Private law will be just like Statism

Sure, depending on your perspective.

So last week when I asked you if your thesis was falsifiable you should have answered "no" instead of ignoring my question and repeating your thesis?

I'm saying mutually voluntary exchange occurs within hegemonic organization, you're saying hegemony occurs within mutually voluntary organization.

No, I said "coercion." I declined to use your term because I dont feel that it captures my meaning. Hegemony typically refers to groups. I am talking about individuals.

I think my perspective is a little bit more realistic,

Now isnt that persuasive.

and is supported by evolutionary science, psychology, biology, anthropology, and other sciences.

but you dont wish to expound upon any of this. I see.

You think your perspective is the only correct one

I have never said nor implied such a thing, quite the contrary. I am eager to learn about your thesis but you dont want to answer questions, respond to detailed posts, or even define your terms. Apparently you consider yourself to be my superior, even unto a degree that surpasses that of a college professor, as you feel it is apprpriate to assign books you havent read to a peer on a discussion forum as a prerequisite to discussion. I can say that neither your demonstrated state of knowledge nor your demeanor have given any sign of butressing that presumption.

from any angle and is supported by...your opinion and semantic games.

Yes its the people asking you to define your terms who are playing semantic games, Mr. Dynamic Meaning.

So last week when I asked you if your thesis was falsifiable you should have answered "no" instead of ignoring my question and repeating your thesis?

In the context of the concept of dominance hierarchies, you're wrong. The voluntary exchange is between members of a dominance hierarchy. Within your own context, given your perspective, I can see where you're coming from—that's better than you are willing to do for me. And that's the root problem: you're uneducated AND unwilling to acknowledge the concept, so you can't fathom my perspective and therefore we have this amazingly boring discussion. It's like a new record for boring. I feel like I'm trying to talk sense into a Christian. BLEH. Just go read something relevant, and come back when you have a clue about the concepts surrounding my theory.

I declined to use your term because I dont feel that it captures my meaning.

Maybe I got lost in all the back and forth in which case I apologize. But I'm not particularly interested in your meaning about a concept I'm bringing up, which you're free to go learn about.

hashem:

So last week when I asked you if your thesis was falsifiable you should have answered "no" instead of ignoring my question and repeating your thesis?

In the context of the concept of dominance hierarchies, you're wrong.

Does that mean that your thesis is falsifiable? Or are you refusing to answer my question again?

The voluntary exchange is between members of a dominance hierarchy. Within your own context, given your perspective, I can see where you're coming from—that's better than you are willing to do for me.

You can see that I would like an answer to my question about whether your thesis is falsifiable?

And that's the root problem: you're uneducated AND unwilling to acknowledge the concept,

Provably false, interrogatives presuppose ignorance. Every time I ask you a question I acknowledge my ignorance. Its incredible that you would state the opposite. I do know that you have revealed your own ignorance several times in our discussions and it never seemed to impact your thesis to discover that your arguments were on shaky footing. Probably because its not falsifiable. not that theres anything wromg with that. It just seems like something you might mention, in response to a question about its falsifiability.

so you can't fathom my perspective and therefore we have this amazingly boring discussion.

Well its only boring because you keep repeating yourself and carrying on about how misunderstood you are instead of just having a conversation.

It's like a new record for boring.

The link to sign out of the forums is in the upper right. You sound like you need a breather anyway, youre not making much sense.

I feel like I'm trying to talk sense into a Christian.

Heh, yep. Nothing like categorical aspersions. I guess this is your way of letting me know theres no hope for getting a straight answer out of you.

BLEH. Just go read something relevant,

Now thats a revealing implication. You mean to say that your posts arent relevant? I daresay I agree!

and come back when you have a clue about the concepts surrounding my theory.

Oh yes, I should abandon this thread to you, even after you have acknowledged that you have nothing to contribute. Har har

I declined to use your term because I dont feel that it captures my meaning.

Maybe I got lost in all the back and forth in which case I apologize. But I'm not particularly interested in your meaning about a concept I'm bringing up, which you're free to go learn about.

yah, I'd say you got lost. Its a bad sign in any conversation when one party says to the other party "I'm not interested your meaning". Defeats the purpose, even. By the way, apology accepted.

No, really, go read something relevant. And really, please come back once you have a clue because this could be a decent conversation.

No, really, go read something relevant.

So, your thesis isnt falsifiable, and you reaffirm the irrelevance of your posts. Thank you.

And really, please come back once you have a clue because this could be a decent conversation.

...if only you would reciprocate. This could be a decent conversation if only you would reciprocate. But you have already demonstrated a preference for quarrel over argument, so I cant be surprised this time.

hashem:

To be completely clear, I ALREADY AGREE that the majority of interpersonal relations are mutually voluntary. My point is that they take place WITHIN hegemonic dominance hierarchies.

