We live in anarcho-capitalism right now.

[danuker]

Imagine states as big, big corporations, and they simply offer services in exchange for money. Except that they happen to have the internal policy that if you are on their own territory (private property), they make the taxes mandatory.

 

However, it is more efficient to pool resources if you have many clients. Also, the clients express their CONSENT by STAYING IN THAT country.

 

But there still is competition between states. You are free to move to the state which offers you the best service for the least money. The states which listen to what people need and inform them what they're getting into are the ones which more people will consider worth migrating to.

 

And if you really think about the "mandatory tax" part, perhaps it's better that way, because it's much, much more expensive to live on your own on a deserted island. So the tax is just the profit of the state. EDIT: also solving the free rider problem.

 

Even in Somalia, while it was anarho-capitalist-ish, you HAD to belong to a clan in order to have any rights, even though you were free to migrate between them.

 

States work best when small and adaptable to what their people want. And it's better to have many small states so people more easily migrate. So, do your job by telling people who don't like it to either migrate, or to fight for lower taxes or division.I am no longer an anarcho-capitalist, but a minarchist. Can you convince me otherwise?

[dsayers]

Imagine states as big, big corporations, and they simply offer services in exchange for money.

 

A thief that doesn't stab you because you didn't prevent him from grabbing your wallet is not providing a service in exchange for money.

 

 

However, it is more efficient to pool resources if you have many clients.

 

It's more efficient for me to sell something to you directly than it is to use an intermediary such as ebay since I wouldn't have to pay a 3rd party to facilitate the transaction.

 

Also, the clients express their CONSENT by STAYING IN THAT country.

 

If I am within arm's reach of you, I'm not consenting to you punching me in the face. Not to mention this argument presumes that government's claim of ownership of all land and peoples is righteous.

 

 

States work best when small and adaptable to what their people want.

 

If it's what people want, it's not a state.

 

do your job by telling people who don't like it to either migrate, or to fight for lower taxes or division.

 

I think understanding that the thief's claim is illegitimate comes ahead of fleeing the thief and/or carrying less in your wallet.

 

I am no longer an anarcho-capitalist, but a minarchist. Can you convince me otherwise?

 

I see a lot of conclusions that aren't based on logic, reason, or evidence. I think it would be easier for you to present how violence is acceptable if it's only in small bursts and/or achieves goals you agree with (subjective).

[danuker]

So. Let's examine the NAP and imagine how it applies in real life. 

The Non-Aggression Principle only works if you pay people to enforce it.There you go. The most basic of freedoms has a cost. Therefore, by giving people that freedom, you're also forcing them to pay for it. (and that's a state).

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

Imagine states as big, big corporations, and they simply offer services in exchange for money. Except that they happen to have the internal policy that if you are on their own territory (private property), they make the taxes mandatory.

 

However, it is more efficient to pool resources if you have many clients. Also, the clients express their CONSENT by STAYING IN THAT country.

 

But there still is competition between states. You are free to move to the state which offers you the best service for the least money. The states which listen to what people need and inform them what they're getting into are the ones which more people will consider worth migrating to.

 

And if you really think about the "mandatory tax" part, perhaps it's better that way, because it's much, much more expensive to live on your own on a deserted island. So the tax is just the profit of the state. EDIT: also solving the free rider problem.

 

Even in Somalia, while it was anarho-capitalist-ish, you HAD to belong to a clan in order to have any rights, even though you were free to migrate between them.

 

States work best when small and adaptable to what their people want. And it's better to have many small states so people more easily migrate. So, do your job by telling people who don't like it to either migrate, or to fight for lower taxes or division.I am no longer an anarcho-capitalist, but a minarchist. Can you convince me otherwise?

Imagine the mafia families as corporations, and they simply offer services in exchange for money. Except that they happen to have the internal policy that if you are on their own territory (private property), they make the taxes mandatory.

 

However, it is more efficient to pool resources if you have many clients. Also, the clients express their CONSENT by STAYING IN THAT territory.

 

But there still is competition between families. You are free to move to the territory which offers you the best service for the least money. The families which listen to what people need and inform them what they're getting into are the ones which more people will consider worth migrating to.

 

And if you really think about the "mandatory tax" part, perhaps it's better that way, because it's much, much more expensive to live on your own on a deserted island. So the tax is just the profit of the Mafia. EDIT: also solving the free rider problem.

 

Even in Somalia, while it was anarho-capital-ish, you HAD to belong to a Mafia style clan in order to have any rights, even though you were free to migrate between them.

