I can't think of any serious voluntaryists who claim it's possible to escape the threat of violence. The idea is to be allowed to pick the way you deal with that. Either by yourself or by hiring out that service. It's not as if that's a service that isn't needed when you have a state. That is one of the services the state claims to provide.
This metaphor is going really far but sure. The bears don't need to allow me to pick anything. I'm going to pick. Either guns, or traps, or poison, or fortification, or cooperation with other people. It doesn't bother me if the bear doesn't like that. It bothers me if the state doesn't like that and says "no you have to use our services to deal with the bears or im going to use violence against you." The state is the bigger threat here.
The non aggression principle only applies to humans, it's ridiculous to think of it in terms of animals. Humans eat animals it's only fair to expect some of them would try to eat us back.
I think that’s a stretch of the NAP too, but some people will use the NAP to justify criminalizing abortion, so I could see someone going in another direction with it here. I don’t think either really fully apply, unless you’re going to start sliding into minarchism, but it would be valid to create a community within an ancap society where vegetarianism or pro lifers lived and shared that way of life. I’ve talked to a lot of ancaps on reddit about that, actually. It seems divided half and half, depending on if you are religious. And so far, no vegetarians on that sub.
One benefit of the seasteading concept is that most people who move to an extreme environment are not looking for handouts or safety nets. Just a thought. Seems like the frontier holds the most liberty. I see your point, and dont have an answer yet, but I'm not willing to concede that it is impossible.
America began as a frontier—of course even it was already inhabited, but it was hostile and full of deadly animals. Maybe that’s why we were so tough in the beginning, and why we as a people now bear so little resemblance to those freedom loving people now
Yes . People love their damned security. ...and that’s if some neighboring government didn’t decide to try to expand its lands.
That doesn’t change the direction I prefer, though. Maybe there will one day be a way for people to have more power over their emotions via technology, and will not be so easily influenced by fear mongering.
I'm kinda of the opinion that liberty only grows from ashes. Not to say I want to see the suffering that there current system burning down would bring but if it did I think some good could come of it.
I've had similar thoughts but you've put them into words better than I have. Basically, I think a new ancap society could only exist with people that chose to be a part of it, it can't have anyone there unwillingly and even would need an outlet for people to leave if they couldn't take it. In the absence of this I feel it would devolve into constant violence as many people simply aren't capable of fully taking care of themselves and they would cause a lot of problems for the self sufficient people.
Best way to break dependency on something is to show it is parasitic to you. Trouble is most people today have been too dependent to know what life is like when you responsibility for yourself.
I can't think of any serious voluntaryists who claim it's possible to escape the threat of violence. The idea is to be allowed to pick the way you deal with that. Either by yourself or by hiring out that service. It's not as if that's a service that isn't needed when you have a state. That is one of the services the state claims to provide.
This metaphor is going really far but sure. The bears don't need to allow me to pick anything. I'm going to pick. Either guns, or traps, or poison, or fortification, or cooperation with other people. It doesn't bother me if the bear doesn't like that. It bothers me if the state doesn't like that and says "no you have to use our services to deal with the bears or im going to use violence against you." The state is the bigger threat here.
The non aggression principle only applies to humans, it's ridiculous to think of it in terms of animals. Humans eat animals it's only fair to expect some of them would try to eat us back.
I think that’s a stretch of the NAP too, but some people will use the NAP to justify criminalizing abortion, so I could see someone going in another direction with it here. I don’t think either really fully apply, unless you’re going to start sliding into minarchism, but it would be valid to create a community within an ancap society where vegetarianism or pro lifers lived and shared that way of life. I’ve talked to a lot of ancaps on reddit about that, actually. It seems divided half and half, depending on if you are religious. And so far, no vegetarians on that sub.
One benefit of the seasteading concept is that most people who move to an extreme environment are not looking for handouts or safety nets. Just a thought. Seems like the frontier holds the most liberty. I see your point, and dont have an answer yet, but I'm not willing to concede that it is impossible.
America began as a frontier—of course even it was already inhabited, but it was hostile and full of deadly animals. Maybe that’s why we were so tough in the beginning, and why we as a people now bear so little resemblance to those freedom loving people now
Yes . People love their damned security. ...and that’s if some neighboring government didn’t decide to try to expand its lands.
That doesn’t change the direction I prefer, though. Maybe there will one day be a way for people to have more power over their emotions via technology, and will not be so easily influenced by fear mongering.
I'm kinda of the opinion that liberty only grows from ashes. Not to say I want to see the suffering that there current system burning down would bring but if it did I think some good could come of it.
I've had similar thoughts but you've put them into words better than I have. Basically, I think a new ancap society could only exist with people that chose to be a part of it, it can't have anyone there unwillingly and even would need an outlet for people to leave if they couldn't take it. In the absence of this I feel it would devolve into constant violence as many people simply aren't capable of fully taking care of themselves and they would cause a lot of problems for the self sufficient people.
So you’re arguing for another country to be the safety net? I can’t even decide what I think about that
And our job is to teach new generations our ideology and why we believe it. Not easy but it what has to be done.
Best way to break dependency on something is to show it is parasitic to you. Trouble is most people today have been too dependent to know what life is like when you responsibility for yourself.