Sign In or Create an Account
I think you hit the nail on the head. 90% of criticisms of ancapism are of things they people have no problem accepting in the current system.
That would be tough because you would have to keep them productive which isn't imprisonment anymore, that's just slavery or indentured servitude.
And again, according to Friedmans conception in Machinery of Freedom, people would most likely choose security firms that don't practice imprisonment or slavery.
I don't think prisons would be practical in a stateless society. You really want to pay $500 a month to get back at some guy who stole your car? Or would you rather just have him give you the car back and pay some compensation?
Or let's say someone murdered your spouse. You want to pay money for the rest of his life to get back at him? More likely, you want compensation.
I think Friedmans conception of how security firms could replace the current justice system is the most realistic.
I am being sarcastic but not in the way you think. It is totally possible to live a primitive lifestyle. I've gone as far as I can by living off grid for a few years. One year on solar, a year without any electricity, and another year mixed. It had benefits, but to forage, collect water, maintain shelter, etc.... it's a full time job. If you want to live without using any modern technology at all (which is very difficult just to start, let alone maintain), you are working from dusk til dawn, freezing your ass off in between, and rationing like hell.
It's a good exercise, but it is an awful way of life. And no, modern living is not mandatory. At least in the USA. You are technically allowed to live in federally managed wilderness as long as you move at least 5 miles once every two weeks (I've gone as long as nine months without being harassed though).
Word. I wonder if "the matrix" makes them cum because of the message, or if it makes them tantrum because of the CGI. Maybe it's like shemale porn, where you feel disgust afterwards.
I really don't understand that at all. I can understand why an individual might prefer a primitive life, but I don't understand the reason why society should be primitive.
How would you share memes? How would look at big titty anime girls? How would you argue with strangers on the internet? And there's no way a primitive society could produce a beef and cheddar Arby's sandwich. It's never been done before.
Agreed. I would even feel safe claiming 'private corporations' have been the government since before America declared independence. It all just evolves with the times. .
But it's got to be one or the other for most people for some reason. Or more accurately, when corporations do something I don't like, it's evil capitalism. And when the government does something I don't like, it's evil tyranny. But if either do something they I do like then it's just the will of the people or whatever.
It was more of a joke for ancaps than an argument against whatever you were saying. It's the kind of thing statists say a lot.
"The ice cream machine doesn't work. Capitalism has failed..."
The most common definition would be something like "an economic system free from government regulation."
I'm not sure why there's a bunch of novels in the comments, it's that simple.
You know I respect your struggle with your ideals. I go through that now and then. That's not really what the argument for voluntaryism (libertarianism, anarchocapitalism, abolitism) js though. While corruption and outright murder by the state are important to point out, the voluntaryist argument is much more fundamental.
The foundation is the Non Aggression Principle which says that the only crime is the initiation of violence, or aggression more specifically. If you can accept that all forms of aggression (violence, threats of violence and coercion) are criminal, then you must accept that the state is a criminal organization.
If you still don't understand, I'll answer any questions or objections you have, but that is it. There is no argument for the state after you accept the Non Aggression Principle.
Yea I saw that after googling. Still it's incredible that fat degenerate made it into politics and moderating a popular website.
Uh wtf. Is anyone talking about that on reddit?
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.
How can you know they are about to commit violence? If they are threatening you, then that is the initiation of violence. Maybe it's better to say aggression is the initiation of force, but some people don't like that because they try to include things like asking people to pay rent as an initiation of force.
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.
Agreed but punishment is not a goal, its a means to a goal. Mainly deterence. In an ancap society the goal would focus more on conflict resolution. It makes more sense to me that if somebody robbed me or attacked me or whatever that I should be compensated rather than my attacker be punished.
Friedmans book "machinery of freedom" is the most thought out work on how the service of conflict resolution could be provided soley in a free market. If you Google that, im sure you can find a video or podcast of him giving the summary.
At the end of the day though, you have to realize that an ancap society is not going to be perfect. People are going to rob and murder and rape. Just like they do in our current society. And just like they would in a minarchist society. The biggest thing that ancaps scoff at minarchists over is the attitude that "government is really bad at providing services, so the government should only be in charge of the most important services." I know you don't see it that way, but it's worth considering. Should the government be in charge of the most important things in society? And if so, then why shouldn't it be in charge of everything? Why would governments be competent in the realms of defense but incompetent when it comes to baking bread?
Ostracism doesn't require that you be physically removed from anywhere. The more modern definition would include people not willing to talk to you at all.
Aggression is the initiation of violence. You can't initiate violence to prevent the initiation of violence because that's a paradox.
That being said, you can use force or violence to defend against someone who has already initiated violence. Pacifism is not the opposite of aggression.
Here's a talk Robert Murphy gave, posted and illustrated by bitbutter. Even if you dont find Murphy very convincing, that channel is still useful for minarchists for things like minimum wage laws and over regulation.
Communists and fascists are the same in every way that's important
I like pointing out how little poor people pay in taxes and arguing that if you want to help poor people, step one is to eliminate income tax for the poor. You lose virtually nothing in tax revenue, and then the poor get to keep an extra few thousand each year. If you can't find common ground with a progressive on that front, then they really don't care about helping the poor and would make a terrible ally anyways.
That's a neat chart. There's really not many cars after 2005 that wouldn't give the 85 corvette a run for its money.
Everything is permitted as long as it doesn't violate the NAP.
Ah. I think one advantage an ancap society would have is that there would be no politics. So like this situation you're describing, democrats can elect legislators and officials who can change the culture of Texas by force in a way that's generally accepted as legitimate. Whereas in an qncap social, those channels to change things by force won't exist in a legitimate way.
The other is that most ancaps agree that in a society governed by the NAP, you would have lots of mini societies. A voluntary commune or socialist community, or religious covenant could theoretically exist without violating the NAP. In which case, there wouldn't be as much utility in forcing your culture onto other people.
If you're new to this philosophy, I'd recommend reading or listening to Tom Woods. He makes the libertarian argument very strong and accessible to everyone. It's hard to find him making weak arguments about any of this stuff.