2
Assassin47 2 points ago +2 / -0

Try clicking the Watch on Youtube link to open it externally. I didn't watch but the description says:

"Is humanity truly free? Are there Universal Laws in effect that apply to human behavior? Does our knowledge or ignorance of these laws impact our collective freedom as a species? In this one-of-a-kind feature documentary film, Mark Passio will explore these questions, and our current understanding of Universal forces that affect the daily lives of each and every one of us."

3
Assassin47 3 points ago +3 / -0

Never heard of this channel. Thanks for sharing.

2
Assassin47 2 points ago +2 / -0

Well I certainly believe that (to a degree) and consider myself closer to Ancap than mutualist. Land just has to be appropriated and exploited. You don't have to physically occupy it all times.

There are many slippery-slopes in Ancapistan. What about the other side of the argument? Can I gaze at the mountains far off in the west, and the sea down to the east, and declare this entire land to be mine? I think that should be allowed if nobody else is living there, but staking a claim isn't enough, you have to acquire and use the land. That generally includes surveyors at a minimum, and security to defend it. If I do none of those things, and just say "this land is mine", can I then sell the land to someone? None of it matters until someone disputes my claim, and then the question is how valid is their claim to the land?

Like other things we would rely on courts to decide who rightfully owns what in a dispute. Courts would have some kind of register of land ownership (not required but it makes things easier), which could be disputed under agreed upon terms. Sure you could have a corrupt Commie court that sides with squatters and revolutionaries, but a court that lets people take someone else's land just because they want it would not be very well respected in Ancapistan. A court that makes reasonable judgements against giant banks with no intentions of exploiting land vs. homesteaders who are actively using it might be more respected.

Once it's clear that someone is going to illegitimately take your land - we fall back to enforcing the NAP. It's meaningless without teeth. Perhaps recruit the aid of other free landowners who realize that if they don't support you they'll be next. In any event if you don't have a majority of people in a community believing in the principles of non-aggression, everything falls apart.

1
Assassin47 1 point ago +1 / -0

I suggest not getting rid of the civil system

It would be fantasy for anyone to suggest that would even be possible. Freely associating groups are always going to have some system of arbitration regardless of the existence or lack of common law. Though I cringe at the mention of a Somali tradition when anti-anarchists love using Somalia as a prime example of anarchy in reality.

1
Assassin47 1 point ago +1 / -0

I wouldn't say it's for sure possible as much as an ideal to strive for. If we can decentralize we'll be much more likely to find like minded people to associate with and create new societies based on principles of non-aggression. It will never be perfect. Trying to create utopia is what leftists do.

1
Assassin47 1 point ago +1 / -0

I might join. Is there a reason you went with discord over an entirely private chat system like Element (Matrix) where they can't shut you down? Remember even Libertarians are domestic terrorists these days.

1
Assassin47 1 point ago +1 / -0

the highest bidder

Bill Gates - wants to lower human population and does all kinds of weird experiments with pharmaceuticals and food science

Jeff Bezos - wants humans to live in space and most of the earth to be a wildlife preserve

What a wonderful future.

1
Assassin47 1 point ago +1 / -0

Well the Libertarian party is controlled oppo so that didn't surprise me. I would not be surprised if they are run by the CIA. The Mises caucus has some great ideas, but a third party just can't work in the USA. Since Bull Moose the uniparty has deeply embedded itself into the machine of government.

1
Assassin47 1 point ago +1 / -0

Start decentralizing

replace and ignore federal mandates

plan secession

start militia groups

say "no" to federal government

"Nice try, Mitt."

Yes I really must have sounded like an elitist Republicuck there. You caught me. :P

Seriously though I advocate a peaceful divorce. Let them attack us. It's not perfect, but I'm trying to answer the OP's question. What is your proposal?

Do you have a realistic plan, or like many Ancaps do you talk about an idealistic future but provide no path to get there?

1
Assassin47 1 point ago +2 / -1

Start decentralizing and try to convince conservatives to go along with it. You need to band together with like-minded people and work within the US state and two party framework to act as a shield against the feds. No lone wolves, no third parties. This means move to possibly receptive states like Oregon, Texas, and Florida, and take over the GOP apparatus there. (only mentioning Oregon because of the Greater Idaho initiative) Take advantage of the current anti-fed mistrust to get state legislatures to pass laws towards parallel infrastructure, replacing and ignoring federal mandates, and planning what would happen in the event of secession. For example if TX were to secede tomorrow, would they be able to maintain the electrical grid? Can your governor decouple the NatGuard and order them to block federal LEOs? Will he? Can you elect someone who would? (possibly violating the National Guard Act) People could also openly start militia groups, but that's going to draw attention right now so you want to get state authority on board first.

