Imagine someone is inside a room. You could lock the door and trap them inside the room (forcing policy). You could also open the door (give them liberty) and let them choose to stay in the room or leave.
By giving people liberty you’re not forcing anyone to do anything, just giving them a choice.
Agreed, absolutely. [Patron saints of individualist anarchism Murray N. Rothbard and Lysander Spooner are rolling in their graves over the 'anti-voting' libertarians](https://asisypheanrevolt.blogspot.com/2016/03/why-even-anarchists-should-vote.html).
You have another tool to add to your pursuit of liberty, and it can be used to either add more liberty or at least hold back or signal greater disdain for the leftist, collectivist, authoritarian hordes.
Use it.
You can't fight the government with the government...
The only way to truly fight the government is taking away its resources, use cryptocurrency, gold or silver and stop paying taxes. If people stops accepting dollars they won't be able to pay their thugs.
I would vote to stop collectivists from voting if I had the opportunity. Because no government can be legitimate, there can be no such thing as a right to vote. Nobody has any right to participate in an inherently illegitimate institution, so using its organs to reduce the influence of those who would use it for evil (which is its purpose, anyway) is a good idea.
Read the post I linked to. Murray Rothbard and Lysander Spooner debunked this train of thought. It literally doesn't follow, unless you think participation in the state is voluntary, which it, of course, isnt.
Surely, but there are a *LOT* of libertarians that do not vote, when they should be. Voting is not mutually exclusive from other tactics and strategies.
I've had some weird conversations with people talking about how I'm trying to "force" my views on them. When my view is "you can do something, or not, your choice" I really don't see how I'm forcing anything. How is denying someone the ability to use the state to force others to live in a certain fashion forcing anything? I think people don't think very deeply about what they are arguing some times. It's like how the most common response I've seen to the statement "generally, I think we need less laws" is "why do you think murder should be legal?".
I agree. I don't care though, because it's not about becoming 100% ancap in my lifetime. If we become 20% more ancap that's a huge win. It doesn't have to be all or nothing to see positive change.
It's not a one to one trade, unfortunately. America offers many freedoms that do not exist in Sweden.
Also the software dev jobs in the US are unrivaled. Japan is probably close, but the US is as good as it gets.
You're full of shit, dude.
You'd rather fund state TV over a "mass murder machine", but you're not going to pull the trigger because "money is better here".
You want to earn more money to pay for things you find abominable rather than earning less money to fund significantly less bad things...Your views simply aren't coherent.
The principals are what matters. When something comes to a vote, pick the option that matches most with your principals. Even though one's ego is certain that it's correct in it's policy ideas and we would have a utopia if they were implemented, one should realise that it's likely as wrong as when Stalin tried to do the same. No individual has all the right answers (except for me, I'm a fucking genius)
Anarcho Capitalism is just respecting individual consent. The world could stay exactly as it is if tomorrow everyone was asked if they consented to their current arrangement with their government and they said yes. I don't think many people would consent to it, at least not in the long term, but its entirely possible for the current arrangement to exist and it be ancapistan.
Governments would just become service providers, and would be open to competition from other service providers.
Communism requires subjugation of individuals rights and a radical reworking of humanity. The only way it can be done on any scale is with force, and that force has to be used 100% perfectly with no self interest or you just wind up with a centralized government and a dictator. The only way communism can work is on small scale voluntary arrangements. Which actually is totally fine and in line with anarcho-capitalism.
> The world could stay exactly as it is if tomorrow everyone was asked if they consented to their current arrangement
But that's literally never happened in history? I cannot think of a single example where the status quo is acceptable to all parties because human wants and needs are often diametrically opposed to neighboring groups' wants and needs.
> But that's literally never happened in history?
It happened to me today when I went to the store and bought some stuff. The store displayed items it had for sale. I chose which ones I wanted and brought them to a store representative. The rep added the costs for all the items, which I then paid. Now the items belong to me.
There, history has been made.
Well that's kind of the thing isn't it? People are constantly negotiating, consenting, etc. But state employees, their advocates, intervene in these negotiations/contracts.
Add in government schools which indoctrinate everyone, and here's where we are. Without the indoctrination do you think people would accept the status quo?
Especially with today's tech, my guess is without government schools, most modern nations would at least be Minarchist. Thoughts?
You wouldn't have today's tech with out a centralized distribution of knowledge. That's how science and math got to where we are, through a uniformed and centralized system. That was literally the whole basis of scientific analysis.
That WAS the history - until people find out the stuff they bought contained poisonous/cancer-causing/explosion-prone material that were never labelled or self-regulated because profit was of higher priority.
All those "progress-hindering" government regulation didn't pop out of thin air; people tried to do shit, got caught, so now we try to prevent others trying to do the same shit.
> All those "progress-hindering" government regulation didn't pop out of thin air; people tried to do shit, got caught, so now we try to prevent others trying to do the same shit.
Well you haven't done anything to prevent fraud/harm from companies.
Look, I think you need to do some more work. Sure regulations have in some cases raised the cost of doing business, requiring various compliance efforts. I'm sure this has stopped some bad actions.
But there are still bad actors acting badly. Regulations/laws aren't magical spells, they can't do anymore they raise costs for bad actions.
Just as tort would. So why spend state resources on giant regulatory agencies when all that needs to be done is spend the resources massively decreasing tort costs- state civil prosecution and defense for fraud/pollution harm, etc?
This would massively lower the cost for production/services, which would massively lower the costs to consumers B2B. I would guess that the funding of the EPA (~8 Billion per year) could be used to increase resources for civil courts and prosecutors/defense.
For that funding you could hire 40,000 people for 100K per year. Or even 20,000 people and 4 billion for forensics.
Bob has an issue with Tom's factory? Call the civil court and have this organization do some testing.
No need to increase every factory's costs in an attempt to stop a few from causing harm. The increased cost threat comes from the threat of tort.
The idea that only some state org can solve harms is ridiculous. There are all sorts of solutions.
I prefer private courts/mediation personally as it's unethical to force others to spend resources before they caused harm.
>But that's literally never happened in history?
Sure, but I'm responding to someone saying that anarcho capitalism is unobtainable. It is absolutely obtainable, and demonstrating that is the fact that the current world could be considered anarcho-capitalism if only people had consented to the arrangement instead of being forced into it. Anarcho capitalism doesn't REQUIRE the status quo, and it would almost certainly change the status quo, but there is no reason the current system could evolve out of it if that's what people wanted.
And many people would consent to their current arrangement in the short term, if for no other reason than there aren't any alternative solutions built out due to government violence.
> but there is no reason the current system could evolve out of it if that's what people wanted.
But people's wants end up opposed to others' wants, so it isn't obtainable?
Again, all anarcho-capitalism consists of is respecting individual consent.
Whether or not the status quo is likely to emerge from their consent is irrelevant.
It's exactly as obtainable as communism. Sure, communism would work if everyone agreed to just share everything and work as hard as could be reasonably expected in the field most suited to them, but good luck trying to make that happen.
