anarchyinblack: libertarian–princess: anarchyinblack: libertarian–princess: anar

anarchyinblack:libertarian–princess:anarchyinblack:libertarian–princess:anarchyinblack:libertarian–princess:anarchyinblack:libertarian–princess:64bitwar:libertarian–princess:it’s too bad most of humanity won’t ¯\_(ツ)_/¯But what if we force them to through anarchic rule?ACCEPT THE NON-AGGRESSION PRINCIPLE OR WE WILL AGGRESSIVELY FORCE YOU TOThat is indeed 100% the plan.What do you think “Don’t Tread On Me” means? “Don’t violate my rights otherwise I’ll recite Rothbard at you?”No, it means “Fuck off or die”. It’s only a violence contest if you make it a violence contest.i rest my caseI’m not sure what your case is tbh.Are you saying that it violates the NAP to force people to not violate the NAP?Because it doesn’t.Is that a flaw in your eyes? Because two posts earlier your criticism was that it was unenforceable.“Aggression is okay when we, The Holy Order of Anarcho-Capitalism, do it, cause we’re obviously doing it for the good of humanity, unlike those other knuckle-dragging neanderthals”I still dont understand. Are you contesting that aggression is in fact NOT OK?Is the problem with the NAP that it is unenforceable or that it uses force against those that violate it?To violate the NAP is to use force against an innocent. You have already said that people who ignore and violate the NAP would be the downfall of any non-aggressive society. I have said that it doesn’t violate the NAP to chuck those people out of helicopters.Force against NAP violators is not aggression within the context of the NAP by definition, it is defensive.What, exactly, is the problem?Of course defending yourself against aggression is perfectly okay; that’s not my issue. I’m a minarchist because I believe the state’s sole function is to protect individuals from aggression, theft, breach of contract, and fraud; in other words, to enforce the NAP. No issues there.I think your system of every-man-for-himself anarchy is unenforceable because in an anarcho-capitalist society, inevitably people who hoard more ammunition and supplies than others would rise as warlords and force others to bend to their whim; we saw this happen in Somalia from 1991-2006. The initial statelessness led to the rise of several successor states that were arguably worse than their predecessor. Once someone has gathered sufficient supplies and influence- and as you know, just gathering supplies isn’t a violation of the NAP and so you can’t just kill someone for having more than you- they can declare themselves the lord of their little sphere of influence and then it’s too late; if you live in his/her self-proclaimed territory and don’t like that you can (justifiably) try to retaliate against them for being dictatorial tyrants but it won’t matter because they will have more power than you and be able to defeat you; or vice versa, where you hoard substantial ammunition and supplies and, in your quest to destroy all who violate the NAP, you become what you hate the most.Even if that doesn’t happen, private police/judicial agencies would inevitably form into entities indistinguishable from a state. Robert Nozick explained this quite well; he believed it would all happen without anyone’s rights being violated, which I don’t see as happening 100% of the time, but the logical progression from company to state is consistent.Or what about people who voluntarily, through no aggressive means, wish to form a state? I voluntarily want to live under a state that provides military and police protection because I don’t want to have to personally defend my possessions from criminals 24/7. This is actually one of the primary reasons for states existing at all, and before states and their armies, it was tribal leaders and their warriors. Is voluntarily forming a state and allowing someone to enforce the NAP on your behalf a violation of the NAP?I don’t see anarchy as enforceable, not the idea of defending yourself from aggression. I see it as a temporary system that doesn’t last very long before new states rise up from the chaos.Don’t get me wrong, I have zero issue with you and your anarchist buddies buying property and forming a voluntary anarchist commune, similar to Freetown, Christiania; just don’t force the rest of humanity to bend to your will and all will be fine.That’s a nice strawman, but every-man-for-himself, recreational-nuke, insult-my-waifu-I-take-your-laifu anarchism is a joke that went over your head.The emergence of capitalist institutions like airline companies and telecom industries from the ashes of the predatory socialist Somalian state is in fact a perfect example of how anarcho-capitalism works to improve even the most negative of circumstances. That is why in a nation that was nearly 100% Muslim, under anarchy roughly half the population voluntarily used (relatively) peaceful Sharia courts while the rest used tribal or clan law at their leisure, but provisional