broadly.

As long as an agreement is binding and enforcible, it satisfies the definition of a contract sufficiently for my purposes as an Ancap.

We are discussing Ancap points of contention after all, whether you think so or not.

[Oxymandias]

@Victoribus Spolia

In fact, in this thread, it has been insisted that a common-law code based on common morality is essential for contracts to work, even in Ancap societies.

There would be no one to enforce that common law in an anarcho-capitalism. You'll probably get loads of legal systems instead of one, common law. Also I find it funny that you think there would be any regard for morality in an ideology that's essentially neoliberalism 2.0.

[Pants-of-dog]

No, I can sign contracts on behalf of my children, and family clans in ancient times made contracts on behalf of theirs regarding marriage.

This proves nothing.

So yes, it is irrelevant.

Since the people getting married are not children, and since in your example the kids would not be responsible for conractual obligations, your criticism is irrelevant.

I never claimed that it required no legal framework, just that it did not require a third-party-monopolist of coercion for its enforcement, which is absolutely true, both historically, as has been discussed, and logically (as there is no necessity in such).

No, the punishments in ancient Biblical times were performed by a beadle acting under the orders of a rabbinical court, or the community acting under such orders.

This is, for all practical purposes, a sttae with a monopoly on coercion.

In fact, in this thread, it has been insisted that a common-law code based on common morality is essential for contracts to work, ...

Unless you are using the term “common law code” to include all civil law systems (and not just the common law system from the Anglosphere), this is incorrect. Legal systems other than the common law system were and are used for contracts.

Mind you, this is just you repeating myargument with different words.

Yes, contracts require a legalistic framework, and this would not exist on a desert island.

Now, if you are defining a contract as necessitating a state, you are just begging the question. The definition I gave from Webster does not necessitate that interpretation and neither does the concept broadly.

As long as an agreement is binding and enforcible, it satisfies the definition of a contract...

Unfortunately, the Webster definition is not very good and does not discuss the actual legalistic context of contracts.

Also, please note that I never discussed if a state was necessary. I pointed out that legalistic frameworks were necessary.

If you wsh to believe that legal frameworks without states are possible, go ahead. To me, it sounds very unlikely.

[Victoribus Spolia]

There would be no one to enforce that common law in an anarcho-capitalism. You'll probably get loads of legal systems instead of one, common law.

If there is a common morality, the enforcement of such laws is left to family clans, but the morality is accepted by all who are engaging freely in trade.

I do not think Anarcho-Capitalism would be workable without some commonly accepted morality, like Christianity provided in the medieval age for Europeans, or Shinto/Zen tradition offered the Japanese during their Feudal era.

The contrary is like saying that Bedouins or nomadic groups had no means to enforce their morality without state mediation, which is nonsense.

Stateless groups have had common morals, a culture of honor, and enforced their own customs upon their own people. This is true of landed peoples with no central state.

Feudal Europe is a prime example, its morality came from Christianity and the Church, but the local lords, kings, manors, duchies, etc., all independently enforced this common morality, indeed, they respected the church so much that it heeded its call for a Crusade, enforced it doctrines regarding usury, and even managed its own intra-european conflicts according to a church-derived code of chivalry.

None of this the papacy had the power to enforce as a state, but only through "spiritual" censure.

That is what I am talking about a common morality and law code for contracts, without a third-party monopolist of coercion.

Since the people getting married are not children, and since in your example the kids would not be responsible for conractual obligations, your criticism is irrelevant.

How do you know this?

Often times marriages were contracted between clans while those to be married were still in infancy.

Either way, the critique is irrelevant because a contract was agreed to by someone, even if it was between families and not individuals. Its a contract nonetheless.

No, the punishments in ancient Biblical times were performed by a beadle acting under the orders of a rabbinical court, or the community acting under such orders.

Jewish nonsense.

The whole congregation took the offender out to be stoned: (Numbers 15:36)

So the assembly took him outside the camp and stoned him to death, as the LORD commanded Moses.

