@HighSim0n This is one way an anarchistic legal system would work. For more information read Rothbard's For a new Liberty, or David Friedman's The Machinery of Freedom. They represent two opposing legal theories. Or if books aren't you're thing, go to wikipedia.
@HighSim0n first off libertarian and anarchist are synonyms. granted, some libertarians are minarchists, but that is a recent phenomenon. now your second claim is fallacious. Just because there is a "law" or "legal code" does not necessarily mean an absence of anarchy or an existence of government. It just means that if you're convicted of a crime you don't go to jail, you are ordered to pay restitution. If you refuse, then you face social ostracization which can be worse than going to jail.
I don't see what would stop the thief from hiring his own defense agency to protect him from the defense contractor that the victim hires. I can definitely see the problems of a state with a monopoly on force, but one of the advantages of such a state is the ability to hold people accountable, whether they would like to be held accountable or not. Further, why would the thief be obligated to submit to the authority of the 'free market courts'? What if he's part of another court system?
So... old people just have to hope that their family look after them, while the mentally ill can be left to roam the streets unless they turn violent. No provision for mental health, basically.
And someone could file a claim against Microsoft? Could you do that *now*? No, because Microsoft has the resources to fight off any legal challenge; same under the system you're proposing, only worse since the big corporation could literally "contract" judges and police to support them.
@JCLeSinge The old and handicapped are issues of charity. What makes you think that charities could not deal with this problem?
Your argument regarding Microsoft works in reverse: Microsoft can buy courts and judges NOW. In a system where justice was provided by people with valuable reputations to uphold, we could expect a greater degree of fairness in judgement. No arbiter or defence agency would risk their valuable reputation to support a business which refused to obey fair arbitration.
@Hostile: That was my very point re Microsoft; the system you're advocating is not materially different to the one we already have; private Capitalist interests and market forces already reign supreme.
What is the profit-motive of a charity? In an Anarcho-capitalist system, profit is the sole motive of anything. You're suggesting that the elderly and disabled should be the sole concern of the minority who have a conscience?
A rent-a-cops... look, if you call 'em out for an emergency, the fee would be more than the cost of replacing your TV. Meanwhile, if you don't or can't afford private security, you're down to defending your property with a gun; that's not Anarchism, that's anarchy. You'd end up with the rich living in defended compounds and the the poor either serving them in penury or shooting it out in the slums.
@JCLeSinge That's a lot of strange assumptions. Why would an emergency call be so expensive in a society where everybody relies on such a service? Isn't it also logical that people would buy police insurance, rather than paying from call to call? No person should be unable to afford protection in a free market. And what's wrong with armed defence of your property?
Your fears appear to be based on the misconception that poor people could/would not earn their way out of poverty in a free market.
@Hostile: Everyone needs plumbers too, and they're pretty damn expensive. Do you want to pay $100 every time you call a cop? And buying police insurance... you're talking about mercenaries operating protection rackets.
Your love of Anarcho-Capitalism appears to be based on the rose-tinted belief that everyone would own their own means of production and that no one would be exploited. In reality, the inequalities already existing in society would simply get worse until society collapsed.
@JCLeSinge Plumbers and other trade union workers exist and can charge so much largely because of the government. Unions in today's political climate are as harmful as big government and big corporations. I'm not against unions; they just get some absurd legal privileges.
The short of it is that they can stick it to corporations/the government to inflate their members wage rate above market value and create make-work schemes that hurt consumers and taxpayers through higher prices and taxes.
Wait... you're suggesting that roads would "compete"? Have you not thought for a moment that many routes from A to B would be served by only ONE road? Or ONE bridge, tunnel, whatever? This would be the case in the vast majority of roads. And how is this road-owner to police safety? So he *might* contract with a local mechanic; is he going to do spot-checks at random? Issue certificates? How many certificates from how many different road-owners is one driver expected to have? It's not feasible.
@collapseofthedollar Don't think so. Am currently reading up on Anarchy and most of us don't think you are anarchists. Anarchists are for freeing humanity not a market that would enslave it. This right wing idiocy is repackaging Fuedalism and you are too stunned to see it.
@MilanTbay Noam Chomsky is an anarchist? Not even close, the guy has no belief in freedom, just an irrational vendetta against capitalism. Capitalism is the belief that people have the right to their own property; anarchy is just the logical conclusion of that line of thought. Why should anybody else (the state) have ownership over you and your property? So a truly anarchist society is one where everybody is perfectly free, and this includes the freedom to employ people and be employed.