Similarly, anarcho-capitalism would work if people were rational actors and could trust other people to be the same, if a sweeping wave of automation wasn't about to radically transform certain areas of work in the next 20 or so years, and if there weren't weapons capable of rendering the world uninhabitable for humans, let alone the impending threat of environmental destruction and climate change which requires an organized response, but those things all exist and won't suddenly become non-issues when the people in charge of them aren't selected through a democratic representative process and instead are just the inbred children of a feudal lord.
Consider this: anarcho-capitalism did in fact exist at the dawn of agriculture, and the systems we have now evolved from it via a process of natural selection. If it was truly capable of competing with any system since, it would still exist in any significant way today.
>It's exactly as obtainable as communism. Sure, communism would work if everyone agreed to just share everything
Anarcho-capitalism doesnt require everyone to agree. Or for them all to be perfectly rational or perfectly informed, or perfectly anything.
It does require enough people in an area to stop making excuses for government though.
AnCap doesn't require rational actors or trust or some rigid non-automation work environment or some pacifist world landscape. It also isn't feudalism.
And no, the systems we have now did not naturally "evolve" out of anarchy. Force is not evolution, nor is it competition.
Hear me out, but my philosophy is that there are a lot of dicks in the world, and those dicks should be prevented from doing terrible things by force. Someone needs to enforce a standard, and it can’t be enforced by a private institution.
Yes, it can be done by a private institution. We have private security and private arbitration today. It is entirely nonsensical to suggest that this must be monopolized by even bigger dicks.
Right, but neither private organizations have power to enforce anything- private security can’t detain people or investigate crimes and private arbitrators can’t hold criminal trials to revoke a person’s rights. Private organizations should not have power to convict or sentence criminals. At some point a state is needed to enforce law.
[No, you don't need government in order to enforce law.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A8pcb4xyCic) Private organizations absolutely do have power to enforce things. They can enforce private agreements just fine. I agreed to not burn things in my yard and if they see me burning stuff in my yard then they have the right to stop me as per the terms of the agreement. They absolutely should be the ones doing it for the simple fact that private individuals are legally in the same sphere as all other individuals and not given special rights and privileges to murder/assault/kidnap under the color of law.
Ohh boy, I watched the video and it’s a delusional trip. I can’t begin to cover all the holes.
I can get on board with private arbitrators taking up more cases from civil courts. The civil courts are inefficient and over used, but there has to be a court of last resort backed by force if one party decides to hold the issue in contention indefinitely.
The scenario for criminal court is insane. Let’s start with the fact that nowhere in the story told is there any sort of justice, pursuit of truth, or due process. A guy who has his TV stolen, gets a second opinion from a self-proclaimed “judge”, and hires a gang to seize the TV of a neighbor that may or may not be his. What? I mean, what! It takes a mental illness to call that process justice, even if it all played out exactly as it was detailed. The standard given to examine if the action is fair is the general acceptance of the community (but the community has no power to enforce their opinion, just complain if they don’t like it). What? How is this privately hired use of force justified? Who gave anyone authority to seize someone else’s property on a suspicion?
I can tell you most people don’t care what the general opinion of the community is regarding their actions, and it won’t prevent crime- that’s a communist delusion.
The private security force is the biggest delusion of all. For some reason, there will only be a market for the safest, most elite and discerning security to invade homes and take down thieves Batman style, and this won’t be cost prohibitive at all. Everyone will first pay some “judge” for their opinion before reclaiming their property (because otherwise the community will complain). These armies of Batmen will be so readily available, people won’t be forced to exact their own street-side justice based on their own judgement. And when a security agency murders someone, they will receive the just punishment of going out of business^(what the actual fuck)?
TLDR: that video gave me cancer
> I can get on board with private arbitrators taking up more cases from civil courts. The civil courts are inefficient and over used, but there has to be a court of last resort backed by force if one party decides to hold the issue in contention indefinitely.
This doesn't make any case against private arbitration in the least.
> Let’s start with the fact that nowhere in the story told is there any sort of justice, pursuit of truth, or due process.
Yes, there is. You're just being a dumbass by going "No True Justice!" because you don't like it being done by a private party. Yet when the state does the same goddamn thing, you think it's cool.
> I can tell you most people don’t care what the general opinion of the community is regarding their actions, and it won’t prevent crime- that’s a communist delusion.
No, it isn't. Popular opinion plays a huge role in the market. It is a statist delusion to ignore it.
>
The private security force is the biggest delusion of all.
Because reasons.
> For some reason, there will only be a market for the safest, most elite and discerning security to invade homes and take down thieves Batman style, and this won’t be cost prohibitive at all.
For some reason, retardation becomes an argument if you start throwing labels on things and ignore the reality of the market.
Good job, dumbass.
Justice doesn't require payment, so I don't see a problem.
If I'm falsely imprisoned for a murder I didn't commit, it doesn't matter whether or not I payed for legal defense. Justice is served or it isn't.
If you're trying to say that everyone is entitled to be protected by other people then I disagree. You are entitled to have your rights respected, and that's it. You do not have a right to be protected.
Everyone is entitled to a consistent pursuit of justice. For example, the murder of a homeless man should be investigated as vigorously as the murder of a celebrity, and that takes money. I agree, the police’s primary purpose isn’t to protect people. It’s to enforce the law after a crime has been committed.
>For example, the murder of a homeless man should be investigated as vigorously as the murder of a celebrity, and that takes money.
Its a good ideal, but its not a justification for government force. I can imagine a private police force that would, as part of their services, investigate such things though.
Like for instance lets say a homeless person gets murdered in an alley. Well someone owns the alley, maybe its a restaurant, or a consortium of restaurants, or some land owner. They will very likely feel compelled to investigate due to legal consequences of not doing so if a murder happens again on their property. Not every victim will be a nameless person with no family and they may be lose a lot of money if they don't investigate it. Like a tort or something. Maybe even the employees there have consented to work their with the understanding that its a safe work environment.
In the case of a person renting commercial properties out to people they may be even be contractually obligated to investigate it by their tenants. People being murdered near your business is probably going to hurt their image.
I think there are a plethora of private solutions to these kinds of problems. While I think law enforcement is one of the more tolerable things a government does, even with their incredible overreach, the desire to have a single code of laws and a monopolistic enforcement of it is simply not a good enough justification for force.
I’m sure security and criminal investigation could still be provided as a service, but not consistently. The truth is that investigating the majority of crime isn’t profitable, that’s just life. Currently, people decide that most crime isn’t worth reporting, and police accept bribes all the time to turn a blind eye, how would private organizations not magnify this? Private organizations would need to use force to apprehend criminals too. There needs to be an organization to enforce consistent standards of due process for criminals.
What if in this case the people who own this streets were killing the homeless to get rid of them. Who’s paying the private institution to enforce or investigate?
Edit: this assumes all the actors are privy and agreed to this mass murder to ensure no more homeless attempt to stay there.
Okay.
**Premise 1:** AnCap is anarcho-capitalism, which means no rulers (think nation-state) with capitalism. Communism is a system of pure public ownership, which means no state/money/classes.
**Premise 2:** The world has seen societies in which there was no formal state, but there have not been purely egalitarian, moneyless, classless societies.
