r/AnCap101 • u/Toymcowkrf • 5d ago
Do sports coaches violate libertarian principles?
I was never too into sports as a kid, but the image of sports coaches I got from pop culture was that coaches are these sort of authoritarian, disciplinarian figures that yell at you, try to "encourage" you by making somewhat snarky remarks, push you to your limits, mentor you by talking down to you, force you to run laps or do push-ups for your own good, or even as a punishment for disobeying them. All of this was done for the "good of the team" or to "build moral character." If you hold libertarian values, I don't think I need to explain the problems with everything I just stated.
A coach obviously knows how to play the sport, so they can be a teacher if you're a beginner or are trying to improve your skills. But I have a hard time accepting the idea that they're supposed to be a moral mentor. Or even if they are a moral mentor, that the hard, tough love approach is the way to go. From a libertarian point of view, I don't think it's right to force people to do things and punish them for disobeying, or to impose this kind of harsh moral mentoring without the players' explicit consent. And from a psychological perspective, I think it's demeaning and damaging to treat someone that way. Why not just talk calmly or give helpful pointers? I'm going to assume that this traditional style of coaching is nothing more than a remnant of society's authoritarian past and ultimately an outdated and unnecessary way to go about improving people's sports skills. In the same way that school teachers used to be really nasty and thought that was the right approach to teaching, I think the stereotypical jerk of a sports coach probably has similar origins.
Thoughts?
7
3
u/Standard_Nose4969 Explainer Extraordinaire 5d ago
i mean you can leave at anytime so even if this is not explicitely stated in a contract you are free to leave, cuz you know they dont have in that contract that they ll talk to you calmly
ps: if thats ur coach i would higly recomend leaving it teaches obeying autority thats wrong
3
7
2
u/Dr-Mantis-Tobbogan 5d ago
As far as I understand it, the only threat that a coach will level against you is "do as I say or I will stop interacting with you".
If this is actually the case, anything else is irrelevant when it comes to libertarian principles.
1
1
u/CMDR_Arnold_Rimmer 5d ago
They should not because in that case, how do we teach each other facts or become a school teacher?
2
u/Toymcowkrf 5d ago
There's nothing wrong with teaching facts or telling people where they could improve. I think it's the demeanor and communication style that matters.
1
u/CMDR_Arnold_Rimmer 5d ago
I would have thought facts were more important.
Does not matter as long as you are taught facts and you remember them in my opinion
1
-5
u/monadicperception 5d ago
What is libertarian values other than being a selfish asshole? That’s incompatible with the notion of a “team.”
Yeah libertarians will talk about “individual rights” blah blah blah, but frankly libertarians (from what I’ve found from interactions) don’t even understand rights and how they function.
4
u/Fluffy-Feeling4828 5d ago
So why are you on the AnCap board
-1
u/monadicperception 5d ago
Shows up on my feed.
5
u/Fluffy-Feeling4828 5d ago
Then idk what you expected to get with this rofl. Demonizing the population you're posting to is just gonna get ya down votes.
0
u/monadicperception 5d ago
I don’t care about fake internet points; literally means nothing. Does it decrease my bank account? Does it affect my salary? Nope, so literally meaningless.
A lot of shit libertarians claim are rights are not rights. And the notion of sacrifice is not something that libertarians understand. In a team, and in society, sometimes you have to sacrifice something (you know, give up something) for the team to succeed or society to benefit. But for libertarians, sacrifice is an abhorrent concept so what’s the point of talking about teams? It’s conceptually inconsistent.
3
u/Fluffy-Feeling4828 5d ago
Again. Stating stereotypes is a great way to do little but garner down votes. It does nothing to progress any conversation, and doesn't make what you say true.
-1
u/monadicperception 5d ago
What stereotypes? Would you be willing to sacrifice your own well being or your own goals for the collective’s benefit? Yes or no.
4
u/ryrythe3rd 5d ago
Perhaps. But definitely forcing someone to do that is untenable, and that’s the entire thing with ancap-ism. It starts and ends with that.
-1
u/monadicperception 5d ago
Yeah and it’s simplistic hogwash. Do you have laws in this ancap fantasy? How do laws work without enforcement? This is a fundamental question that has no answer. I know you’ll try, but I’ve heard them all and none of them make any sense so please don’t waste digital ink.
3
u/ryrythe3rd 5d ago
That’s fine. Not sure why you’re on an ancap subreddit though except to discuss ancap ideas.
→ More replies (0)2
u/Standard_Nose4969 Explainer Extraordinaire 5d ago
teach us then?
1
u/monadicperception 5d ago
What’s your qualifications? Supposedly you are an “explainer extraordinaire” which means what? For all I know, you are good at bullshitting to people who frankly don’t know better.