@Hostile Chomsky wrote a world reknowned paper on Anarchy and why he feels it is the best system. Thats actual anarchy and not this right wing crap you guys dreamed up. To employ people and to be employed is WAGE SLAVERY to a true anarchist. That is not freedom. It's keeping people too poor to do anything but prostitute their labour. Property is THEFT to real anarchists. Damn America really is living in 1984. Everything seems to be double speak.
@MilanTbay So actual anarchy is a structure of societal control? That's contrary to the definition of the term. Might as well invent violent pacifism too!
Are you aware of what "double think" is? It means holding two opposing beliefs equally and ignoring the contradiction... for example that property is theft (theft being the taking of property which is impossible IF property is theft) and calling a consensual contract "slavery". That's 100% double speak.
@Hostile Anarchy means "law by no one" or "rule by no one" actually. That's not double speak but the actual definition. No one has the right to force another human to do what they want. Property is theft was on of the earliest anarchist beliefs since "property" has always been stolen from someone that had fair use of it beforehand. Example America from the Natives. Can't blame ya son, America has one of the worse education systems in the world.
@MilanTbay The doublespeak isn't your definition of "anarchy" but rather your belief that "property is theft". For something to be stolen it has to be property, but stolen property is not legitimate property, therefore "property is theft" is an obvious doublethink contradiction. Same's true for calling consensual agreements "slavery", which I find repugnant. You've seemingly no grasp of liberty. Can't blame ya though son, Britain has one of the most socialist education systems in the world!
@Hostile please tell me an American isn't making fun of ANYONE elses education system, LOL. Canada had one of the worlds best when I as growing up but thanks to US coersion in our politics it has been dumbed down trying to get us as dense as the average American. I'd still suggest you read the early anarchists and true libertarians to understand this "Libertarian" BS you are into is the double speak of which you talk about.
@MilanTbay If libertarianism was based on double-speak then you'd be able to point out the contradictions as easily as I highlighted those in your beliefs, which FYI you have failed to argue against. If you believe the early anarchists have something to offer me, what exactly is it?
And you'll be glad to know that, no, an American isn't mocking your education system.
@Hostile For nearly 100 years libertarianism meant cutting the chains Elites put on humanity. This repacking of Feudalism you Americans dreamed up is nothing but double speak. You dream that somehow you'll have the means to pay whatever Lord owns your land or what the market price of food will be. Those are chains that will turn you and everyone you know into serfs.
In the game of capitalism, it's the ones with actual capital that wins. Can you compete with Bill Gates?
The chains on people have already made them into serfs, they're called taxation, majority rule, welfare, etc. Your fear of freedom is understandable but unfounded, and the idea that endorsing anti-property slavery will make us free is a warped joke. "FREEDOM IS SLAVERY", apparently.
In the game of capitalism, it's the ones with the desirable product that win. Bill Gates is winning only so long as he's selling desirable products at desirable prices.
Yup, but if it were profitable that would mean people would be willingly paying to use those roads and would value the lower price with extra risk of getting into car crashes. I don't see why people shouldn't have that choice if they wanna have it. Some folks would pay more to have safer roads. Or maybe the amount of people that supported drunken driving would be so small that it wouldn't be profitable to have drunken drivers....but yes IF it were profitable, chances are that it would happen.
It would only be more profitable is people were willing to use highways that allow drunk drivers. People who really value their security would be willing to pay an enormous price for highways that would have checkpoints at their entries, making people pass a drive-by alcool test before they get on. Those who would whant to economise would be willing to go on unpatrolled highways. It would be a matter of personal choice, instead of some bureaucrat deciding for us.
One thing I find funny about the people who support the state, is that question they often ask "who would take care of the old people or the crazy people or the childs with no parents", I wonder if they would all voluntarily donate money for that cause because if they would it's problem fucking solved!
Stephan Molyneaux says something similar. He asks "What are YOU doing about that problem now?" Then going on to say that people are doing things about it currently because they really care. If the person who asks about it is doing nothing then they obviously don't care enough about it to do anything, so why are they asking about it? If they are doing something about it, then they are already an example of how such things would be handled.