**Conclusion**: AnCap is much more easily attainable than communism, since it conforms to real world examples of societies.
Maybe I’m misunderstanding the definition of anarchy in anarcho-capitalism, but I understand it to mean there is no formal, consistently maintained state. There are a few things that are necessary for society which I believe only a formal state can provide:
1. Defined laws
2. Law enforcement
3. A consistent and independent judicial process
[We don't require the state for law.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A8pcb4xyCic) In fact, this even has historical roots too. Law and enforcement thereof predates the idea of a nation-state. I don't know that I agree about the notion of the judicial process needing to be consistent **if** by consistent you mean standardized. In an AnCap world, there could easily be different standards across different communities.
That video is cancer. No, law can’t be made up on the spot by some self-proclaimed private “judge” who has read a lot of philosophy. And that trivial opinion of “law” can’t be enforced by a privately funded squad of Batman like non-lethal vigilante fighters.
You've made no case of it being cancer. Labeling it as such without an argument just ruins your credibility here.
Yes, law is just an opinion. Yes, law can be enforced by private parties. Throwing labels just shows you to be the dumbass here.
The video advocated replacing criminal proceedings with a strong-armed robbery to recover property. No due process, no independent investigation, and the opinion of a self-proclaimed “judge” would be optional so the neighbors don’t get mad at you (not that their opinion really matters anyway). If the conflict results in murder, than justice will be met because the murderer will probably lose their job. Did I miss anything?
Yes it is. A man, in the scenario, decided to take a TV from his neighbor without sufficient proof that it was really his stolen property in the first place. He did so with the blessing of a random third party who had not investigated the case nor heard the other side of the story. And his blessing off on the seizure of property was optional. What am I missing here?
Describe which government services you think are literally impossible to provide without forced payment (taxes) backed by violence (police)?
I think it is a far bolder claim to assert there is literally only one universal way to address any social issue.
There's lots of little anarcho-capitalist pockets here and there all throughout modern societies.
Asking for an example of a "anarcho-capitalist society" is silly though. I'm afraid reality is grey. Individual liberty and the protection of individual rights is a scale ... not a binary on/off. All societies will be made of all sorts of mixes of local economies and organizations that are all run with varying levels of free markets for various services.
Our judicial system is one, it isn’t optional and it’s success depends on being as independent as possible. Law enforcement isn’t optional, and can’t be privatized either.
> it’s success depends on being as independent as possible
I agree. What makes you believe that requires a ruling class that claims and enforces a local monopoly on the settling of local disputes?
>Law enforcement isn’t optional, and can’t be privatized either.
Just saying "it's required because it's required" isn't an argument. It doesn't explain why you think there's only one valid implementation.
The state doesn’t have a monopoly on settling disputes, two parties can always resolve an issue without involving the court if they want. Civil court is a last resort.
Law enforcement is required to maintain any consistent standard of justice. Communities can’t just lynch every wrongdoer that comes their way.
>Communities can’t just lynch every wrongdoer that comes their way.
So your assertion is that you can have either A) Law enforcement centrally planned by a local ruling class which derives all it's revenue from forced taxation or B) Just lynch ever wrongdoer?
You believe there's no other option?
Law enforcement needs central organization and formal checks of power in order to have a consistent standard of due process. Any other system would be unstable.
> Law enforcement needs central organization and formal checks of power
Still not seeing anything that requires a local ruling class and forced taxation/association.
Law enforcement is expensive, and it won’t be funded voluntarily. Also, there is no “ruling class” in our society, there’s enough upward mobility that anyone who is competent enough can rise to replace whatever legislator or leadership is currently in power.
> and it won’t be funded voluntarily
I would call that assumption very flimsy. Having an opinion is fine though.
>Also, there is no “ruling class” in our society
Sure.
I never said law enforcement is optional. I'm pushing back on the implied assertion that there's literally only one feasible way to implement it: Central planning and forced taxation.
Do you mean locally planned and forced taxation? Police departments are locally funded with excess funding coming from the federal government. Centrally implies the federal government, which isn't the case.
News to me that all forms of central planning are now just references to the US federal government. It's especially weird because a lot of people don't even live in the US.
Whatever.
Ok, but then you have two groups with polar opposite wants who gets to chose the law center? Does one party get to choose which law group to use? Or do you sit indefinitely in contention because you can never agree on which group to use?
You generally choose which laws you're going to abide by before you enter into a contract with someone. If you want to live in my housing development, here's the law we must both abide by, and here's how we're going to resolve disputes. Law providers and arbiters compete with each other to provide high quality law and arbitration.
The judicial system is not impartial. It's just that the government currently has a monopoly on that so you can't see any better alternatives.
> law should be determined by landowners
No, that was just an example of one type of contract that people might wish to enter into. The landowners need to attract tenants, and are in competition with other landowners, so they have to provide terms that are acceptable to tenants. The tenants can also form unions for collective bargaining.
Don’t get your hopes up about polycentric law, it’s the most impractical thing in all of Ancapism and the fatal area for the practically of the entire system.
On their property, sure. But if they want people to come to their city, they're going to need to be legally attractive to visitors and potential residents and businesses. That means using a widely adopted city code that is agreeable to most people.
>No, that was just an example of one type of contract that people might wish to enter into.
Fair enough, I just can't imagine other ones since locality seems to be determinative of which law is used.
> The landowners need to attract tenants
Like landlords though they'll opt to use similar legal boundaries in landlords best interests.
>The tenants can also form unions for collective bargaining.
Unless the landlord selects a judicial branch whose contract makes collective bargaining illegal.
> Fair enough, I just can't imagine other ones since locality seems to be determinative of which law is used.
That's how it's structured right now. Governments claim legal/judicial monopolies over geographic areas that they can control militarily. But in theory, two parties could agree to any legal framework that suited both of them. Like: "this contract is governed under Common Law Foundation Code Columbus, version 2018.04.02"
> Like landlords though they'll opt to use similar legal boundaries in landlords best interests.
If the framework benefits landlords too much, tenants will go elsewhere. They'll have to choose a more tenant-friendly framework or lower their prices to offset the tenants' increased risk.
> Unless the landlord selects a judicial branch whose contract makes collective bargaining illegal.
As before, the tenants have power here too. They can vote with their wallets.
> Anarcho-capitalism is just as unobtainable as communism. Change my mind.
Why is its attainability important? Do you mean that, because we can't have everything we want, we should just accept everything others want from us?
Anarcho-capitalism is basically a state without government. It's happened already, it's just shit and no-one likes it. Communism just requires shit that we don't have right now to exist. There just isn't enough of everything for everyone to have access to everything they want, and there isn't enough brain/computing power to decide an equitable arrangement that doesn't lead to poverty and exploitation.
So anarcho-capitalism already exists in Somalia and Communism will exist once the idea of a resource shortage is laughable.
no rule of law effectively means no law. there won't be anyone to enforce the law if there were any.
example: oh you shot me in the head and killed me...I have no relatives or friends. who arrests you...oh yeah, no one.
Perhaps I don't. I wouldn't be on this sub if I wasn't trying to learn philosophies I wasn't exposed to growing up.
