Conversely, I also wish those who are building freedom tech and other tools would explore their theories, as they provide a legal, moral, and ethical framework to take this technology forward in the real world, in the right way. Can't force these things though. It has to be a voluntary effort.
Discussion
What I think about legality, morality and ethics.
All of this stuff is personal, not for some theorist to dictate. Not the same for everyone, all of this talk after talking about volunteerism weakens the whole volunteerism narrative in the first place, which is what has turned me off about this whole philosophy.
Ah I see.
The theorist in the case of ancaps doesn't 'dictate' but arrives at a set of moral, ethical and legal values through logical reasoning and argumentation with other people.
He doesn't bring forth a set of dictums out of thin air according to his own arbitrary value judgements and self-interest. He merely restates what has been known to human beings for millenia as natural law and natural rights arrived at through logical reasoning.
And he does this from the perspective of the individual, which is something that has been done for centuries as well since the enlightenment era in Europe.
Whether or not one accepts it, he leaves it upto them. He lets anyone believe what they want as long as his own natural rights to life, liberty and property are not violated.
This is why Ancaps and Libertarians don't advocate the use of physical force to bring about their idea of the world, unless their own natural rights are violated. Their chosen alternative is to debate and reason with people, to bring about an order that doesn't require a coercive State to maintain.
The alternative, however, to doing all this is moral and ethical relativism and positive law, which he believes to be a road to tyrrany.
In the case of communism, everybody owns everything so there inevitably emerges a coercive State who allocates resources and property.
In the case of moral and ethical relativism, everybody is right and nobody is wrong so there inevitably emerges a coercive State who determines what is right and wrong through the establishment of positive law.
If there is a spontaneously emergent moral, ethical and legal order that is built on natural law and natural rights arrived at through logical reasoning and argumentation, it is possible for the society to be anarcho-capitalist.
We don't have such an order, hence our society is not ready for that.
I'm all for building towards such an order. But without it, a coercive State will inevitably emerge even if you abolish the current one.
Ethics and logic don't go well together, legality and the concept of justice don't go well together with "logic" either. I distrust anybody that claims it.
I think they do. But I can't refute your argument without further explanation from you as to why you think that is the case.
Maybe we agree on principle and it's only a semantic disagreement. Either way, it's up to you to come to your own conclusions through your own reasoning if you distrust mine.
If you'd like to explore my line of reasoning further, I recommend reading the book 'Ethics of Liberty' by Rothbard along with works of folks like Hoppe, John Locke, Lord Acton, Aquinas and Aristotle.
What is the correct act of justice for a criminal that commits rape and murder?
Also I have read hoppe, Locke and Aristotle, so make of that what you will.
I'm glad you have! This means we speak a common language and don't have to explain much to each other while disagreeing.
The person that committed the crime has violated the natural law by violating the right to property of the victim's own body in the case of rape; and the right to life of the victim in the case of murder.
This opens up the criminal to the sanction of violence against them and has foregone the right to their own body in the first case, and the right to their life in the second case.
So justice is the rape and murder of the criminal?
Justice is the alleged criminal getting a fair hearing in a court of law under the presumption of being innocent untill proven guilty, by an impartial judge, prosecuted by the victim in the case of rape or those related to the victim in the case of murder.
If proven guilty, it is up to prosecutor to seek the restitution that is just for them and the judge to decide if said restitution is indeed just according to criminal law.
The correct act of punitive measure accompanied by the right procedure in determining guilt or innocence is what justice entails.
If somebody does that to any person I love, the only justice for me is if I'm able to exact the worst kind of vengeance I can imagine, and then imagine worse and repeat.
This is justice. All the words you said are bullshit. Which is why ANCAP is bullshit.
I understand where you're coming from. That would be how I feel too if I know conclusively with evidence that the accused person is guilty. It's a sensitive hypothetical situation.
But it wouldn't be ideal for society if everyone acts on everything solely based on their emotions. It would be chaos and barbarism.
That's why we establish a set of morals, laws and ethics that is common to all, to avoid such hypotheticals, to create a social order that protects people's natural rights, and establish ways to deal with those who violate them.
Societies incentives are rarely my own. Which is why this is fake volunteerism. Absolute bullshit if you ask me.
I see that your main problem is with people calling it 'voluntaryism'.
It is voluntary only to the extent that your incentives and the actions you make in accordance with them don't violate the rights of others.