How should we do news better in ancapistan? I don't ask this question to discredit our efforts but we should be the best at self-reflection. What is our plan to mitigate companies just paying to have the population support statism when statism would benefit them.

The answer I want is that people should be smart enough to not be told what to think, and perhaps that is a pre-condition to successful anarcho-capitalism.

But we also need some response to reality and our currently imperfect world.

Maybe there is a Hopp-like solution. He asked a similar question, what is there to prevent people from simply openly advocating, conspiring, and implementing communism in so much as it will benefit them within an ancap community. And his response is that if it is an ancap community maybe they shouldn't be there and maybe not everyone is welcome in every community on the basis of freedom of association and freedom of disassociation.

It may seem like a curtailment of freedom of speech but I think the idea is that your speech is the action it correlates with. A threat is an act of violence. Advocating communism is an act of communism. Conspiring with a mob to rob a house is robbery even if all you ever used were words.

So maybe this is the judgement of the positive mob. That an act of aggression is aggression and can be met with aggression. That advocacy of NAP violations are aggression. And paying for someone to speak for some NAP violations is an attempt to profit from aggression. And that in all cases the positive mob (you and me) have a duty to shun and have even the right to potentially re-aggress these actors.

How should we do news better in ancapistan? I don't ask this question to discredit our efforts but we should be the best at self-reflection. What is our plan to mitigate companies just paying to have the population support statism when statism would benefit them.

The answer I want is that people should be smart enough to not be told what to think, and perhaps that is a pre-condition to successful anarcho-capitalism.

But we also need some response to reality and our currently imperfect world.

Maybe there is a Hopp-like solution. He asked a similar question, what is there to prevent people from simply openly advocating, conspiring, and implementing communism in so much as it will benefit them within an ancap community. And his response is that if it is an ancap community maybe they shouldn't be there and maybe not everyone is welcome in every community on the basis of freedom of association and freedom of disassociation.

It may seem like a curtailment of freedom of speech but I think the idea is that your speech is the action it correlates with. A threat is an act of violence. Advocating communism is an act of communism. Conspiring with a mob to rob a house is robbery even if all you ever used were words.

So maybe this is the judgement of the positive mob. That an act of aggression is aggression and can be met with aggression. That advocacy of NAP violations are aggression. And paying for someone to speak for some NAP violations is an attempt to profit from aggression. And that in all cases the positive mob (you and me) have a duty to shun and even potentially re-aggress these actors.