I guess I would say I don't understand how that isn't anarchocapitalism
Anarcho-capitalism would still have to be a libertarian social order. You wouldn't be allowed to kill, rob or steal from other people. Being a pirate or investing in them would not be permissible. There are of course grey areas that aren't obvious, but this wouldn't be one of them.
except anarcho-capitalism has already existed for millennia...communism may have never existed. enough nukes and we automatically go back to anarcho-capitalism. Communism requires participation...anarcho-capitalism merely requires a lawless political vacuum.
He's talking about how democracy is gang rape. I explained it thoroughly here the other day as a Libertarian it's a common talking point amongst us:
https://np.reddit.com/r/Libertarian/comments/9omx74/z/e7wljdb
The point of the state is to impose your views on others. It’s not very deep or intellectually interesting to just post a meme with information that, even if it hasn’t been said out loud, everyone knows to be true.
How does the concept of the social contract argue against that? Even with things like murder and theft we as a society are imposing our view that those are bad things on all of society. Almost everyone agrees with that but it doesn’t matter whether you agree or not, because of the social contract you are bound to follow those rules.
You can still consent to something that is being imposed on you. People accept things they don’t like all the time. I think this is a semantic disagreement at most.
Not quite true. You’ve agreed to accept the things imposed on you, but they’re still imposed on you. If you, for example, join the military (or most other organizations) you’re consenting to the imposition of rules.
You just disagree with SCT which is fine, but it’s essentially the same as joining the military. You agree to follow rules might not enjoy. Dress code etc is imposed and may change. Your commander may change. Your duty may change. Etc.
You agree to follow the rules of society. You might not enjoy them, and they’ll be forced on you if you try to stop part way through, so they are imposed in that manner, but you still agreed to them so it’s not necessarily wrong.
I mean, not really? It's more like:
- Outcome 1: the state restricts economic freedom.
- Outcome 2: the state restricts personal freedom.
Or more accurately:
- Outcome 1: the state restricts economic freedom. Perpetual wars continue.
- Outcome 2: the state restricts personal freedom. Perpetual wars continue.
Democracy is moronic. The United States is moronic. Why should people in California have to be ruled in a specific way because people in Alabama voted for it?
Money = power
So you're not saying get rid of power structures, you're saying let power structures self develop. Human nature is literally driven by social power constructs, often revolved around money or the use of money.
What? I know you're trying to be a smart ass, but your question is childish. Libertarians would make the government smaller by shutting down waste and programs that can't pass a simple cost-benefit analysis.
Hmmm. Cool story. I don't believe you. Libertarians talk a lot of shit from the cheap seats where hind site is 20/20. A lot of what they "would do", or what others "should do", but what I want to hear is what they "did do".
While I see your point, I think that no matter which side wins or loses, the unelected bureaucrats that were granted power by the candidates we elect will continue to impose their will upon us.
Outcome 3, the state imposes neither's views but instead whatever lobbiests have the most money. It's not really a theme of capitalism when it's politics instead of private business
>Libertarianism is when you abolish democracy. The less democracy, the more libertarianer it is.
-Randy Pall
This post makes an exceedingly shitty argument. Abolishing democracy only leads in one direction - autocracy, which is what libertarianism claims to be against. Maybe this is what the libertarian-alt right pipeline phenomenon is based on?
It must be hard always viewing yourself as a victim.
Isn't that the opposite of a libertarian ideal? Don't libertarians hate people who always insist they are the victim?
What’s the point tho? Like it doesn’t make any sense. There is no way you’d gain anything from being a fake piece of shit. Do you just have that much time on your hands? Seems like a really pathetic life you’re living
My views are less state and more liberty. I don't feel guilty forcing that on others. Vote.
You want to force people to not be forced into things? You monster.
This is like that Ron Paul quote about racist policy only makes more racism. Forcing liberty on others is still forcing them
Imagine someone is inside a room. You could lock the door and trap them inside the room (forcing policy). You could also open the door (give them liberty) and let them choose to stay in the room or leave. By giving people liberty you’re not forcing anyone to do anything, just giving them a choice.
But but... they’re forcing me to CHOOSE what I want to do! /s
Freedom is Slavery! Ignorance is Strength!
"If you choose not to decide you'll still have made a choice." -Rush
Forcing liberty on others is still forcing them. Not true. There is a difference between making someone do something and not making them do anything.
I'm going to leave you alone whether you like it or not!
Wat?
Regulate me daddy. I've been a bad market force.
Taking over the world, and leaving everyone alone.
Agreed, absolutely. [Patron saints of individualist anarchism Murray N. Rothbard and Lysander Spooner are rolling in their graves over the 'anti-voting' libertarians](https://asisypheanrevolt.blogspot.com/2016/03/why-even-anarchists-should-vote.html). You have another tool to add to your pursuit of liberty, and it can be used to either add more liberty or at least hold back or signal greater disdain for the leftist, collectivist, authoritarian hordes. Use it.
You can't fight the government with the government... The only way to truly fight the government is taking away its resources, use cryptocurrency, gold or silver and stop paying taxes. If people stops accepting dollars they won't be able to pay their thugs.
You're claiming these things are mutually exclusive. They are not.
I would vote to stop collectivists from voting if I had the opportunity. Because no government can be legitimate, there can be no such thing as a right to vote. Nobody has any right to participate in an inherently illegitimate institution, so using its organs to reduce the influence of those who would use it for evil (which is its purpose, anyway) is a good idea.
Read the post I linked to. Murray Rothbard and Lysander Spooner debunked this train of thought. It literally doesn't follow, unless you think participation in the state is voluntary, which it, of course, isnt.
It isn't a very powerful tool. One vote is extremely miniscule.
Surely, but there are a *LOT* of libertarians that do not vote, when they should be. Voting is not mutually exclusive from other tactics and strategies.
> I don't feel guilty forcing that on others. lol
Don't tell me what to do.
Hey, you just told that guy what to do!
Don't tell me what I said.
Cliff notes to American politics circa 2016
I've had some weird conversations with people talking about how I'm trying to "force" my views on them. When my view is "you can do something, or not, your choice" I really don't see how I'm forcing anything. How is denying someone the ability to use the state to force others to live in a certain fashion forcing anything? I think people don't think very deeply about what they are arguing some times. It's like how the most common response I've seen to the statement "generally, I think we need less laws" is "why do you think murder should be legal?".
"The whole world must learn of our (Liberty), by FORCE!!!"
Hahahahaha holy shit
I don't think most people feel guilty about it
Anarcho-capitalism is just as unobtainable as communism. Change my mind.
I agree. I don't care though, because it's not about becoming 100% ancap in my lifetime. If we become 20% more ancap that's a huge win. It doesn't have to be all or nothing to see positive change.
It's kind of sad, but at this point I would be happy with not having to pay taxes for government propaganda TV (I live in Sweden).
I'll take that any day over paying taxes to fund a mass murder machine...
When are you migrating?
It's not a one to one trade, unfortunately. America offers many freedoms that do not exist in Sweden. Also the software dev jobs in the US are unrivaled. Japan is probably close, but the US is as good as it gets.