 

Mafia families work best when small and adaptable to what their people want. And it's better to have many small families so people more easily migrate. So, do your job by telling people who don't like it to either migrate, or to fight for lower taxes or division.I am no longer an anarcho-capitalist, but a minarchist. Can you convince me otherwise?

So. Let's examine the NAP and imagine how it applies in real life. 

The Non-Aggression Principle only works if you pay people to enforce it.There you go. The most basic of freedoms has a cost. Therefore, by giving people that freedom, you're also forcing them to pay for it. (and that's a state).

1st premise is Wrong. The NAP does not need to be enforced. It's just a rational principle. 

Conclusion is wrong. Paying people for defense does not involve coercion. A state necessarily involves coercion. So paying people for defense is not a state.

[danuker]

 

1st premise is Wrong. The NAP does not need to be enforced. It's just a rational principle. 

Conclusion is wrong. Paying people for defense does not involve coercion. A state necessarily involves coercion. So paying people for defense is not a state.

 

 

I argue that it should be enforced. Because it's much more efficient to make agreements to protect a whole neighborhood, and kick the one person who doesn't want to, than for everyone except that person to move.

 

People won't stop from stealing because of those rational principles. But because those principles are not enforced. And people with pooled protection have bigger guns than individuals who don't want to sign a contract.Therefore, state-like entities appear, who buy the land of the individuals.

However, at some point, people won't want to do that either. So, appears a community around one person who will simply demand an insane amount to move, but won't pay for the protection received (because everything is safe around them). This is the free rider problem.So, the community asks the private police to evict that person. The police agrees, and everyone except the free rider. You now have a state, that coerced somebody. Tyranny of the rich, not the majority.

 

Then, all communities where that person moved to also form a state. Soon, there will be no "free" land, and the bigger police always win.Practically, there is no such thing as a "right" or a "freedom", only if you pay up. And it's not guaranteed even then.

 

It's plutocracy, everywhere! We live in anarcho-capitalism.

 

Since I think democracy works, but we both think big states are bad, we both support competition (a smaller state), here's a barely related link. Support it:http://www.policymic.com/articles/77547/this-venture-capitalist-wants-california-to-split-into-six-states-here-s-why-he-s-right

Hopefully in the end, the state will become neighborhood-sized. Which is as close to completely free markets I would accept.

[Omegahero09]

No, no, no. You are thinking that the only way to solve the problem is with the barrel of a gun.Free societies could and will have more tools than guns to resolve issues. Check your premises. 

[dsayers]

 

I see a lot of conclusions that aren't based on logic, reason, or evidence. I think it would be easier for you to present how violence is acceptable if it's only in small bursts and/or achieves goals you agree with (subjective).

 

You continue to leap over the moral consideration.

 

While you're working on that case, I have a question or two that might help you arrange it:

 

1) How much of your life has been achieved by way of you initiating the use of force against other people? This includes job, money, home, friends, etc.

 

2) Of all that you've achieved in your life without the initiation of the use of force, how much of it did you only do by way of voluntary means because you believed that using violence would be punished?

 

The reason I ask is because you're basically saying that we need to force glove manufacturers to make six-fingered gloves for the occasional six-fingered human. And you're saying this in light of the fact that you've only ever come across five-fingered (or fewer) humans.

 

You are saying that we need people to steal from us and have a monopoly on the initiation of the use of force (that none of us have to give in the first place) to protect us against theft and initiations of the use of force. I challenge you again to provide the case for how violence is acceptable so long as you agree with how it's used.

[Pepin]

After reading your posts, I don't care to convince you otherwise.

[danuker]

After reading your posts, I don't care to convince you otherwise.

Thank you. It means my philosophy is sound enough.And it's easier to convince regular people that government should be smaller, rather than that government is unnecessary.

"NAP" way of evicting people: cutting off their power, water, and having shops boycott them.

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

I argue that it should be enforced. Because it's much more efficient to make agreements to protect a whole neighborhood, and kick the one person who doesn't want to, than for everyone except that person to move.

 

People won't stop from stealing because of those rational principles. But because those principles are not enforced. And people with pooled protection have bigger guns than individuals who don't want to sign a contract.Therefore, state-like entities appear, who buy the land of the individuals.

However, at some point, people won't want to do that either. So, appears a community around one person who will simply demand an insane amount to move, but won't pay for the protection received (because everything is safe around them). This is the free rider problem.So, the community asks the private police to evict that person. The police agrees, and everyone except the free rider. You now have a state, that coerced somebody. Tyranny of the rich, not the majority.