There won't be any need to actually secede. Just keep using state power to go your own way, only poking the bear when necessary. At some point in the future a Fort Sumter scenario might occur, but it might not. You need to find local officials who have the courage to say "no". No to federal enforcers, no to courts, no to federal funding. The courts just gave themselves the power to interpret the Constitution, so take that power back.

1
Assassin47 1 point ago +1 / -0

JOHN MCCAIN MEETING WITH AL QAEDA, 2013

2
Assassin47 2 points ago +2 / -0

Yeah I think that could work as long as the group is kept small and has some kind of gatekeeping. One bad person will ruin a good thing.

1
Assassin47 1 point ago +1 / -0

Doesn't every community starts that way? Then they just keep adding laws and other bullshit to give control to officials so individuals don't have to be responsible. We also have state laws that make it impossible to live true ancap philosophy.

3
Assassin47 3 points ago +3 / -0

Whether you're talking about Ancapistan or the real world today, if you find your property ransacked like that and don't have much in the way of hard evidence (high-res video), there's not much you can do. In both situations you'd have to do an investigation, look for clues, interview people in the area, stake out the local gangs, and maybe pay criminals to rat each other out. The only difference in Ancapistan is you'd be hiring private investigative agencies to do all that instead of depending on tax funded police.

The enormous cost of doing all that is one reason why I think you'd always have psuedo-government agencies that everyone in a community pays a regular fee to, like insurance.

What I'm not clear on is what kind of punishment would be carried out, assuming the persons you believe did the looting rationally refuse to cooperate with any judicial agency. Maybe that's when it's time to take the law into your own hands. If a court has publicly proven that they were the criminals, nobody in the community would fault you for exacting justice.

4
Assassin47 4 points ago +4 / -0

The only way a warlord could take over an AnCap society is if the people let them.

The stupid masses ruining things would be my biggest worry about ancap society, more than all these other theoretical problems people come up with. You'll need something to appease "disenfranchised" people if you don't want continuous revolution. The militia will try to keep them down, but like you see with rich leftists today, there would be many elites trying to virtue signal to the people that they're on their side rather than actually helping them become self-sufficient individualists. Is it a violation of the NAP to shoot some aggrandizing tech CEO because he's funding anti-ancap activist groups that want to seize my property?

4
Assassin47 4 points ago +4 / -0

I agree it's not a problem, just a fact of life. If someone wants to make a "state" on their own property, that's their business. They will further need to convince other people or "states" to recognize them as one, if they so desire.

If they wish to steal land from individuals or force them to pay taxes, that is a violation of the NAP.

2
Assassin47 2 points ago +2 / -0

Under an ideal AnCap paradigm you can't enslave someone against their will. People only go to a prison of their choice as part of an agreement to fulfil a contract as a condition to be allowed back into polite society. (living in some territory, or doing business with certain groups, whoever have come up with such a pact)

Of course we can argue whether that's realistic, and what would constitute unlawful imprisonment under the NAP vs. what would be enforceable, but no government is perfect. (I say government because IMO AnCap is still a loosely governed form of state without the trappings of a state.)

Since most people don't like prison, you're correct that fines and other restitution would be more common.

We really don't know how well private prisons would or wouldn't work, because we don't have any fully private prisons. They are all incentivized or regulated by the state. Maybe there are some historical examples.

1
Assassin47 1 point ago +1 / -0

You have no idea if what you read online is true or not, but it's most likely not. If it is, it's out of your control. Don't worry about it. Appreciate your family and live every day like it might be your last because it may very well be, virus or no virus.

4
Assassin47 4 points ago +4 / -0

A lot of conservatives there who are usually against taxation, but not in the same way an Ancap is against taxation. I didn't see the post, but usually they are OK with taxes in general - they just want them drastically lowered. Perhaps income tax removed but property taxes, corporate taxes, or tariffs to fund the military. In fact many conservatives would say taxes should pay for the military and nothing else.

Also the mods there (probably anywhere) are contradictory in general. It's different people with different agendas.

1
Assassin47 1 point ago +1 / -0

Good lord finally someone that understands the important things in life. ?

2
Assassin47 2 points ago +2 / -0

They're just bad liars.

view more: Next ›