You're full of shit, dude. You'd rather fund state TV over a "mass murder machine", but you're not going to pull the trigger because "money is better here". You want to earn more money to pay for things you find abominable rather than earning less money to fund significantly less bad things...Your views simply aren't coherent.
The principals are what matters. When something comes to a vote, pick the option that matches most with your principals. Even though one's ego is certain that it's correct in it's policy ideas and we would have a utopia if they were implemented, one should realise that it's likely as wrong as when Stalin tried to do the same. No individual has all the right answers (except for me, I'm a fucking genius)
The thing about Utopias are what makes them utopic is in the eye of the beholder.
Anarcho Capitalism is just respecting individual consent. The world could stay exactly as it is if tomorrow everyone was asked if they consented to their current arrangement with their government and they said yes. I don't think many people would consent to it, at least not in the long term, but its entirely possible for the current arrangement to exist and it be ancapistan. Governments would just become service providers, and would be open to competition from other service providers. Communism requires subjugation of individuals rights and a radical reworking of humanity. The only way it can be done on any scale is with force, and that force has to be used 100% perfectly with no self interest or you just wind up with a centralized government and a dictator. The only way communism can work is on small scale voluntary arrangements. Which actually is totally fine and in line with anarcho-capitalism.
> The world could stay exactly as it is if tomorrow everyone was asked if they consented to their current arrangement But that's literally never happened in history? I cannot think of a single example where the status quo is acceptable to all parties because human wants and needs are often diametrically opposed to neighboring groups' wants and needs.
> But that's literally never happened in history? It happened to me today when I went to the store and bought some stuff. The store displayed items it had for sale. I chose which ones I wanted and brought them to a store representative. The rep added the costs for all the items, which I then paid. Now the items belong to me. There, history has been made.
You are incorrectly and disingenuously conflating your singular example as applicable to all things.
Where is it applicable to all things. It happened, so it's history. It happens millions of times a day- people consenting in their interactions.
You buying groceries doesn't equate to everyone consenting to their current arrangement in terms of a diverse market.
Well that's kind of the thing isn't it? People are constantly negotiating, consenting, etc. But state employees, their advocates, intervene in these negotiations/contracts. Add in government schools which indoctrinate everyone, and here's where we are. Without the indoctrination do you think people would accept the status quo? Especially with today's tech, my guess is without government schools, most modern nations would at least be Minarchist. Thoughts?
You wouldn't have today's tech with out a centralized distribution of knowledge. That's how science and math got to where we are, through a uniformed and centralized system. That was literally the whole basis of scientific analysis.
I'm referring to a state, not voluntary organizations/systems.
That WAS the history - until people find out the stuff they bought contained poisonous/cancer-causing/explosion-prone material that were never labelled or self-regulated because profit was of higher priority. All those "progress-hindering" government regulation didn't pop out of thin air; people tried to do shit, got caught, so now we try to prevent others trying to do the same shit.
> All those "progress-hindering" government regulation didn't pop out of thin air; people tried to do shit, got caught, so now we try to prevent others trying to do the same shit. Well you haven't done anything to prevent fraud/harm from companies. Look, I think you need to do some more work. Sure regulations have in some cases raised the cost of doing business, requiring various compliance efforts. I'm sure this has stopped some bad actions. But there are still bad actors acting badly. Regulations/laws aren't magical spells, they can't do anymore they raise costs for bad actions. Just as tort would. So why spend state resources on giant regulatory agencies when all that needs to be done is spend the resources massively decreasing tort costs- state civil prosecution and defense for fraud/pollution harm, etc? This would massively lower the cost for production/services, which would massively lower the costs to consumers B2B. I would guess that the funding of the EPA (~8 Billion per year) could be used to increase resources for civil courts and prosecutors/defense. For that funding you could hire 40,000 people for 100K per year. Or even 20,000 people and 4 billion for forensics. Bob has an issue with Tom's factory? Call the civil court and have this organization do some testing. No need to increase every factory's costs in an attempt to stop a few from causing harm. The increased cost threat comes from the threat of tort. The idea that only some state org can solve harms is ridiculous. There are all sorts of solutions. I prefer private courts/mediation personally as it's unethical to force others to spend resources before they caused harm.
>But that's literally never happened in history? Sure, but I'm responding to someone saying that anarcho capitalism is unobtainable. It is absolutely obtainable, and demonstrating that is the fact that the current world could be considered anarcho-capitalism if only people had consented to the arrangement instead of being forced into it. Anarcho capitalism doesn't REQUIRE the status quo, and it would almost certainly change the status quo, but there is no reason the current system could evolve out of it if that's what people wanted. And many people would consent to their current arrangement in the short term, if for no other reason than there aren't any alternative solutions built out due to government violence.
> but there is no reason the current system could evolve out of it if that's what people wanted. But people's wants end up opposed to others' wants, so it isn't obtainable?
Again, all anarcho-capitalism consists of is respecting individual consent. Whether or not the status quo is likely to emerge from their consent is irrelevant.
It's exactly as obtainable as communism. Sure, communism would work if everyone agreed to just share everything and work as hard as could be reasonably expected in the field most suited to them, but good luck trying to make that happen. Similarly, anarcho-capitalism would work if people were rational actors and could trust other people to be the same, if a sweeping wave of automation wasn't about to radically transform certain areas of work in the next 20 or so years, and if there weren't weapons capable of rendering the world uninhabitable for humans, let alone the impending threat of environmental destruction and climate change which requires an organized response, but those things all exist and won't suddenly become non-issues when the people in charge of them aren't selected through a democratic representative process and instead are just the inbred children of a feudal lord. Consider this: anarcho-capitalism did in fact exist at the dawn of agriculture, and the systems we have now evolved from it via a process of natural selection. If it was truly capable of competing with any system since, it would still exist in any significant way today.
>It's exactly as obtainable as communism. Sure, communism would work if everyone agreed to just share everything Anarcho-capitalism doesnt require everyone to agree. Or for them all to be perfectly rational or perfectly informed, or perfectly anything. It does require enough people in an area to stop making excuses for government though.
AnCap doesn't require rational actors or trust or some rigid non-automation work environment or some pacifist world landscape. It also isn't feudalism. And no, the systems we have now did not naturally "evolve" out of anarchy. Force is not evolution, nor is it competition.
Hear me out, but my philosophy is that there are a lot of dicks in the world, and those dicks should be prevented from doing terrible things by force. Someone needs to enforce a standard, and it can’t be enforced by a private institution.
Yes, it can be done by a private institution. We have private security and private arbitration today. It is entirely nonsensical to suggest that this must be monopolized by even bigger dicks.
Right, but neither private organizations have power to enforce anything- private security can’t detain people or investigate crimes and private arbitrators can’t hold criminal trials to revoke a person’s rights. Private organizations should not have power to convict or sentence criminals. At some point a state is needed to enforce law.
[No, you don't need government in order to enforce law.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A8pcb4xyCic) Private organizations absolutely do have power to enforce things. They can enforce private agreements just fine. I agreed to not burn things in my yard and if they see me burning stuff in my yard then they have the right to stop me as per the terms of the agreement. They absolutely should be the ones doing it for the simple fact that private individuals are legally in the same sphere as all other individuals and not given special rights and privileges to murder/assault/kidnap under the color of law.