I have a contract with a defense organisation, they negotiate with the organisation that is attempting to shake me down. They can go to war, but that is very costly. The people who are contracted with that organization will not be happy when they get their next bill and will switch to a DO that solves problems through negotiation.
Interesting, the one thing that bugs me tought is what will keep those defense organisation from just going on rampages and kill everybody? I mean how will they be forced to respect human rights?
@TheProgressistViewer Go on a rampage and kill everyone and you have no one left to pay your salary. The thing about division of labor is that you require other people to do their jobs so you can gain access to the products of their labor through trade. If 2-3 "defense" organizations were to gang up and exert lordship, they would lack legitimacy and create a quick market for a new organization to oppose them which would be in heavy demand.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
In this make believe world everyone will 1)have to agree completely with your views 2) everyone is a pussy and sees no need for several nuclear warheads.
The thing about people owning the roads wouldn't be a problem if a bunch of libertarians moved to an uninhabited island and formed their own community. People would build their own roads and set their own rules. But the road systems have already been built. How could people homestead the existing road systems? Especially highways because thousands of people actively use them every day.
Some problems are just the state of reality and have no perfect solution, like theft. In our current statism-dominated world, most stolen property is not recovered. It's simply a hard problem among many hard problems with no str8-fwd catch-all solution. It seems questions like this are a kind of trap, trying to force anarchists into a position of defending a free market as a kind of utopian cure-all for every presentable problem. That's ridiculous. It's just a far better way than statism.
The way I think about it is that the market is simply an extension of anarchist principals; of voluntary actions. Asking "how would the market deal with X, Y or Z...?" is asking, "how do we solve X, Y or Z without resorting to violence?" You can't fight fire with fire, so to speak. So saying that solutions for supposedly complex problems (such as roads or police) must involve violence is absurd. Shouldn't we at least be allowed to TRY?! IMO it's just fallout from childhood trauma & propaganda.
@thorsmitersaw horrible job the crap about the military being absolved being a good thing is hysterical. And nuclear weapons don't just disappear the soviets would use them kill us all and take over. Government is not a neccesary evil its just that its only role is defense and justice which are not economic functions and enforcing the natural law which faggot ass liberturds hate
@eurohim Omigod! You mean, if there wasn't a state (a monopoly of violence over a certain area)... we could possibly end up with a monopoly of violence over a certain area, like a state? Best we stick with havng a state then, rather than running the risk of having a state huh? Your comment was 3 years ago, I sincerely hope you've learned more about libertarianism since?
Private defense agencies possessing nuclear weapons would be a great defensive deterrent to any possible statist aggression from countries wanting to expand their borders.
Also while I think a voluntarist society may form sometime in the future I don't subscrib to the sort of communist theory that "the revolution must spread over the whole world" type thing. I think you'd have a voluntarist society in one part of the world and it may be adopted by others. But states will still exist most places
That's partially true in regards to defense, but I think it blurs the line between states and individuals. For example, if America was trying to invade an anarchist society and you and I resided in America but strongly disagreed with the government and couldn't leave, would the defense agency be justified in blowing us up with a nuclear bomb along with America? No! We are innocent people, and nuclear bombs don't discriminate: they just kill everything in a large geographic area, innocent or not.
No power possessing nuclear weapons has ever been invaded and no two nuclear powers have ever directly went to war with each other.
If America turned into a voluntarist society and the PDA's had nukes I doubt whether any foreign state contemplating taking over the place would want to risk having their country nuked.
Still, if the defense agency launched a nuke and killed innocent people in that country, it would itself become a criminal organization for invading the rights of other innocent people, namely for killing them.
Voluntaryism isn't a utopian system. Just a system that's much much better than the current statist system.
I don't think a state would take the chance of getting nuked in retaliation by trying to invade a territory protected by private agencies that possessed nuclear weapons. But if they did and it was the only way to defend ourselves from them coming over here and enslaving us than it's better them than us. I'm looking our for my rational self interest.
"No power possessing nuclear weapons has ever been invaded and no two nuclear powers have ever directly went to war with each other."
So? Nukes have only been around for 60 years. That's a relatively short amount of time considering the history of states. There's no definitive proof that this historic fact is law.
Also, I think posessing Nuclear Warheads would most likely give the US MORE of an incentive to invade a Voluntarist society.
how do resources get equitably distributed?