I hear you. If you weren't so busy telling me you weren't going to respond to my post, you might have realized that I said I am contesting that claim and that I am asking you to prove it. I already stated my case. I am waiting for yours.

hashem:

There's no point in continuing this discussion until you make yourself familiar with the concept of dominance hierarchies. I can't be held responsible for your ignorance on the subject.

I am familiar with hierarchies. I am familiar with hierarchies in many contexts. I am not contesting that they exist. I am contesting your claim that social cooperation must exist within social conflict. My claim is that social cooperation and social conflict describe different categories of human interaction. I am actually quite surprised at you here. You are so ready to accept that humans create many fictions in order to understand the world around us, yet you treat this particular fiction of hierarchy as if it is a concrete thing. Then you claim that social cooperation exists within this hierarchy of conflict. Look, hierarchies, whether based on cooperation or conflict, are abstract ideas that help humans make sense of the world around us. Like social cooperation and conflict, hierarchies describe relationships between humans (or other animals or whatever).

That is all they are. Abstract concepts to help us understand the world. You need to get off your high horse. It's all well and good that you did a "Let me google that for you", but guess what? It's obnoxious. It doesn't provide anything relevant. I don't know what specifically you want me to read. When I tell someone to read, I give them specific articles or essays. The only time I don't do that is when I'm trying to give someone a hard time after giving me a hard time. So, are you trying to actually further a discussion here, or are you just wasting all our time?

hashem:

Once you make yourself acquainted with the subject, you'll know what I'm talking about and you'll see why the definitions game is ridiculous.

The definitions are irrelevant to my main point. The reason I asked was because you chose to use nonstandard meanings of words. Clearly you have no interest in actually sharing what you meant by what you said. It's your choice if you want other people to understand what you are saying. If you explain what you mean and someone still isn't getting it, then it is on them. But you don't do this.

hashem:

Beyond that the health comment isn't very important. The word doesn't have to be healthy, and if you familiarize yourself with natural selection you'll know what I'm talking about.

It's clear that you have no interest in actually supporting your case. I accept your concession.

@hashem

I must confess that I am ignorant of the subject you are talking about.  If I understand the basics you are pretty much pointing out what I, along with everyone else, learned in high school.  There are abstract constructs between humans called status.  The in crowd, the out crowd, geeks, jocks, etc.  We are talking about the people that seek out other people because they are perceived to be more intelligent or more talented at something.  Would you care to summarize the general gist of your understanding of dominance hierarchies?

I think it's self evident and you are 100% accurate that it all exists "within" dominance hierarchies.  After all, what can a human beings do?  We primarily observe and classify. . .  

I suppose the gap you may be able to fill in if you have studied the subject is what are the rules that form these hierarchies?  Where did we utterely and completely blow it to end up with two lying sack of crap politicians representing both sides of the same party?  Perhaps we aren't doing a good enough job observing and classifying as we should be to end up with something like that.

@ Live_Free_Or_Die

You're right in pointing out that this is a concept everyone knows about, though they may not be conscious of that knowledge, or they may resist acknowleding it. Also you're correct to point out that hierarchies are concepts; that is, there isn't one objectively true hierarchy, but rather many objective factors we consider when indentifying models of hierarchies in our brains.

Imagine you see a black speaker, a brown belt, and a yellow postcard. Their isn't anything objectively hierarchical about them, and there isn't only one true hierarchy that applies to them. But we can construct many models of hierarchies regarding them in our brains. They may be classified in hierarchies according to objective things like color, or mass, or even subjective things like how much value they have to you. If so many factors are consistent, and others are aware of them, then such hierarchies can be discussed meaningfully.

Concepts of dominance hierarchies are concepts of hierarchies modified by concepts of dominance. Literally, this can mean anything, which is pretty common in scientific discussions, so a definitions game doesn't get us anywhere. The point is that in biology and psychology and history, it doesn't mean just anything, and it isn't restricted to a dictionary definition of dominance + hierarchy. As you can imagine, it's not particularly simple, especially for people who want it boiled down to one or two definitions they can fight. So people are welcome to do some basic research and find common threads about what types of ideas are intended to be conveyed when talking about 'dominance hierarchies' in various contexts. I can't recommend google highly enough in this regard.

In my context, I'm talking about dominance hierarchies modified by the concept 'hegemony'—that is, where people may be considered higher ranks when they command what may be considered lower ranks through violence or threats of violence. This can extend to implied threats, or threats from third parties: so for example, President Obama isn't actually a president, rather he's a human in a world with so many consistent environmental factors that, as you point out, we can consistently classify him as President; and he has never threatened me with violence, though the factors in our environment are so consistent that we can predict if I were to attempt to hurt him then a third party would use violence against me. All the while, he may be completely oblivious to my actions and the actions taken by others on his behalf—and yet the model of hierarchy has helped us to predict this. Based on these and countless other variables, I can construct a model in my brain—a model consistent with models in hundreds of millions of other people's brains—about a hierarchy between President Obama and myself. And these sorts of factors can be considered to construct models about hierarchies for entire societies.