I don't accept rabbinical lies regarding Scripture. The OT is quite clear as to what happened, the elders of tribes carried on justice through religious advisement from a clerical judiciary after the Death of Moses until the institution of the Monarchy.

Please demonstrate your claim to the contrary.

Unless you are using the term “common law code” to include all civil law systems (and not just the common law system from the Anglosphere), this is incorrect. Legal systems other than the common law system were and are used for contracts.

I don't know what you are talking about here.

Yes, contracts require a legalistic framework, and this would not exist on a desert island.

Thats not true, two people can acknowledge each others laws and rights without a state, because such do not derive from a state. The contrary claim is marxian propoganda.

Easily refuted.

Unfortunately, the Webster definition is not very good and does not discuss the actual legalistic context of contracts.

Here comes the fake-news argument.

This is why no one takes you seriously.

please note that I never discussed if a state was necessary. I pointed out that legalistic frameworks were necessary.

I never disagreed with this claim; in fact, I defended such in this thread.

If you wsh to believe that legal frameworks without states are possible, go ahead.

Will do.

To me, it sounds very unlikely.

Your opinion is irrelevant.

[B0ycey]

There would be no one to enforce that common law in an anarcho-capitalism. You'll probably get loads of legal systems instead of one, common law. Also I find it funny that you think there would be any regard for morality in an ideology that's essentially neoliberalism 2.0.

I'm afraid VS doesn't even know what 'Morality' is @Oxymandias. He thinks it is something someone ought to be doing - so considers it laws rather than principles. Poor soul clearly missed English class when fantasizing over medieval practices during binge watchings of Game of Thrones. So don't expect much on this subject from him unless you want to bash your head on the brick wall every time he replies.

[Victoribus Spolia]

^ Butt-hurt

He thinks it is something someone ought to be doing - so considers it laws rather than principles.

This is correct, because I'm not a relativist heathen such as yourself.

I believe in divine commands and moral law, like all faithful Christians have for the last 2,000 years.



Thanks for pointing out the obvious.

[B0ycey]

I believe in divine commands and moral law, like all faithful Christians have for the last 2,000 years.

There can be no such things as moral law unless everyone agrees to the principles of it, only law. Perhaps you are searching the something else to solidify your faith in your ideology? Although it is clear to any rational mind that there is no logic to it nonetheless. Only faith I'm afraid. Just like all religions.

[Victoribus Spolia]

There can be no such things as moral law unless everyone agrees to the principles of it, only law.

Obviously this is false, you keep assuming your false definition. What makes something moral is obligation, not consent. No ethical philosopher has held to that notion.

IF God exist, the morality of His commands (their obligating power) comes from His authority and power to enforce them, not by our consent to them.

Likewise, if killing animals is immoral (like Singer's utilitarianism demands), whether you agree with him or not is irrelevant to this claim because he has shown that no one ought to eat animals based on certain rational scientific arguments.

Although it is clear to any rational mind that there is no logic to it nonetheless.

Nonsense, you have actually refused to debate my argument in the other thread, out of fear I suppose.

Only faith I'm afraid. Just like all religions.

Caricature and ad-hominem.

[Oxymandias]

@Victoribus Spolia

If there is a common morality, the enforcement of such laws is left to family clans, but the morality is accepted by all who are engaging freely in trade.

I do not think Anarcho-Capitalism would be workable without some commonly accepted morality, like Christianity provided in the medieval age for Europeans, or Shinto/Zen tradition offered the Japanese during their Feudal era.

All the examples you provided are not examples of anarchism. Feudalism and Christianity still had hierarchy, it was merely decentralized. Anarchism is the destruction of all hierarchy. A common law cannot be enforced without a hierarchy or state. In anarchist literature, the two terms are synonymous.

The contrary is like saying that Bedouins or nomadic groups had no means to enforce their morality without state mediation, which is nonsense.