 

Then, all communities where that person moved to also form a state. Soon, there will be no "free" land, and the bigger police always win.Practically, there is no such thing as a "right" or a "freedom", only if you pay up. And it's not guaranteed even then.

 

It's plutocracy, everywhere! We live in anarcho-capitalism.

 

Since I think democracy works, but we both think big states are bad, we both support competition (a smaller state), here's a barely related link. Support it:http://www.policymic.com/articles/77547/this-venture-capitalist-wants-california-to-split-into-six-states-here-s-why-he-s-right

Hopefully in the end, the state will become neighborhood-sized. Which is as close to completely free markets I would accept.

You do not argue that the NAP should be enforced. You assert that it only works if it is enforced. You argue that it should be violated because you're arguing for minarchism which necessarily requires its violation to some degree. The efficiency of violating the NAP to throw one person out of the neighborhood is not a rational justification. It's just mobbing.  Why would everyone else have to move? Why does the majority get to attack the one? This is just you making bald assertions. It is so wrong on almost every level and we're barely past the first sentence.

I don't know if people will stop stealing because of the principle. The no more slavery principle seems to have stopped people from owning slaves in many places. It doesn't matter because the NAP is not there to stop people from stealing anymore than the scientific method is there to stop people believing in young-earth creationism. 

I've already told you the principle does not need to be enforced. It's a principle, NOT a law. Learn what the hell you're talking about.

The rest is just you making claims and expressing your opinion and as they appear to rest on your initial failed arguments there's no need to rebut them. 

[dsayers]

Thank you. It means my philosophy is sound enough.

 

Your "philosophy" isn't sound at all. Note the challenges that have gone unaddressed. Which by your standards here means that the challenges stand, which usurp your "philosophy."

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

Your "philosophy" isn't sound at all. Note the challenges that have gone unaddressed. Which by your standards here means that the challenges stand, which usurp your "philosophy."

Maybe there should be an awards section on the forum. The categories could be things like "Most incoherent argument against anarchy of the year" or "Saying philosophy when you mean opinion, fail of the year", etc.

[Carl Green]

[Marcus Clarke]

I argue that it should be enforced. Because it's much more efficient to make agreements to protect a whole neighborhood, and kick the one person who doesn't want to, than for everyone except that person to move.

 

People won't stop from stealing because of those rational principles. But because those principles are not enforced. And people with pooled protection have bigger guns than individuals who don't want to sign a contract.Therefore, state-like entities appear, who buy the land of the individuals.

However, at some point, people won't want to do that either. So, appears a community around one person who will simply demand an insane amount to move, but won't pay for the protection received (because everything is safe around them). This is the free rider problem.So, the community asks the private police to evict that person. The police agrees, and everyone except the free rider. You now have a state, that coerced somebody. Tyranny of the rich, not the majority.

 

Then, all communities where that person moved to also form a state. Soon, there will be no "free" land, and the bigger police always win.Practically, there is no such thing as a "right" or a "freedom", only if you pay up. And it's not guaranteed even then.

 

It's plutocracy, everywhere! We live in anarcho-capitalism.

 

Since I think democracy works, but we both think big states are bad, we both support competition (a smaller state), here's a barely related link. Support it:http://www.policymic.com/articles/77547/this-venture-capitalist-wants-california-to-split-into-six-states-here-s-why-he-s-right

Hopefully in the end, the state will become neighborhood-sized. Which is as close to completely free markets I would accept.

 

Rational principles will only be followed by those who are rational.  Remember that this conversation is about the following the NAP (and UPB) because they are rational and logical.  In that case, we are not talking about the state or corporations or neighborhoods, we are talking about the fact that it is immoral for individuals to initiate the use of violence against other people. Try this: imagine the situation again where the true physical ability to initiate the use of violence is impossible (some physical law of nature prevents it).  If you want someone to move out of your neighborhood, how would you do it?

[Dylan Lawrence Moore]

The word anarcho-capitalism contains the word anarchy.

The word anarchy quite literally means no rulers.

We live in a world and a society with rulers.

Thus the premise of this thread is false.

 

Just sayin'.

Also, the clients express their CONSENT by STAYING IN THAT country.

 

Tell that to my girlfriend, who will be forced to move back to Austria at the end of February because she was unable to give the government here a good enough reason why she can stay.

 

Then tell it to me, who will be forced out of Austria if I can't give the government there a good enough reason why I can stay.