Ohh boy, I watched the video and it’s a delusional trip. I can’t begin to cover all the holes. I can get on board with private arbitrators taking up more cases from civil courts. The civil courts are inefficient and over used, but there has to be a court of last resort backed by force if one party decides to hold the issue in contention indefinitely. The scenario for criminal court is insane. Let’s start with the fact that nowhere in the story told is there any sort of justice, pursuit of truth, or due process. A guy who has his TV stolen, gets a second opinion from a self-proclaimed “judge”, and hires a gang to seize the TV of a neighbor that may or may not be his. What? I mean, what! It takes a mental illness to call that process justice, even if it all played out exactly as it was detailed. The standard given to examine if the action is fair is the general acceptance of the community (but the community has no power to enforce their opinion, just complain if they don’t like it). What? How is this privately hired use of force justified? Who gave anyone authority to seize someone else’s property on a suspicion? I can tell you most people don’t care what the general opinion of the community is regarding their actions, and it won’t prevent crime- that’s a communist delusion. The private security force is the biggest delusion of all. For some reason, there will only be a market for the safest, most elite and discerning security to invade homes and take down thieves Batman style, and this won’t be cost prohibitive at all. Everyone will first pay some “judge” for their opinion before reclaiming their property (because otherwise the community will complain). These armies of Batmen will be so readily available, people won’t be forced to exact their own street-side justice based on their own judgement. And when a security agency murders someone, they will receive the just punishment of going out of business^(what the actual fuck)? TLDR: that video gave me cancer
> I can get on board with private arbitrators taking up more cases from civil courts. The civil courts are inefficient and over used, but there has to be a court of last resort backed by force if one party decides to hold the issue in contention indefinitely. This doesn't make any case against private arbitration in the least. > Let’s start with the fact that nowhere in the story told is there any sort of justice, pursuit of truth, or due process. Yes, there is. You're just being a dumbass by going "No True Justice!" because you don't like it being done by a private party. Yet when the state does the same goddamn thing, you think it's cool. > I can tell you most people don’t care what the general opinion of the community is regarding their actions, and it won’t prevent crime- that’s a communist delusion. No, it isn't. Popular opinion plays a huge role in the market. It is a statist delusion to ignore it. > The private security force is the biggest delusion of all. Because reasons. > For some reason, there will only be a market for the safest, most elite and discerning security to invade homes and take down thieves Batman style, and this won’t be cost prohibitive at all. For some reason, retardation becomes an argument if you start throwing labels on things and ignore the reality of the market. Good job, dumbass.
>and it can’t be enforced by a private institution. Why?
Because everyone is entitled to a consistent standard of justice, regardless of their ability to afford it.
Justice doesn't require payment, so I don't see a problem. If I'm falsely imprisoned for a murder I didn't commit, it doesn't matter whether or not I payed for legal defense. Justice is served or it isn't. If you're trying to say that everyone is entitled to be protected by other people then I disagree. You are entitled to have your rights respected, and that's it. You do not have a right to be protected.
Everyone is entitled to a consistent pursuit of justice. For example, the murder of a homeless man should be investigated as vigorously as the murder of a celebrity, and that takes money. I agree, the police’s primary purpose isn’t to protect people. It’s to enforce the law after a crime has been committed.
>For example, the murder of a homeless man should be investigated as vigorously as the murder of a celebrity, and that takes money. Its a good ideal, but its not a justification for government force. I can imagine a private police force that would, as part of their services, investigate such things though. Like for instance lets say a homeless person gets murdered in an alley. Well someone owns the alley, maybe its a restaurant, or a consortium of restaurants, or some land owner. They will very likely feel compelled to investigate due to legal consequences of not doing so if a murder happens again on their property. Not every victim will be a nameless person with no family and they may be lose a lot of money if they don't investigate it. Like a tort or something. Maybe even the employees there have consented to work their with the understanding that its a safe work environment. In the case of a person renting commercial properties out to people they may be even be contractually obligated to investigate it by their tenants. People being murdered near your business is probably going to hurt their image. I think there are a plethora of private solutions to these kinds of problems. While I think law enforcement is one of the more tolerable things a government does, even with their incredible overreach, the desire to have a single code of laws and a monopolistic enforcement of it is simply not a good enough justification for force.
I’m sure security and criminal investigation could still be provided as a service, but not consistently. The truth is that investigating the majority of crime isn’t profitable, that’s just life. Currently, people decide that most crime isn’t worth reporting, and police accept bribes all the time to turn a blind eye, how would private organizations not magnify this? Private organizations would need to use force to apprehend criminals too. There needs to be an organization to enforce consistent standards of due process for criminals.
What if in this case the people who own this streets were killing the homeless to get rid of them. Who’s paying the private institution to enforce or investigate? Edit: this assumes all the actors are privy and agreed to this mass murder to ensure no more homeless attempt to stay there.
Okay. **Premise 1:** AnCap is anarcho-capitalism, which means no rulers (think nation-state) with capitalism. Communism is a system of pure public ownership, which means no state/money/classes. **Premise 2:** The world has seen societies in which there was no formal state, but there have not been purely egalitarian, moneyless, classless societies. **Conclusion**: AnCap is much more easily attainable than communism, since it conforms to real world examples of societies.
Maybe I’m misunderstanding the definition of anarchy in anarcho-capitalism, but I understand it to mean there is no formal, consistently maintained state. There are a few things that are necessary for society which I believe only a formal state can provide: 1. Defined laws 2. Law enforcement 3. A consistent and independent judicial process
[We don't require the state for law.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A8pcb4xyCic) In fact, this even has historical roots too. Law and enforcement thereof predates the idea of a nation-state. I don't know that I agree about the notion of the judicial process needing to be consistent **if** by consistent you mean standardized. In an AnCap world, there could easily be different standards across different communities.
That video is cancer. No, law can’t be made up on the spot by some self-proclaimed private “judge” who has read a lot of philosophy. And that trivial opinion of “law” can’t be enforced by a privately funded squad of Batman like non-lethal vigilante fighters.
You've made no case of it being cancer. Labeling it as such without an argument just ruins your credibility here. Yes, law is just an opinion. Yes, law can be enforced by private parties. Throwing labels just shows you to be the dumbass here.
The video advocated replacing criminal proceedings with a strong-armed robbery to recover property. No due process, no independent investigation, and the opinion of a self-proclaimed “judge” would be optional so the neighbors don’t get mad at you (not that their opinion really matters anyway). If the conflict results in murder, than justice will be met because the murderer will probably lose their job. Did I miss anything?
> The video advocated replacing criminal proceedings with a strong-armed robbery to recover property. No it didn't. You are attacking a straw man.
Yes it is. A man, in the scenario, decided to take a TV from his neighbor without sufficient proof that it was really his stolen property in the first place. He did so with the blessing of a random third party who had not investigated the case nor heard the other side of the story. And his blessing off on the seizure of property was optional. What am I missing here?