government attempts to drive out the ICU led to the formation of a new Al-Qaeda affiliate in the form of al-Shabbab, and the next elections saw the leader of the ICU, a man who is by all measures a radical islamist, assuming the presidency, meaning that you went from an anarchic Muslim nation where people only got Sharia if they wanted it to a system in which everybody had an Islamist as their chief executive and now ISIS kidnaps their children.And Somali culture is nowhere near as civilized as our western one, and having a government didn’t help that even a little bit, so much as it gave warlords that may have been willing to settle for local rule something larger to constantly fight for with the knowledge that if they don’t control it all, the winner will destroy them with their force monopoly.And even if you cannot kill someone for hoarding supplies, you can absolutely kill someone for attempting to form a fucking raider gang. If I successfully hoard enough guns and find enough allies to root out and liquidate every single warlord wannabe I can find until I make the Killing Fields look like the Garden of Fucking Eden, I won’t have become what I hated until I start charging people for the service whether they are satisfied with the service or not.Nozick does not provide any actual economic rationalization or model for why or how thousands of independent protection firms and local militias will merge into one or a few single superfirm, when people have different preferences as consumers for the types of protection that they want or the methods of dispute resolution that they prefer. The entire function of the private court system (Which, again, has had an existing, working, admittedly sub optimal prototype in Somalia) is intended to remove the pressure for firms to obstinately refuse any method of arbitration but the ones that they select regardless of the whims of the other firm. This is not a state enforced and regulated oligopoly like our telecom system. If you knew anywhere near as much about economics as you claimed you would understand why the cartelization that you describe is nearly impossible in an unregulated market economy. You can’t just say “because bigger is better” and leave it at that. The size of our current military and law enforcement expenditures should tell you right now that, even if you ignore the price distortive effects of the Iron Triangle, economy of scale is likely nowhere near as powerful as that for protective services. The scenario he describes is theoretically possible, sure, and I’m not about to throw stones at another libertarian for thinking of improbable ways to achieve political power, but it is at most an argument for constant vigilance in case everybody else in society becomes spontaneously retarded in a way that I struggle to envision in a world where children aren’t subject to over a decade of mandatory government run education.And this notion of a peaceful, voluntary state that you minarchists like to trot out is even more of a fairytale than anarchism. Such a thing has never existed in the history of time and never will, for a force monopoly and a system of taxation is inherent to the concept of a state. When equestrian-republican tried to argue for it, two posts later he was arguing that he had the right to forcibly expel people who didn’t want to pay for his services after he occupied their town. If your peaceful voluntary state only charges money from people who want to pay for their service, then congratulations, you’ve just formed a private protection agency. If it rapidly expands in its customer count and revenue, then congratulations, you’ve created a very competitive business. If your firm absolutely refuses to agree to any sort of arbitration that it did not select when it’s clients are accused of a ctime, then congratulations, you’ve created the private sector equivalent to a rogue state that will rapidly lose customers as they realize that any dispute with the outside will be met with naked force and a swat raid that may or may not be stopped by their own firm unless they switch to a firm that knows how to play nicely with others. I hope you enjoy rising premiums and hazard pay. Your minarchist state doesn’t enforce the NAP on your behalf, it VIOLATES the NAP on your behalf and that is why I am morally committed to destroying it at costs to myself that far exceed the market clearing price should one arise.I learned everything I needed to know about minarchism during the Whiskey Rebellion, but I got a primer when Rhode Island was threatened with blockade and invasion if they didn’t ratify a document that graciously limit the power of government to “general welfare” and “interstate commerce”. A document that would gradually be “reinterprited” until it created a government that could mandate that you purchase health insurance on the grounds that it was within their power to tax you if you didn’t. -- source link

More pics about