i think it means "collecting taxes"

also building roads qualifies, I think.

Social norm count: 61

That's not including social, norms or norm by itself and I didn't count societal norm.

Um, yes you did afaict:

I don't blame you for backtracking from this, it's a terrible idea.

Also, having a "monopoly" of law as you put it is an advantage for doing business. Business want stability and clarity. Absolutely no one is going to want to enter a contract or do business somewhere where there are a plurality of competing legal systems where each system has no meaningful legitimacy and may go out of business at any time.

Shunning is one solution of many.

Does anyone else get a déjà vu feeling of reading that chick from SMP defending her religious beliefs when reading this thread? I do.

This whole thread was in response to a deja vu feeling from "who will build the rooooadz".

Figured it might clear up the basics again. Figured some trolling would take place, but definitely getting some discussion. The water rights one was interesting.

I'm pretty astounded that people still don't ****ing get it, and STILL ask retarded questions like this.

There are empirical investigations regarding AC. I meant there were none considered in Pinker's study. Here is an example of an empirical investigation that is poignant to the topic at hand:
An American Experiment in Anarcho-
Capitalism: The -Not So Wild, Wild West

Furthermore you have the fact that the global system is anarchic through the whole period that Pinker considered the less violent part. We do not have a world government today, and each country is sovereign with respect to each other. There are no global governments. There is no global tax. We have voluntary sovereign member states of international organizations, but this is consistent with anarchy.

In any case for me i take a similar approach to Nassim Taleb in the thinking about political issues, i treat the whole thing like a system. How best would a system function. What will make robust systems and allow the most efficient growth. I try remove all the political jargon. From this approach its easier to see that the question of what is the best system is more theoretically bound.
I keep bringing up the poker analogy because its quite similar relative to this point.

On top of this, IMO there is little value in experiments in this area, its really too difficult to do with a definable error rate. Its also very easy to misapply stats in that aggregating data sets that aren't formed under the same conditions is problematic due to the need for a common denominator.

Won't each segment of the society want to enforce their own views as law? What is to stop them?

I guess a better question would be, what decides where one society ends and another society begins? Or do you see the entire world as one massive society with the same rules?

Yea, no one cares about the rich being shunned. I do care about the poor forcibly taking from the rich because society has decided that the rich should contribute to the poor. What is to keep this from happening? Sure self defense and all but surely you recognize that self defense may not be at all effective when facing a large group.

Except that does not work. Why do you think that no real anarchist state currently exists? Because every time there is an absence of a government, a group (or multiple groups) fight to take control regardless of what the people want. A large group of people can easily enslave individuals for the benefit of the group. I mean, the world did start in the state of anarchy and what formed out of that was governments. I would argue that the first governments formed as a result of this kind of slavery. How do you suppose that an anarchist state would be able to actually stay an anarchist state? It is highly doubtful that self defense would ever be enough.

What happens when a million man army with and airforce, tanks, night vision, wants to come over and take your little Anarcho-Capitalist paradise?

What is some guy in a 1000 sq mile country. Decides to put a fence around 1/2 of it and claim it his? Then when someone mistakes the boundary he shoots them?

He decides to make his own currency and then hire 100s to work on his farm. Is that not he making a dictatorship on his land?

So you say they can leave, what if all the remaining land is taken?

If someone is violating other people's rights, businessmen might be able to profit off of stopping it. If businessmen can make money off of something, they will.

"we concentrate, however, on arrangements for peacekeeping and enforcement that existed among the non-indigenous, white population."

cool study bro

lol wat

i did enjoy you repeatedly making 72/aa sample size references in response to my posts and then citing one study which covers a 70 year period in part of one country. and of course the study ignores an enormous amount of violence committed by that society. oh and the authors even admit that it's not a true anarchist society to begin with. good stuff.

also you used poignant incorrectly fwiw

the difference is how the norms get codified. Presently we have 51% of the dudes some random amount people voted for make the laws, while in ACland they would be made as decentralized as possible, through the courts perhaps.
If you enjoy the status quo so much, no one wants to take it away from you Let people who think that the status quo is unfair and could be improved upon take chances. just let them do so peacefully.

they can make money by helping to violate other people's rights!