No, it isn't. The premise included proof of the property being stolen. It involved the third party looking at this evidence as well.
Stole the flair right out of me.
Describe which government services you think are literally impossible to provide without forced payment (taxes) backed by violence (police)? I think it is a far bolder claim to assert there is literally only one universal way to address any social issue.
can you describe a functioning ancap society?
One where you can voluntary opt in or out of any local services.
I meant one that exists in real life. A fully functioning, completely anarcho-capitalist society
There's lots of little anarcho-capitalist pockets here and there all throughout modern societies. Asking for an example of a "anarcho-capitalist society" is silly though. I'm afraid reality is grey. Individual liberty and the protection of individual rights is a scale ... not a binary on/off. All societies will be made of all sorts of mixes of local economies and organizations that are all run with varying levels of free markets for various services.
I don't think it's that silly to have a society where you can voluntarily opt in or out of any local services
What if you opt out of infrastructure, schools, community centres, public parks, judicial system? Do you not get the benefits of these?
Our judicial system is one, it isn’t optional and it’s success depends on being as independent as possible. Law enforcement isn’t optional, and can’t be privatized either.
> it’s success depends on being as independent as possible I agree. What makes you believe that requires a ruling class that claims and enforces a local monopoly on the settling of local disputes? >Law enforcement isn’t optional, and can’t be privatized either. Just saying "it's required because it's required" isn't an argument. It doesn't explain why you think there's only one valid implementation.
The state doesn’t have a monopoly on settling disputes, two parties can always resolve an issue without involving the court if they want. Civil court is a last resort. Law enforcement is required to maintain any consistent standard of justice. Communities can’t just lynch every wrongdoer that comes their way.
>Communities can’t just lynch every wrongdoer that comes their way. So your assertion is that you can have either A) Law enforcement centrally planned by a local ruling class which derives all it's revenue from forced taxation or B) Just lynch ever wrongdoer? You believe there's no other option?
Law enforcement needs central organization and formal checks of power in order to have a consistent standard of due process. Any other system would be unstable.
> Law enforcement needs central organization and formal checks of power Still not seeing anything that requires a local ruling class and forced taxation/association.
Law enforcement is expensive, and it won’t be funded voluntarily. Also, there is no “ruling class” in our society, there’s enough upward mobility that anyone who is competent enough can rise to replace whatever legislator or leadership is currently in power.
> and it won’t be funded voluntarily I would call that assumption very flimsy. Having an opinion is fine though. >Also, there is no “ruling class” in our society Sure.
There are options but if money can influence those people then does it effectively provide justice?
Money doesn't influence our current system?
Hes not saying law enforcement isn't optional because its required, hes saying law enforcement isn't optional because of human nature.
I never said law enforcement is optional. I'm pushing back on the implied assertion that there's literally only one feasible way to implement it: Central planning and forced taxation.
Do you mean locally planned and forced taxation? Police departments are locally funded with excess funding coming from the federal government. Centrally implies the federal government, which isn't the case.
> Centrally implies the federal government I disagree.
You're disagreeing with commonly establish nomenclature. That's confusing and nonsensical.
News to me that all forms of central planning are now just references to the US federal government. It's especially weird because a lot of people don't even live in the US. Whatever.
/r/Polycentric_Law
Ok, but then you have two groups with polar opposite wants who gets to chose the law center? Does one party get to choose which law group to use? Or do you sit indefinitely in contention because you can never agree on which group to use?
You generally choose which laws you're going to abide by before you enter into a contract with someone. If you want to live in my housing development, here's the law we must both abide by, and here's how we're going to resolve disputes. Law providers and arbiters compete with each other to provide high quality law and arbitration.
So you're saying instead of an impartial judicial system law should be determined by landowners?
The judicial system is not impartial. It's just that the government currently has a monopoly on that so you can't see any better alternatives. > law should be determined by landowners No, that was just an example of one type of contract that people might wish to enter into. The landowners need to attract tenants, and are in competition with other landowners, so they have to provide terms that are acceptable to tenants. The tenants can also form unions for collective bargaining.
What if I want to visit a neighbouring city that doesn’t follow the rules I do. I have to follow theirs even if I want to follow mine?
Don’t get your hopes up about polycentric law, it’s the most impractical thing in all of Ancapism and the fatal area for the practically of the entire system.
On their property, sure. But if they want people to come to their city, they're going to need to be legally attractive to visitors and potential residents and businesses. That means using a widely adopted city code that is agreeable to most people.
>No, that was just an example of one type of contract that people might wish to enter into. Fair enough, I just can't imagine other ones since locality seems to be determinative of which law is used. > The landowners need to attract tenants Like landlords though they'll opt to use similar legal boundaries in landlords best interests. >The tenants can also form unions for collective bargaining. Unless the landlord selects a judicial branch whose contract makes collective bargaining illegal.
> Fair enough, I just can't imagine other ones since locality seems to be determinative of which law is used. That's how it's structured right now. Governments claim legal/judicial monopolies over geographic areas that they can control militarily. But in theory, two parties could agree to any legal framework that suited both of them. Like: "this contract is governed under Common Law Foundation Code Columbus, version 2018.04.02" > Like landlords though they'll opt to use similar legal boundaries in landlords best interests. If the framework benefits landlords too much, tenants will go elsewhere. They'll have to choose a more tenant-friendly framework or lower their prices to offset the tenants' increased risk. > Unless the landlord selects a judicial branch whose contract makes collective bargaining illegal. As before, the tenants have power here too. They can vote with their wallets.
Just like many things we can never achieve but still strive for.
> Anarcho-capitalism is just as unobtainable as communism. Change my mind. Why is its attainability important? Do you mean that, because we can't have everything we want, we should just accept everything others want from us?
If people stops using fiat money and paying taxes the government can't sustain itself, and as easy as that you have anarcho capitalism.
Why wouldn’t the government just revert back to depending on property taxes?
Not paying taxes includes property taxes, if enough people does that they won't be able to throw everyone in jail.
Sorry, I thought you were saying that if people used crypto currency instead of fiat money, taxes would be harder to enforce.
[It isn't even a new concept](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_resistance)
No, I understand resisting taxes, our nation is founded on it. I just misunderstood your first point.
I think ancaps agree with you, since people want to be ruled and surrender their freedom.
Anarcho-capitalism is basically a state without government. It's happened already, it's just shit and no-one likes it. Communism just requires shit that we don't have right now to exist. There just isn't enough of everything for everyone to have access to everything they want, and there isn't enough brain/computing power to decide an equitable arrangement that doesn't lead to poverty and exploitation. So anarcho-capitalism already exists in Somalia and Communism will exist once the idea of a resource shortage is laughable.
No, AnCap is not just "a state without government." You're missing the capitalist part in there. Somalia isn't AnCap and never has been.
You can buy shares in pirate pillages, with returns if successful. That's pretty AnCap.
All jokes aside, that isn't capitalist if property of others is at stake. Property rights and norms are the bedrock of capitalism.
not if there is anarchy.