They still had hierarchy and Bedouin clans can be seen as statelets. Historically, the largest of the clans could become states as you can see with the Quraysh, the Ghassanids, and Lakhmids.

Stateless groups have had common morals, a culture of honor, and enforced their own customs upon their own people. This is true of landed peoples with no central state.

Often these methods involve enforcing a hierarchy. This is still not anarchism. Anarchism, as I have stated before, is the destruction of all hierarchy. This is why many anarchists see anarcho-capitalists as not anarchists.

Feudal Europe is a prime example, its morality came from Christianity and the Church, but the local lords, kings, manors, duchies, etc., all independently enforced this common morality, indeed, they respected the church so much that it heeded its call for a Crusade, enforced it doctrines regarding usury, and even managed its own intra-european conflicts according to a church-derived code of chivalry.

The Church is an authority which shared such authority with other feudal states. This authority came from how it can set whatever morality it wanted upon the population. It is from this power that the Church became corrupt and demanded tribute. Feudal lords enforced a strict class system where the family you were born from determined your life forever and social mobility was nonexistent.

That is what I am talking about a common morality and law code for contracts, without a third-party monopolist of coercion.

The Church had a monopoly on morality.

[B0ycey]

Obviously this is false, you keep assuming your false definition. What makes something moral is obligation, not consent. No ethical philosopher has held to that notion.

The concept of morality doesn't require obligations or consent to exist, only the principles of what is right and wrong. The only person who declares false definitions on this entire thread as being absolute is you VS. In fact, you require agreement on them before proceeding in a debate rather than accept dictionary definitions.

[Victoribus Spolia]

The concept of morality doesn't require obligations or consent to exist, only the principles of what is right and wrong.

I already showed you that is not how morality as norms is defined in moral philosophy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normative

This is the whole point of the is-ought fallacy; which is a fallacy specifically dealing with morals (thus morals were assumed by the philosophers and logicians of ages past as norms:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is–ought_problem

I dealt with you on these errors here:

viewtopic.php?f=23&t=174126&start=100

In fact, you require agreement on them before proceeding in a debate rather than accept dictionary definitions.

I am using your own method against you actually.

You have already told me you would never debate me because you are afraid I would trap you using definitions that are not commonly accepted. Now I do, and you refuse to acknowledge them, who is the real hypocrite here?

Thing is, if you refuse to accept a definition of morality as in any way normative, then I don't know what you are complaining about because you refuse to discuss obligation (which you don't believe to exist) with me.

You are free to define morality as opinions, but that is neither philosophical, nor is it my position.

Likewise, I have shown that morals are objective, they are are more than opinion. I have shown my definition to be true in the debate thread on that topic.

You have refused to challenge it in the other thread.

[B0ycey]

I already showed you that is not how morality as norms is defined in moral philosophy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normative

This is the whole point of the is-ought fallacy; which is a fallacy specifically dealing with morals (thus morals were assumed by the philosophers and logicians of ages past as norms:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is–ought_problem

I dealt with you on these errors here:

viewtopic.php?f=23&t=174126&start=100

Are you seriously trying to declare that morality is a normative and are agreed by all of society? No wonder you think morality isn't subjective. You are wrong here and it explains why you are so wrong actually. But by all means refuse to pick up a dictionary. What you consider morals are just laws and ethics btw.

You have refused to challenge it in the other thread.

Why jump into an argument when others are doing a great job of disproving the claims already.

[Victoribus Spolia]

All the examples you provided are not examples of anarchism. Feudalism and Christianity still had hierarchy, it was merely decentralized. Anarchism is the destruction of all hierarchy. A common law cannot be enforced without a hierarchy or state. In anarchist literature, the two terms are synonymous.

I am not an Anarchist, I am an Anarcho-Capitalist.

Hans-Hermans Hoppe and other AnCap specifically argue for heirarchy specifically, but not for a state.

So yes, I agree that common-laws can be enforced by a heirarchy. Which means that a state is not necessary.