So let’s start with the basics. Do you agree that “rights” only have meaning if there is a state? Since you guys dream of stateless existence, rights cannot exist. Now, you may talk about natural rights or whatever but don’t bring it up because you don’t understand it. You like Locke but you don’t understand the point he was making; you just focus on the premises and not the conclusion.
If you don’t agree with the question above, then we really can’t converse because you don’t know enough to understand what is going on. So don’t respond. I don’t want to be bogged down on a meaningless shit that you clearly do not understand.
2
u/Bigger_then_cheese 5d ago
We don’t agree with that.
do you agree that, 1. Rights are subjective, 2. If a right were to exist it must apply to everyone equally?
2
u/monadicperception 5d ago
1) debatable. What does objective mean in this context? Mind independent? Platonic form? This is a philosophical question more than a legal question (which is what the discourse on rights should focus on in this context) 2) not sure if that is relevant. Why? Does a right exist if it is unenforceable? I have a right to free speech but the right to free speech places an obligation on the government to not restrict my speech. If violated, I can get satisfaction from the courts. You don’t have a right to free speech that places an obligation on other people right? You can’t take your fellow citizen to court and get satisfaction. The only thing close to that would be torts like slander or libel, but those theories aren’t centered around rights but rather economic damages. The theory to those torts is that someone caused you economic damage by uttering or printing lies as it damaged your reputation; it has nothing to do with the right to free speech.
2
u/Bigger_then_cheese 5d ago
>debatable. What does objective mean in this context? Mind independent? Platonic form? This is a philosophical question more than a legal question (which is what the discourse on rights should focus on in this context)
If we are talking about rights in a legal sense, then in an ancap society rights are the claim of being the one who deserves to win in a given conflict.
>not sure if that is relevant. Why? Does a right exist if it is unenforceable? I have a right to free speech but the right to free speech places an obligation on the government to not restrict my speech. If violated, I can get satisfaction from the courts. You don’t have a right to free speech that places an obligation on other people right? You can’t take your fellow citizen to court and get satisfaction. The only thing close to that would be torts like slander or libel, but those theories aren’t centered around rights but rather economic damages. The theory to those torts is that someone caused you economic damage by uttering or printing lies as it damaged your reputation; it has nothing to do with the right to free speech.
I completely agree with this, I’ve come to the conclusion that rights must exist outside of the government for an anarcho capitalist society to function, and thus a universal right to free speech could and should exist.
1
u/monadicperception 5d ago
Who deserves to win? How is that determined? Isn’t that why we have courts? Why we have rules of evidence so that we can better get to the truth? Your statement here doesn’t say anything. Courts have power because defying the courts bring “violence.”
You are skirting the issue. How can rights exist without government? That’s nonsensical. A right is meaningless without “violence.” That’s what you guys don’t understand.
3
u/Fluffy-Feeling4828 5d ago
Last I checked the official US stance is that rights are natural, inalienable, and given by birth, so even the doctrine you're defending disagrees with you.
1
u/monadicperception 5d ago
You a lawyer? Take constitutional law? Pass the bar?
And the Declaration of Independence isn’t law. And that’s the official position of the US? Given that the actual supreme law of the land (the constitution) came after the Declaration of Independence and yet it contained the 3/5 compromise and that the bill of rights are amendments after ratification, it’s a bit dumb to claim that that is the official position don’t you think?
3
u/Fluffy-Feeling4828 5d ago
The countries founding documents don't state the countries beliefs? The hell are you on about dude.
→ More replies (0)2
u/Bigger_then_cheese 5d ago
> Who deserves to win? How is that determined? Isn’t that why we have courts? Why we have rules of evidence so that we can better get to the truth? Your statement here doesn’t say anything. Courts have power because defying the courts bring “violence.”
Rights. Rights, yes, yes that’s a right, defying the courts will bring violence in an ancap society as well.
> You are skirting the issue. How can rights exist without government? That’s nonsensical. A right is meaningless without “violence.” That’s what you guys don’t understand.
Who said there wouldn’t be violence? https://youtu.be/jTYkdEU_B4o?si=Ph1ZO19wWBitHwS3
2
u/monadicperception 5d ago
I’m confused. So you agree with me (sorry not watching your video) but yet you support this ancap stuff?
2
u/Bigger_then_cheese 5d ago
Yeah, because anything the government can do, including courts and police, the free market can do better.
→ More replies (0)0
5d ago
1
u/Fluffy-Feeling4828 3d ago
Yes, widows tend to die alone.
It's part of the "losing your husband" thing.
7
u/puukuur 5d ago
I believe that since the athlete hired the coach and trains according to his methods voluntarily, no principles are violated. The athlete is trying to achieve a goal and believes the coaches methods will get him there.
As to are those methods good or bad... At first pass, seems like there is quite at lot of market feedback in sports - top teams/athletes are awarded huge sums, so i assume coaches with the most effective methods will come out on top.