selling yourself is consentual and thus not slavery tho right
nonconsensual and violates nap
Well again, either those people are RINOs or they may actually believe in smaller government but aren't living those values (or there are people who actually believe in smaller government like minarchists or Constitutionalists but they don't see how ancap-ism is kind of like a form of minarchy).
The people who aren't living those values but believe in them could be walked through how some policies they've knowingly or unknowingly supported could be damaging to them.
thanks for giving more insight on the issue, although that would still be just as much a problem for the free market to deal with since it was private companies that caused the problem
Having a farm like that is a danger to the surrounding community just like having nuclear weapons is (like I think I mentioned in the OP), so I guess really it's an open conversation whether there's a government or not, we need to either have defenses in place for a natural disaster that could release certain animals into the wild, or encourage such farms to have certain security practices in place to make sure they don't escape.
u/NullifyAndSecede gives the correct answer
I'd add that, the owners would likely decide to ban it if it became too costly or a problem; either customers who use the road service would be willing to pay more maybe in insurance and taking the risk (if there were more crashes that resulted from allowing it), to allow people to drive intoxicated, or if they would not the road owner might then end up banning "drunk" driving
There is a difference between choosing to take a stand for freedom regardless of costs on one's property (in which case, drunk driving might be seen as something that must be allowed, as otherwise this is taking away others' freedom) versus having the freedom to set whatever rules you think are best on your property, both of which are compatible with libertarianism (some people might argue the latter position is not, but then to prevent people from enforcing rules on their property they would have to likely use force to prevent them, which would not be libertarian)
neocon RINOs are probably a lost cause
Republicans for limited government, Constitutional and American freedom, only need to take those ideas to their logical conclusion to arrive at ancap (they would simply need to understand how government infringes on personal freedom and be able to visualize how "ancapistan" could function in theory without a need for infringement on personal freedom by government)
As far as defending conservative values, each institution in "ancapistan" can be encouraged to adopt policies against things like abortion or other vices - just as a government being large isn't inherently liberal or conservative, nor are governmental entities being small that way either, but liberals and conservatives compete to have their values enforced through the governmental entitites (this might appeal to some neocon RINOs)
does this cover it?
needs to be fun
we have some fun memes
it's a start
Exotic pets are less likely to be an issue since they are less likely to find breeding partners.
well, like in florida don't they have problems with pythons which are an invasive exotic pet that got in to the wild?
So this was one idea I thought of, as a problem that free markets might allow to happen, but maybe freedom to develop defense against this problem also might be created
A key thing to keep in mind is that voluntaryism/anarcho-capitalism is NOT a utopian vision
of course, was just wondering if anyone has thought about this issue before. It's not like the government's regulations prevented the python outbreak in Florida either
just like there is private security at a mall or university, police companies would likely form to be a less expensive way to diffuse conflicts. Certainly a gun can help for self defense in certain situations, while in others police might be an easier or simpler choice.
yes, to note: a State doesnt guarantee social cohesion (examples: states that devolved into chaos and no rule of law like with civil wars). Similarly there could be social cohesion in the absence of a centralized State (various separate governing companies/agencies still exist to provide that check and balance). I argue minarchy and anarchy (in the context of ancap-ism) may be very similar in practice in how they look and operate. Social cohesion becomes rational to avoid the heavier losses of violent conflict: people voluntarily agree to abide by many of the laws that commonly exist under centralized States.
explain more of why you disagree if you'd like
old post but reposting a comment:
it ends up looking a little bit like government but not the same
consider if there was no government: people might be able to shoot each other, but if person A shoots person B, then person B's friends might shoot person A, so they end up coming to an agreement of not shooting each other (a law, voluntarily agreed to: "on my property you will not shoot me or I will shoot you", something like that), these kinds of agreements will be made with respect to trespassing or stealing or whatever else.
These kinds of laws might become standardized and multiple properties would accept them so that in effect stealing or trespassing might be illegal everywhere.
You might ask, "but what if someone just wants to break the law anyway?" Well, that's the same as under a government, some of the same threats of consequences exist if people break laws, it's just different who enforces them.
Now you could set up courts and people would make use of them because, just like under the State, if people will not make use of the courts then they are in "contempt of court" and subject to whatever penalties.
Say person A shoots person B and now person B's friends want to have a trial about it, but they won't go to court. They are subject then to person B's friends shooting them at the extreme, or less extreme subject to lesser penalties person B's people might attempt.
This is all kind of a thought experiment, but to me it seems pretty easy to see how anarchy matures into something that looks like government but there's not just one government entity in charge of everything. (Just like thinking about if you were to build businesses from scratch, about how that would be developed)
Also you might want to read about "no rule of law" situations, or what happened in countries where the rule of law broke down like when there were civil wars. Ancap would build further beyond those primitive conditions but it shows what the starting point is. (Some of them might not be the best examples but rather would be more like states)
To me I just envision everything we have now but it's owned by private entities and instead of there being like one roads company for example, there might be multiple road construction agencies.
misunderstanding of how "anarchy" actually works (unless joking), private companies end up creating CEOs with boards of directors who lead the group, so like a head moderator and bunch of sub-moderators which is how it it set up currently I think
free market environmentalism
to me where this meme breaks down is: they become govt leaders tho
It's not, you can take a consequentialist approach
it ends up looking a little bit like government but not the same
consider if there was no government: people might be able to shoot each other, but if person A shoots person B, then person B's friends might shoot person A, so they end up coming to an agreement of not shooting each other (a law, voluntarily agreed to: "on my property you will not shoot me or I will shoot you", something like that), these kinds of agreements will be made with respect to trespassing or stealing or whatever else.
These kinds of laws might become standardized and multiple properties would accept them so that in effect stealing or trespassing might be illegal everywhere.
You might ask, "but what if someone just wants to break the law anyway?" Well, that's the same as under a government, some of the same threats of consequences exist if people break laws, it's just different who enforces them.
Now you could set up courts and people would make use of them because, just like under the State, if people will not make use of the courts then they are in "contempt of court" and subject to whatever penalties. Say person A shoots person B and now person B's friends want to have a trial about it, but they won't go to court. They are subject then to person B's friends shooting them at the extreme, or less extreme subject to lesser penalties person B's people might attempt.
This is all kind of a thought experiment, but to me it seems pretty easy to see how anarchy matures into something that looks like government but there's not just one government entity in charge of everything. (Just like thinking about if you were to build businesses from scratch, about how that would be developed)
Also you might want to read about "no rule of law" situations, or what happened in countries where the rule of law broke down like when there were civil wars. Ancap would build further beyond those primitive conditions but it shows what the starting point is. (Some of them might not be the best examples but rather would be more like states)
To me I just envision everything we have now but it's owned by private entities and instead of there being like one roads company for example, there might be multiple road construction agencies.
seems like a clear violation of the life and property of the unborn baby, abortion seems anti-ancap/anti-libertarian
they'd be free to live in a commune
and at the bottom some go back to authoritarianism