MrSteventodd 6 months ago
@HighSim0n This is one way an anarchistic legal system would work. For more information read Rothbard's For a new Liberty, or David Friedman's The Machinery of Freedom. They represent two opposing legal theories. Or if books aren't you're thing, go to wikipedia.
AustereAustrian 7 months ago
@HighSim0n first off libertarian and anarchist are synonyms. granted, some libertarians are minarchists, but that is a recent phenomenon. now your second claim is fallacious. Just because there is a "law" or "legal code" does not necessarily mean an absence of anarchy or an existence of government. It just means that if you're convicted of a crime you don't go to jail, you are ordered to pay restitution. If you refuse, then you face social ostracization which can be worse than going to jail.
AustereAustrian 7 months ago
I don't see what would stop the thief from hiring his own defense agency to protect him from the defense contractor that the victim hires. I can definitely see the problems of a state with a monopoly on force, but one of the advantages of such a state is the ability to hold people accountable, whether they would like to be held accountable or not. Further, why would the thief be obligated to submit to the authority of the 'free market courts'? What if he's part of another court system?
postmoderncory 8 months ago
liberty btw is the pursuit of good not evil
deltapunk21 1 year ago
privately owned nukes? you're the first asshole to make me possibly rethink the 2nd amendment.
fargon187gmailcom 1 year ago
So... old people just have to hope that their family look after them, while the mentally ill can be left to roam the streets unless they turn violent. No provision for mental health, basically.
And someone could file a claim against Microsoft? Could you do that *now*? No, because Microsoft has the resources to fight off any legal challenge; same under the system you're proposing, only worse since the big corporation could literally "contract" judges and police to support them.
JCLeSinge 1 year ago
@JCLeSinge The old and handicapped are issues of charity. What makes you think that charities could not deal with this problem?
Your argument regarding Microsoft works in reverse: Microsoft can buy courts and judges NOW. In a system where justice was provided by people with valuable reputations to uphold, we could expect a greater degree of fairness in judgement. No arbiter or defence agency would risk their valuable reputation to support a business which refused to obey fair arbitration.
Hostile 1 year ago
@Hostile: That was my very point re Microsoft; the system you're advocating is not materially different to the one we already have; private Capitalist interests and market forces already reign supreme.
What is the profit-motive of a charity? In an Anarcho-capitalist system, profit is the sole motive of anything. You're suggesting that the elderly and disabled should be the sole concern of the minority who have a conscience?
JCLeSinge 1 year ago
A rent-a-cops... look, if you call 'em out for an emergency, the fee would be more than the cost of replacing your TV. Meanwhile, if you don't or can't afford private security, you're down to defending your property with a gun; that's not Anarchism, that's anarchy. You'd end up with the rich living in defended compounds and the the poor either serving them in penury or shooting it out in the slums.
JCLeSinge 1 year ago
@JCLeSinge That's a lot of strange assumptions. Why would an emergency call be so expensive in a society where everybody relies on such a service? Isn't it also logical that people would buy police insurance, rather than paying from call to call? No person should be unable to afford protection in a free market. And what's wrong with armed defence of your property?
Your fears appear to be based on the misconception that poor people could/would not earn their way out of poverty in a free market.
Hostile 1 year ago
@Hostile: Everyone needs plumbers too, and they're pretty damn expensive. Do you want to pay $100 every time you call a cop? And buying police insurance... you're talking about mercenaries operating protection rackets.
Your love of Anarcho-Capitalism appears to be based on the rose-tinted belief that everyone would own their own means of production and that no one would be exploited. In reality, the inequalities already existing in society would simply get worse until society collapsed.
JCLeSinge 1 year ago
@JCLeSinge Plumbers and other trade union workers exist and can charge so much largely because of the government. Unions in today's political climate are as harmful as big government and big corporations. I'm not against unions; they just get some absurd legal privileges.
The short of it is that they can stick it to corporations/the government to inflate their members wage rate above market value and create make-work schemes that hurt consumers and taxpayers through higher prices and taxes.
HeyItzMeDawg 1 year ago
Wait... you're suggesting that roads would "compete"? Have you not thought for a moment that many routes from A to B would be served by only ONE road? Or ONE bridge, tunnel, whatever? This would be the case in the vast majority of roads. And how is this road-owner to police safety? So he *might* contract with a local mechanic; is he going to do spot-checks at random? Issue certificates? How many certificates from how many different road-owners is one driver expected to have? It's not feasible.
