B0b

No stateless State has ever emerged because something can not be itself and the opposite of itself at the same time. Could you please explain the sentence above? I'm sorry you're not free within your own mind, but that doesn't give you the right to stand on a global stage and prophecy and champion perpetual human enslavement. Sorry? I prone human enslavement? Are you sure you are not confusing me with someone else? When did I say anything remotely in that direction?

Ha ha, I am not a proof of concept. I do not attack people, but this does not prove that I am capable of anything else. If it was so simple, how can you explain that no stateless country has ever emerged?

GailG, what you are describing here is a rudimentary State. What does this have to do with libertarianism?

I do not initiate the use of force against anyone and no one initiates the use of force against me (unless I venture in a bad neighborhood). This does not make my country more libertarian unfortunately. WTO membership is voluntary, but since members are States, how does this make it a macro-nation? I agree that the idea is neat though.

Dsayers, you never addressed my last comment that aimed at you.

What about creating a stateless micro-nation, such as Liberland, as a proof of concept?

You said "getting rid of rape". This is wishful thinking. If you really believe there is a way to get rid of rape, then I am all ears. If 80% (you think there are more than 20% anarchists?) of people do not want no government, but on the contrary more government, what do you do concretely? I am not addressing anything, I am asking you how you how you go from 80% pro-government to no government? Since you like metaphors, how do you go from stage IV cancer to Olympian health? I personally do not have the recipe.

Matthew, I am not cynical, I am just practical and realistic. And how do you get rid of the government when 80% or whatever of the population is in a favor of more government? By initiation of force against the government? Talking about a goal without having a clue about how this can happen in a lifetime, isn't this a perfect definition of "wishful thinking"?

Because it is impossible. I would try to reduce rape with practical measures, because "getting rid of rape" is just wishful thinking.

We hate Europe seems even easier at the moment. What if they simply hated the non-muslim world?

70 cases of terrorist plots in Switzerland have been reported. As for Belgium, it is a jihadist sanctuary.

Donald Trump wants to prevent Muslims from certain countries to get in because 1% of them might be potential terrorists. In a libertarian country, who would decide to let or not let them in?

What makes you think that everyone would be honest?

What if 40% of the private owners are ready to let Muslims in and 60% not?

The private arbitrator can be specified in the company's articles of association.

Shirgall, my question is, in a stateless country, who decides who can get in?

But what if some Americans want some Muslims over? Who decides who should come?

Suppose that the person building the road around his house is his neighbor and he does it because he he does not like him. What can the trapped person do about it?

Is this your website?

Shirgall, what I meant is that they make money from their asset that is invested outside Walmart. They get dividends and salaries from Walmart, but they make also tons investing elsewhere. I do not know what Thomasio's experience with the free market is, but saying that the walmarts make 120B every year even though their total fortune is 150B, to support his economic theories, is preposterous. Thomasio, I am afraid that all your claims are as silly as your calculations. How can you be both a Marxist and a libertarian? It is so contradictory.

Thomasio, The Walmarts make more from their assets than from the dividends. And what do they do with their 50% unsold cars, they use them for crash tests? The poor are much better off nowadays than 100 years ago, this is a fact. The fact that there are well paid employees in almost any company proves that employers do not pay poorly employees. You seem to have a problem with some employees paid very little. What if someone is so poorly qualified? Would you give him 40k a year? Good luck with keeping your business alive. Also, good luck with the other qualified employees who will ask you for a substantial raise. People like you an Piketty should try to create large companies and run them differently. then, we would see how successful they are and how employees are happy and well paid. the proof is in the pudding, not in silly figures. You calculated a $10 an hour raise, I calculated $0.20 raise. If we do not pay the employees better, the system will collapse. This is such a ridiculous claim. The system adapts, that's all. It has always done so.

Because if employers attempt to keep things going as they are now, by the time the fact they can't find workers anymore will force them to pay more, economy will have collapsed already and it will take a LONG time to rebuild society afterwards. Workers were paid much less 100 years ago. The system did not collapse, so what makes you think that he will collapse now. The system adapts. Why should employers have a special responsibility?? We are all equal. Employees are just as responsible as employers. If employees are not happy, they should find other jobs, learn new skills, start companies. $120 bln left for the Waltons This is so ridiculous. 120 bln is not what they made in 2015, but what they made during their whole lives. Check out forbes. I think that the Waltons make less than 1 bln a year in total in dividends. They get richer by 1 bln each every year because of their assets, mostly their company. 1 bln/2.2 M = 455. This represents 0.22 cents per hour. Congrats!

If you agree that wages would automatically adjust, then, why did you say that employers need to make particular efforts? Can't you understand that in a free market, there would be much more competition, and that there would be other cheaper supermarkets offering better paid jobs? How do you know that they could pay people 3 times as much? Please do the maths for us. Since it is so easy to make so much profit that one could pay employees 3 times as much, I will open a company tomorrow.

Thomasio, could you comment my last comments?

Forgive me, but I think you do not understand economy. Today, under an authoritarian government that redistributes income from the middle class to the poor, employers can squeeze down wages and employees are still willing to take the job, because they can rely on welfare to fill up whatever is missing between their salary and their needs. They don't squeeze down salaries. They give workers more or less what their companies can offer. If I am not too smart an entrepreneur, my productivity is low and I cannot pay workers too well. Employers will have to learn the lesson that they can no longer squeeze down wages below the basic needs of their workers. Without the state, companies will be richer and will tend to pay the employers more. It is not a large business owner's responsibility to think about the buying power of each employee. His mission is to ensure that his workers prefer to work for him than elsewhere, that they are good at what they are doing and to satisfy the customers. It is already a lot of work. Suppose I can replace a guy with a $100,000 machine. Why would I keep the guy and pay him 30,000 a year? The guy should learn new skills. In a stateless society, as a business owner, I am not his father. My company is not a charity. If the guy has not money, I can give him food if he is in trouble, but I will not increase my company's spending and reduce competitiveness for this guy. As a business owner, I do not have more responsibility than this man. We are both adults.