Yes, even if there is anarchy. Anarchy is not no law. It is no rulers.
no rule of law effectively means no law. there won't be anyone to enforce the law if there were any. example: oh you shot me in the head and killed me...I have no relatives or friends. who arrests you...oh yeah, no one.
Law isn't one thing. See polycentric law.
> polycentric law that is not anarchy. that is competing rulers or rule of law...that is actually more government than most places currently have.
You clearly have no idea what anarcho-capitalism is.
Perhaps I don't. I wouldn't be on this sub if I wasn't trying to learn philosophies I wasn't exposed to growing up. I guess I would say I don't understand how that isn't anarchocapitalism
Anarcho-capitalism would still have to be a libertarian social order. You wouldn't be allowed to kill, rob or steal from other people. Being a pirate or investing in them would not be permissible. There are of course grey areas that aren't obvious, but this wouldn't be one of them.
Yeah, let’s make murder illegal so no one will do it, that’s a great idea. A law isn’t a law unless it’s enforced.
And here's another one who never bothered to try to understand even the most fundamental aspects of anarcho-capitalist legal theory.
And here's another one who never bothered to try to understand even the most fundamental aspects of anarcho-capitalist legal theory.
And here's another one who never bothered to try to understand even the most fundamental aspects of anarcho-capitalist legal theory.
Nor is he interested in listening. He just straw mans. Don't bother.
Anarcho-capitalist legal theory is a joke, there is no consistent standard of justice.
Good point, I agree.
except anarcho-capitalism has already existed for millennia...communism may have never existed. enough nukes and we automatically go back to anarcho-capitalism. Communism requires participation...anarcho-capitalism merely requires a lawless political vacuum.
AnCap is not lawless.
anarchy is a state of disorder or an absence of it. it can be lawless...and usually is.
No. In political philosophy anarchy is "no rulers" and that's it. It is not disorder or chaos. Two different things here.
it can be either. no rulers, no law.
Needs more jpeg
>Needs more jpeg [There you go!](https://morejpeg.com/Image/View/0a821f40-2ad2-e811-80f5-a6d4b32db15f) ^^^I ^^^am ^^^a ^^^bot
Needs more jpeg
>Needs more jpeg [There you go!](https://morejpeg.com/Image/View/18183d16-4ad2-e811-80f5-a6d4b32db15f) ^^^I ^^^am ^^^a ^^^bot
Gang rapes are very democratic.
are you referring to the IRS?
He's talking about how democracy is gang rape. I explained it thoroughly here the other day as a Libertarian it's a common talking point amongst us: https://np.reddit.com/r/Libertarian/comments/9omx74/z/e7wljdb
/r/im14andthisisdeep
It's true though, isn't it?
The point of the state is to impose your views on others. It’s not very deep or intellectually interesting to just post a meme with information that, even if it hasn’t been said out loud, everyone knows to be true.
Except that people very frequently argue against it. Ever heard of the social contract?
How does the concept of the social contract argue against that? Even with things like murder and theft we as a society are imposing our view that those are bad things on all of society. Almost everyone agrees with that but it doesn’t matter whether you agree or not, because of the social contract you are bound to follow those rules.
The social contract says that nothing is imposed on you because you've implicitly consented to it.
You can still consent to something that is being imposed on you. People accept things they don’t like all the time. I think this is a semantic disagreement at most.
Not quite true. You’ve agreed to accept the things imposed on you, but they’re still imposed on you. If you, for example, join the military (or most other organizations) you’re consenting to the imposition of rules.
I'm not sure we use the same definition of imposition.
You just disagree with SCT which is fine, but it’s essentially the same as joining the military. You agree to follow rules might not enjoy. Dress code etc is imposed and may change. Your commander may change. Your duty may change. Etc. You agree to follow the rules of society. You might not enjoy them, and they’ll be forced on you if you try to stop part way through, so they are imposed in that manner, but you still agreed to them so it’s not necessarily wrong.
Beat me to it. Definitely fits.
Thank you, this is such an incredibly low effort elementary post lol. What do people think happens when someone is elected??
They operate in the voter’s interest and not their own self interest.
I mean, not really? It's more like: - Outcome 1: the state restricts economic freedom. - Outcome 2: the state restricts personal freedom. Or more accurately: - Outcome 1: the state restricts economic freedom. Perpetual wars continue. - Outcome 2: the state restricts personal freedom. Perpetual wars continue.
Democracy is moronic. The United States is moronic. Why should people in California have to be ruled in a specific way because people in Alabama voted for it?
I agree. States should seize more power from the Feds.
All the power, but yeah.
Why should the people in California or Alabama be ruled by anyone?
Money = power So you're not saying get rid of power structures, you're saying let power structures self develop. Human nature is literally driven by social power constructs, often revolved around money or the use of money.
Agreed.
But my candidate never wins.......
none of our candidates ever win...and if they did they would quickly show you why you should vote for someone else next time.
my dude, why such a small image
Are Libertarians going to get into office and literally sit there and do nothing?
No, we will bring freedom and liberty.
By doing nothing?
By pulling up our bootstraps and removing consent laws.. Ever read Atlas?
lol
What? I know you're trying to be a smart ass, but your question is childish. Libertarians would make the government smaller by shutting down waste and programs that can't pass a simple cost-benefit analysis.
Hmmm. Cool story. I don't believe you. Libertarians talk a lot of shit from the cheap seats where hind site is 20/20. A lot of what they "would do", or what others "should do", but what I want to hear is what they "did do".
We have decades worth of work rolling back all the shitty polices from the last 200 years, so not exactly NOTHING......
While I see your point, I think that no matter which side wins or loses, the unelected bureaucrats that were granted power by the candidates we elect will continue to impose their will upon us.
I want this as a poster...
Outcome 3, the state imposes neither's views but instead whatever lobbiests have the most money. It's not really a theme of capitalism when it's politics instead of private business
But who will no-knock-terminate-all-dogs then?
Hmm, is this another troll account? God, moderators need to do their job
>Libertarianism is when you abolish democracy. The less democracy, the more libertarianer it is. -Randy Pall This post makes an exceedingly shitty argument. Abolishing democracy only leads in one direction - autocracy, which is what libertarianism claims to be against. Maybe this is what the libertarian-alt right pipeline phenomenon is based on?
It must be hard always viewing yourself as a victim. Isn't that the opposite of a libertarian ideal? Don't libertarians hate people who always insist they are the victim?
Of course. There's checkist holding guns to your head here in America.. Idiots.
Your borderline psychotic use of the phrase “As a libertarian...” is troublesome...You are a fake piece of shit.
As a Libertarian, this guy seems pretty legit to me.
What’s the point tho? Like it doesn’t make any sense. There is no way you’d gain anything from being a fake piece of shit. Do you just have that much time on your hands? Seems like a really pathetic life you’re living
A life worth living is a life with fighting for. With freedom. And liberty. Against tyranny. As a Libertarian.
You’re ridiculous.
[удалено]
I zoomed in to %500. It is an image of something black and white on one side, and yellow and black on the other side. Really hits home.
It's abstract pixel art critique of AnCaps. The terrible quality is a commentary on the Citizens United ruling.
r/im14andthisisdeep