JCLeSinge 1 year ago
Comment removed
collapseofthedollar 1 year ago
HOLY F*CK YOU ARE NOT ANARCHISTS!!!!!
You are not libertarians.
You are right wing CAPITALISTS trying to confuse people into thinking you are for freedom.
Freedom has NOTHING to do with your contracts and property.
Try READING THE ACTUAL ANARCHISTS.
Noam Chomsky, Emma Goldman etc etc etc.
MilanTbay 1 year ago
Comment removed
collapseofthedollar 1 year ago
Comment removed
collapseofthedollar 1 year ago
@collapseofthedollar Don't think so. Am currently reading up on Anarchy and most of us don't think you are anarchists. Anarchists are for freeing humanity not a market that would enslave it. This right wing idiocy is repackaging Fuedalism and you are too stunned to see it.
MilanTbay 1 year ago
Comment removed
collapseofthedollar 1 year ago
@MilanTbay Noam Chomsky is an anarchist? Not even close, the guy has no belief in freedom, just an irrational vendetta against capitalism. Capitalism is the belief that people have the right to their own property; anarchy is just the logical conclusion of that line of thought. Why should anybody else (the state) have ownership over you and your property? So a truly anarchist society is one where everybody is perfectly free, and this includes the freedom to employ people and be employed.
Hostile 1 year ago
@Hostile Chomsky wrote a world reknowned paper on Anarchy and why he feels it is the best system. Thats actual anarchy and not this right wing crap you guys dreamed up. To employ people and to be employed is WAGE SLAVERY to a true anarchist. That is not freedom. It's keeping people too poor to do anything but prostitute their labour. Property is THEFT to real anarchists. Damn America really is living in 1984. Everything seems to be double speak.
MilanTbay 1 year ago
@MilanTbay So actual anarchy is a structure of societal control? That's contrary to the definition of the term. Might as well invent violent pacifism too!
Are you aware of what "double think" is? It means holding two opposing beliefs equally and ignoring the contradiction... for example that property is theft (theft being the taking of property which is impossible IF property is theft) and calling a consensual contract "slavery". That's 100% double speak.
Anarchy means no state, nothing more.
Hostile 1 year ago
@Hostile Anarchy means "law by no one" or "rule by no one" actually. That's not double speak but the actual definition. No one has the right to force another human to do what they want. Property is theft was on of the earliest anarchist beliefs since "property" has always been stolen from someone that had fair use of it beforehand. Example America from the Natives. Can't blame ya son, America has one of the worse education systems in the world.
MilanTbay 1 year ago
@MilanTbay The doublespeak isn't your definition of "anarchy" but rather your belief that "property is theft". For something to be stolen it has to be property, but stolen property is not legitimate property, therefore "property is theft" is an obvious doublethink contradiction. Same's true for calling consensual agreements "slavery", which I find repugnant. You've seemingly no grasp of liberty. Can't blame ya though son, Britain has one of the most socialist education systems in the world!
Hostile 1 year ago
@Hostile please tell me an American isn't making fun of ANYONE elses education system, LOL. Canada had one of the worlds best when I as growing up but thanks to US coersion in our politics it has been dumbed down trying to get us as dense as the average American. I'd still suggest you read the early anarchists and true libertarians to understand this "Libertarian" BS you are into is the double speak of which you talk about.
MilanTbay 1 year ago
@MilanTbay If libertarianism was based on double-speak then you'd be able to point out the contradictions as easily as I highlighted those in your beliefs, which FYI you have failed to argue against. If you believe the early anarchists have something to offer me, what exactly is it?
And you'll be glad to know that, no, an American isn't mocking your education system.
Hostile 1 year ago
@Hostile For nearly 100 years libertarianism meant cutting the chains Elites put on humanity. This repacking of Feudalism you Americans dreamed up is nothing but double speak. You dream that somehow you'll have the means to pay whatever Lord owns your land or what the market price of food will be. Those are chains that will turn you and everyone you know into serfs.
In the game of capitalism, it's the ones with actual capital that wins. Can you compete with Bill Gates?
MilanTbay 1 year ago
@MilanTbay Not an American, mate.
