BlackRock got their hands on Infinite Money Printer
Well the idea is that unless you satisfy their demands some under-trained moron is going to attempt to shoot you. I'd rather not deal with the situation of a wheel-chair bound dude with a gun threatening to shoot me because the government told him to.
Translation: Even criticizing me is a threat to rational discussion.
Reality: Creating a class of people who cannot be criticized no matter what they say creates a threat to rational discussion. And implying that anyone who does is just the dumbest kind of person does that. It can lead us off the rails to tyranny very easily.
You don't need criminal law. If there is no victim there is no need for a law. If there is a victim, you can handle it civilly. Criminal law is completely pointless yet ancaps keep trying to come up with private sector versions of it. What's next, private sector taxes, private sector drug laws, private sector nuclear warfare, private sector eminent domain? Private sector cops/criminal law are as useless as all of those things.
Actually you can. They've done it in Somolia. Under Xeer, the courts are voluntary (civil court, arbitrator of last resort). If you don't like civil judgement you can ignore it. But then the court ends its relationship with you and there is no arbitrator of last resort for you and everyone else, so anyone else can just steel from you without consequence.
The court never does anything violent. The court didn't need violence to organize and give opinions. All it needed to do was to be consistent enough that the people voluntarily choose to view it as an authoritative arbitrator of last resort over someone else.
I will also submit my own solution taking from my prefered form of anarcho-capitalism that does have a centralized civil court of last resort. It is intended to be a general solution but I think we can see how it might also function here, which is based on Somoli system of Xeer.
To me, the main problem with law is criminal law. There is no need for it. If there is a victim a civil case can be brought. If there is no victim it doesn't need to be a public matter. To the extent that victims need justice, actual justice is better rendered by the victim recieving compensation rather than society recieving paying in the form of paying for someone to waste time.
For this reason I suggest not getting rid of the civil system. Many advocate a decentalized civil system, but I suggest a civil system of last resort is usefull for when an agreed arbitrartor can't be found or continued violation of arbitrated orders are ignored.
But would it be voluntary? Yes. Absolutely. Attendence to a civil hearing, or abiding by its findings are completely voluntary. But then why recognize its authority? Because you want there to be a civil court of last resort. If you don't abide by its orders it will do nothing. Precisely nothing. But it will continue doing nothing. If you have a civil issue the court does not recognize you and you lack a civil arbitrator of last resort. That would mean that anyone can do anything to you and there is no system in place to protect you.
Under the Xeer system, punitive damages are set at 3x the recompensitory damages. So if you steel 0.0002btc from me and it can be demonstrated in a court you would then owe me 0.0008btc back. This incentivizes people who will eventually be shown to be in the wrong to settle early, either by making right before its brought to any third party, or by being agreable to adhere to other preliminary arbitrators.
In this case you could make a claim that the crowd is responsible for damages, and use video to identify them. You then could hire someone to hang around the community to identify them and serve them. If the whole community fails to comply their whole community could become unrecognized by the court which would be a bad situation for a neighborhood to be in.
What's great is this system doesn't even require private cops. Cops are for putting people in jail. Are you going to run an anarchist jail? Jails are for criminal law, which doesn't need to exist. Being unrecognized by any civil system is a fait worse than jail anyway and so enforcability of individual rights can be achieved without cops.
I still don't think it makes since to buy leases of land form the government, $400,000 to preserve a small patch of trees for $25 years.
It would make more sense if the land was permanently auctioned off. Then the environmentalists don't even have an expense. They have an asset they can sell off at any point to buy other land they value preserving more. And they could convince more 3rd party funders of their project to chip in knowing that it is financially sound.
You then can add recreational elements to it to try to raise a revenue and use the revenue to service loans that could be used to acquire more land.. permanently.
Whether you think the idea that no human differences can exist is a misguided idea or not, there is one simply way to make sure that government never acts on any misguided dogma to our disservice, which is to not have government acting at all.
There is nothing wrong with recognizing the potential for human differences in an ancap philosophy if we all have a firm recognition that the NAP is extended to all. Recognition of the potential for these differences also encourages a more lazie faire approach to addressing differences in outcomes, recognizing that government response may not be able to address some underlying causes that may be unaddressable in general, and recognizing that acceptance of differing outcomes is ok. We don't all have to be the same, and we don't have to hate either.
But the longer government attempts to act against reality the less successful it becomes, and the more likely it is to put infinite resources towards a cause that due to dogma generated misunderstanding can never yield a sought outcome.
The "scientific" conclusion that all races are the same was not scientific at all as such "proof" originated from Richard Lewontin, a marxist, who admitted to shaping his conclusions around marxist principles, and admitting to stifling debate by focusing it on emotions rather than honest scientific discourse. Thus scientific discourse wasn't allowed and thus no science exists because science is the product of certain principles being applied in a community, including the open discussion of a topic on rational rather than emotional terms. The science is not concluded.
No I'm not. The NAP is not absolute pacifism. It's the idea that you have no right to encroach on the rights of others when they have never done the same to you.
Those who do need to be lopped out of an ancap society as quickly and decisively as can be done, using whatever methods are necessary to ensure that happens. If that means a bullet to the head, as long as its not by a government, I'm cool with it.
Any gray areas should be discussed rather than escalated. Mass robbery and ruin is not a gray area.
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.