So back to the concept of hegemonic dominance hierarchies, what I've been pointing out is that there are dominance hierarchies that are maintained through hegemony, even though most of the persron-to-person interpersonal relations within the hierarchy are mutually voluntary. Thus my constant invoking of prisons, where there is an obvious hegemonic dominance hierarchy (or several, depending on your perspective), and yet most of the prisoners and even prisoners and guards can interact on mutually voluntary bases. So a guard may beat A if a breaks the rules, but A may—influenced by no violence or threat—offer an exchange of money for drugs from the guard.

At any rate, dominance hierarchies ARE accepted concepts in biology and psychology, among other sciences. So if I'm failing to explain my perspective well, that doesn't mean I'm wrong, it just means anyone is welcome to find a better explanation through research. Really the main thing unique to my perspective is the addition of the modifyer 'hegemonic', to convey with certainty that violence and threats of violence (or implied threats and so forth) are the ruling factor in these dominance hierarchies.

EDIT: As it relates to the OP, my point has been that private law is statism under a different brand, in that they are both hegemonic dominance hierarchies of violent, arbitrary morals enforcement. The fact that so many around here can't troubleshoot libertarianism, can't imagine debugging it or any of the contingencies which are bound to arise speaks volumes about the quality of creative thought here. It also alludes to why people simply posit ancapism, without considering how/why, in reality, events would lead up to a world where ancapism is reasonably possible, and why/how hegemonic dominance hierarchies would persist causing ancapism to be no better than statism.

Concepts of dominance hierarchies are concepts of hierarchies modified by concepts of dominance. Literally, this can mean anything, which is pretty common in scientific discussions, so a definitions game doesn't get us anywhere. But as a concept in biology and psychology and history, it doesn't mean just anything. As you can imagine, it's not particularly simple, especially for people who want it boiled down to one or two definitions they can fight. So people are welcome to do some basic research and find common threads about what types of ideas are intended to be conveyed when talking about 'dominance hierarchies' in various contexts.

all of this could be avoided if the person who asserts a thesis regarding black speakers, brown belts, and yellow postcards explains what they intend with reference to a hierarchy of these objects. Its also kind of silly that you acknowledge that these terms could mean anything, but you want us to go ask other people what it is that you mean by them. The part that makes it impractical is that we want to know what exactly is relevant to your claims, and you wont say, we are just supposed to read books and parcel out what some other author thinks, so we can come back and give you an opportunity to say that you didnt mean that.

In my context, I'm talking about dominance hierarchies modified by the concept 'hegemony'—that is, where people may be considered higher ranks when they command what may be considered lower ranks through violence or threats of violence.

are these hierarchical roles fixed or temporal? They would seem to be temporal, if we were basing our judgments on observations. Is this thesis of yours based on observations?

So back to the concept of hegemonic dominance hierarchies, what I've been pointing out is that there are dominance hierarchies that are maintained through hegemony,

what constitutes maintenance of a hierarchy? If a slave uses violence to end the slave relationship, is that hegemonic or not? is that maintenance of a hierarchy or not?

Thus my constant invoking of prisons, where there is an obvious hegemonic dominance hierarchy (or several, depending on your perspective), and yet most of the prisoners and even prisoners and guards can interact on mutually voluntary bases.

Yet your thesis used to be about homo sapiens in general. Its clear that you consider the majority of human interaction to be analogous to a prison but you havent explained why.

At any rate, dominance hierarchies ARE accepted concepts in biology and psychology, among other sciences.

probably because their advocates werent nearly as reticent as yourself when it comes to discussion.

Everything I know about evolution and homo sapiens is that our species is characterized by violently enforced dominance hierarchies. The world over, always. Civilizations were and continue to be characterized by dominance hierarchies.

Also you're correct to point out that hierarchies are concepts; that is, there isn't one objectively true hierarchy, but rather many objective factors we consider when indentifying models of hierarchies in our brains.

it seems like youre learning despite your haughty attitude.

EDIT: As it relates to the OP, my point has been that private law is statism under a different brand, in that they are both hegemonic dominance hierarchies of violent, arbitrary morals enforcement.

I observe that private law is not arbitrary, it is emergent.

The fact that so many around here can't troubleshoot libertarianism, can't imagine debugging it or any of the contingencies which are bound to arise speaks volumes about the quality of creative thought here.

Theres no evidence that people here cant do those things, and plenty of evidence to the contrary.

It also alludes to why people simply posit ancapism, without considering how/why, in reality, events would lead up to a world where ancapism is reasonably possible,

curious poster: how would we solve this problem in ancap?

you: thats a stupid question because ancap will never happen because of hegemonic dominance hierarchies in my brain

and why/how hegemonic dominance hierarchies would persist causing ancapism to be no better than statism.

That would be an interesting thesis to discuss with someone who, unlike yourself, is interested in the productive exchange of ideas.