The chains on people have already made them into serfs, they're called taxation, majority rule, welfare, etc. Your fear of freedom is understandable but unfounded, and the idea that endorsing anti-property slavery will make us free is a warped joke. "FREEDOM IS SLAVERY", apparently.
In the game of capitalism, it's the ones with the desirable product that win. Bill Gates is winning only so long as he's selling desirable products at desirable prices.
Hostile 1 year ago
what if it was more profitable to allow drink drivers? they would allow drink diving would they not?
djboony 2 years ago
Yup, but if it were profitable that would mean people would be willingly paying to use those roads and would value the lower price with extra risk of getting into car crashes. I don't see why people shouldn't have that choice if they wanna have it. Some folks would pay more to have safer roads. Or maybe the amount of people that supported drunken driving would be so small that it wouldn't be profitable to have drunken drivers....but yes IF it were profitable, chances are that it would happen.
stealthswimmer 2 years ago
It would only be more profitable is people were willing to use highways that allow drunk drivers. People who really value their security would be willing to pay an enormous price for highways that would have checkpoints at their entries, making people pass a drive-by alcool test before they get on. Those who would whant to economise would be willing to go on unpatrolled highways. It would be a matter of personal choice, instead of some bureaucrat deciding for us.
TheProgressistViewer 1 year ago
One thing I find funny about the people who support the state, is that question they often ask "who would take care of the old people or the crazy people or the childs with no parents", I wonder if they would all voluntarily donate money for that cause because if they would it's problem fucking solved!
motokeiru 2 years ago
Stephan Molyneaux says something similar. He asks "What are YOU doing about that problem now?" Then going on to say that people are doing things about it currently because they really care. If the person who asks about it is doing nothing then they obviously don't care enough about it to do anything, so why are they asking about it? If they are doing something about it, then they are already an example of how such things would be handled.
spikeslawson 2 years ago 3
How would you stop defense organisations from abusing their power (threating people to pay over money, or else die)
blankusername01 2 years ago
You mean like a state?
motokeiru 2 years ago 6
I have a contract with a defense organisation, they negotiate with the organisation that is attempting to shake me down. They can go to war, but that is very costly. The people who are contracted with that organization will not be happy when they get their next bill and will switch to a DO that solves problems through negotiation.
spikeslawson 2 years ago
Interesting, the one thing that bugs me tought is what will keep those defense organisation from just going on rampages and kill everybody? I mean how will they be forced to respect human rights?
TheProgressistViewer 1 year ago
@TheProgressistViewer Go on a rampage and kill everyone and you have no one left to pay your salary. The thing about division of labor is that you require other people to do their jobs so you can gain access to the products of their labor through trade. If 2-3 "defense" organizations were to gang up and exert lordship, they would lack legitimacy and create a quick market for a new organization to oppose them which would be in heavy demand.
spikeslawson 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
In this make believe world everyone will 1)have to agree completely with your views 2) everyone is a pussy and sees no need for several nuclear warheads.
Realkid89 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Anarchy seems to cost more money than even feudelism. I disagree completely with anrchism
Realkid89 3 years ago
That off-the-cuff comment about feudalism is just brutally stupid. it hurts
Nebelung13 2 years ago 2
Feudelism seems to cost more freedom than Anarchy.
Lamnont 2 years ago 4
Yeah everything is cheaper with the state... I mean, when do you ever cut them a check?
Guest655321 2 years ago 3
@Guest655321
everytime i get a pay-check...
djboony 2 years ago
I have a question about road ownership.
The thing about people owning the roads wouldn't be a problem if a bunch of libertarians moved to an uninhabited island and formed their own community. People would build their own roads and set their own rules. But the road systems have already been built. How could people homestead the existing road systems? Especially highways because thousands of people actively use them every day.
BWF89 3 years ago
one gradual transition would be for the state to auction them off gradually to highest bidder
davyjames 3 years ago 2
Where would the profit earned go to?
Blucius13 2 years ago
Build private roads. If the state is abolished, then current roads could be freely utilized.
"A" road system has already been built, but that doesn't mean a new one can't be built or the current one can't be changed or added to.
There are countless things that can be done. Without the state, everyone would be free to go their own path about doing things.
OutdoorsBlackMan 2 years ago
Well done on the answers. Very consistent with the non-aggression axiom.