Anarcho-Capitalism is merely the belief in private property absolutism and the denial of third-party monopolist of coercion.

They still had hierarchy and Bedouin clans can be seen as statelets. Historically, the largest of the clans could become states as you can see with the Quraysh, the Ghassanids, and Lakhmids.

I'm fine with all of that, but I am fine with heirarchy, not a state. You are confusing Anarchism with Anarcho-Capitalism.

I am the opposite of an egalitarian.

Often these methods involve enforcing a hierarchy. This is still not anarchism. Anarchism, as I have stated before, is the destruction of all hierarchy. This is why many anarchists see anarcho-capitalists as not anarchists.

This is true. I am not advocating for Anarchism, So I don't know if you are agreeing with me or critiquing me.

The Church is an authority which shared such authority with other feudal states. This authority came from how it can set whatever morality it wanted upon the population. It is from this power that the Church became corrupt and demanded tribute. Feudal lords enforced a strict class system where the family you were born from determined your life forever and social mobility was nonexistent.

Correct. I am fine with all of that actually.

The Church had a monopoly on morality.

Correct, but not on coercion, which is what matters here.

The church should have a monopoly on morality in my opinion, but the coercion is the right of private property owners only over their own lands and subjects.

[Victoribus Spolia]

Are you seriously trying to declare that morality is a normative and are agreed by all of society?

No, I am claiming the issue of moral philosophy is determining the rational justification for normative statements, which is why the is-ought issue is the core issue in moral philosophy. I am discussing moral philosophy, so that is obviously important. That you don't get this is insane.

No, I do not believe that for something to be normative it needs to be agreed upon by all society. That notion of objectivity is also one you made up. Shall we discuss that again as well?

Why jump into an argument when others are doing a great job of disproving the claims already.

You must be watching the wrong debate because i've about wrapped it up with my latest challenger. You can be next if you got the balls.

[B0ycey]

You must be watching the wrong debate because i've about wrapped it up with my latest challenger. You can be next if you got the balls.

I don't know why you think the term morality means something different in philosophy, but whatever. At least it is half way in you acknowledging that you are wrong so I'll take it.

But yes, you are correct, Ingliz has almost wrapped up that debate for you. No point flogging a dead horse and embarrassing you further. We still have Pote to come after all - whenever he finally remembers he accepted the debate that he clearly has forgotten about at the moment.

[Victoribus Spolia]

No point flogging a dead horse and embarrassing you further.

If by embarrassment you mean that I am now so confident in it that I might publish that version specifically after its success in this trial run, then sure. Embarrassed.

We still have Pote to come after all - whenever he finally remembers he accepted the debate that he clearly has forgotten about at the moment.

Yes, Pote and Saeko have both been quite disappointing; which is why I have opened up these arguments to all challengers.

I need more blood.

[Oxymandias]

@Victoribus Spolia

I am not an Anarchist, I am an Anarcho-Capitalist.

Hans-Hermans Hoppe and other AnCap specifically argue for heirarchy specifically, but not for a state.

So yes, I agree that common-laws can be enforced by a heirarchy. Which means that a state is not necessary.

Anarcho-Capitalism is merely the belief in private property absolutism and the denial of third-party monopolist of coercion.

Then why don the term "Anarcho" despite not being anarchist? Wouldn't there be a better term for such an ideology? I can come up with a name if you would like.

[Victoribus Spolia]

Then why don the term "Anarcho" despite not being anarchist? Wouldn't there be a better term for such an ideology? I can come up with a name if you would like.

Well, Anarchisms of all stripes have been grounded in a common opposition to the state.

Given that Anarcho-Capitalists all generally agree on the basics, I tend to have little problem with the label.

I do like labels, its a weird quirk of mine.

I like Neo-Feudalism as an alternative.

However, feel free to come up with one, I do enjoy the labels you come up with!

[Oxymandias]

@Victoribus Spolia

Why not call yourself an Apoligian? It is derived from the italian word for stateless and family.