Thanks!
mikestrawman 3 years ago 2
Ummm they're already in charge and their Commander-in-Chief is the President annddd already get lots of money from the citizens.
eurohim 3 years ago
Some problems are just the state of reality and have no perfect solution, like theft. In our current statism-dominated world, most stolen property is not recovered. It's simply a hard problem among many hard problems with no str8-fwd catch-all solution. It seems questions like this are a kind of trap, trying to force anarchists into a position of defending a free market as a kind of utopian cure-all for every presentable problem. That's ridiculous. It's just a far better way than statism.
AnarchyInYourHead 3 years ago 3
The way I think about it is that the market is simply an extension of anarchist principals; of voluntary actions. Asking "how would the market deal with X, Y or Z...?" is asking, "how do we solve X, Y or Z without resorting to violence?" You can't fight fire with fire, so to speak. So saying that solutions for supposedly complex problems (such as roads or police) must involve violence is absurd. Shouldn't we at least be allowed to TRY?! IMO it's just fallout from childhood trauma & propaganda.
lukeev 3 years ago
I can see this defence agency deciding they want to be in charge.
eurohim 3 years ago
There would be multiple. And, yes, that is always a possibility, but that doesn't justify the state.
Austrolibertarian 3 years ago 2
Right. The existence criminal behavior is no reason to monopolize it. Good video by the way
thorsmitersaw 3 years ago 6
@thorsmitersaw horrible job the crap about the military being absolved being a good thing is hysterical. And nuclear weapons don't just disappear the soviets would use them kill us all and take over. Government is not a neccesary evil its just that its only role is defense and justice which are not economic functions and enforcing the natural law which faggot ass liberturds hate
deltapunk21 1 year ago
@eurohim Omigod! You mean, if there wasn't a state (a monopoly of violence over a certain area)... we could possibly end up with a monopoly of violence over a certain area, like a state? Best we stick with havng a state then, rather than running the risk of having a state huh? Your comment was 3 years ago, I sincerely hope you've learned more about libertarianism since?
bigglyguy 2 months ago
Private defense agencies possessing nuclear weapons would be a great defensive deterrent to any possible statist aggression from countries wanting to expand their borders.
Also while I think a voluntarist society may form sometime in the future I don't subscrib to the sort of communist theory that "the revolution must spread over the whole world" type thing. I think you'd have a voluntarist society in one part of the world and it may be adopted by others. But states will still exist most places
BWF89 3 years ago
That's partially true in regards to defense, but I think it blurs the line between states and individuals. For example, if America was trying to invade an anarchist society and you and I resided in America but strongly disagreed with the government and couldn't leave, would the defense agency be justified in blowing us up with a nuclear bomb along with America? No! We are innocent people, and nuclear bombs don't discriminate: they just kill everything in a large geographic area, innocent or not.
Austrolibertarian 3 years ago
No power possessing nuclear weapons has ever been invaded and no two nuclear powers have ever directly went to war with each other.
If America turned into a voluntarist society and the PDA's had nukes I doubt whether any foreign state contemplating taking over the place would want to risk having their country nuked.
BWF89 3 years ago 2
Still, if the defense agency launched a nuke and killed innocent people in that country, it would itself become a criminal organization for invading the rights of other innocent people, namely for killing them.
Austrolibertarian 3 years ago
Voluntaryism isn't a utopian system. Just a system that's much much better than the current statist system.
I don't think a state would take the chance of getting nuked in retaliation by trying to invade a territory protected by private agencies that possessed nuclear weapons. But if they did and it was the only way to defend ourselves from them coming over here and enslaving us than it's better them than us. I'm looking our for my rational self interest.
BWF89 3 years ago
Yeah, but you'd also have to accept punishing those in charge of killing the innocent involved.
Austrolibertarian 3 years ago
"No power possessing nuclear weapons has ever been invaded and no two nuclear powers have ever directly went to war with each other."
So? Nukes have only been around for 60 years. That's a relatively short amount of time considering the history of states. There's no definitive proof that this historic fact is law.
Also, I think posessing Nuclear Warheads would most likely give the US MORE of an incentive to invade a Voluntarist society.
"Look! They have WMDs! INVADE! INVADE!"
Iraq, anyone?
TehBANN3D 3 years ago
Iraq didn't have WMDs, that was just a lie to get the masses consent.
lordmetroid 3 years ago 3