/liberty/ - Liberty

You can't have private property without government.

>Explain how you can have capitalism (property), socialism (redistribution) or any system of order (run by laws and commands) without government?

Only if you can explain why you need government to have a "system of order".

>>14441

People are morally autonomous agents. If you establish a system of conduct, people have to choose whether or not they will recognise that system. Capitalism and communism are systems of economy, systems of order. Even if you regard private property or common ownership as self-evident, they are still abstractions which need to be recognised by people before they hold any power over them.

If you want to tell people what to do, to establish your order upon them, you must coerce them. And the monopolist on the legitimate use of coercion is government. Under capitalism you must coerce people from stealing, but how and with what legitimacy? Communists speak of the "expropriation of expropriators", but by whom, and what will stop the "expropriators" from expropriating them back?

>>14443

Look up Practical Anarchy, it's a free book.

OR, you know, any of the other dozens of books about how anarcho-capitalism would protect property rights without the fundamental contradiction of protecting property rights by violating property rights with taxation, an act of aggression.

>>14444

I don't want to read Practical Anarchy. I want to know what you learnt from it. If you can't relay the central thesis in your own words from your own understanding then your reading wasn't very useful.

>>14432

True Capitalism (ie, capitalism without government interaction and just, upheld laws) is not possible without a proper (if limited) government.

The difference here lies with what people define as a "Government", and what its powers are. So, if you're going to ask a question like this, state which functions you think, when upheld by a governing body, constitute it as a government, and why.

>>14445

I don't like your attitude. You're too lazy to read one fucking book? Well, then fuck off and let the grownups talk.

Before you do that, here's the explanation you asked for, the explanation for why anarchocapitalism is possible: Because people can, and constantly do, voluntarily associate, and because they adhere to laws not because some central entity enforces them, but because of social pressure and internal convictions. There you have it.

>>14446

If a government's only role is capitalism, then its essential functions are to defend property rights and enforce contracts. Towards this end it needs courts and law enforcement. It might need a simple bureaucracy to fund, audit and sustain itself. Law enforcement, courts and defence might be better contracted out to private agencies if that is what is needed to keep government as small as possible.

I wouldn't advocate this, I have problems with it, but this seems to be the very bare minimum for capitalism to exist and last more than a day. We agree that some government must exist for capitalism to exist.

>>14440

They are not not anarchists, just stupid.

>>14447

Someone post that ancapball meme where they bitch that the Marxists want them to read Das Capital, the nazis wants them to read Mein Kampf, and some cucumber cultists their book, and the ancap whines that they should explain it in their own words.

>>14448

yes. But the most i portant factor is that taxes will be voluntary, and that banks will be privately owned, which means the government will be like a company that is always there, and protects rights of the people, and is made by shared consent. It will not have, in any measure, any control over the economic conditions of a country. Just property rights and courts, and the armed forces, whenever necessary and voted for.

not AnCap

>>14458

I'm perfectly willing to describe libertarianism to the uninitiated. I even described it to this insolent, fascist cunt. That does not mean I approve of people debating something they are too lazy to read one lousy pamphlet on.

>>14473

this

If a dirty commie wants ot understand shit, read a book first, and then ask specific questions. Not doing so is to your own chagrin, whether you believe it or not.

>>14469

That's fine.

Government doesn't mean no rules, simply no rulers. One of the immediate signs of why capitalism can't be anarchist.

>>14515

>no rulers

Capitalism never has any, retard.

If someone has more money thatn another, that doesn't make them a ruler.

>>14521

Read a book faggot

>>14525

lol

Do you know that small thing above you eyes? It's called a brain. Use it.

>>14447

>the explanation for why anarchocapitalism is possible: Because people can, and constantly do, voluntarily associate, and because they not because some central entity enforces them, but because of social pressure and internal convictions. There you have it.

People can and do voluntarily associate. That doesn't mean they will voluntarily associate in the way you want them to. They will choose to adhere to laws they recognise, not yours.

>Explain how you can have capitalism (property), socialism (redistribution) or any system of order (run by laws and commands) without government?

>What creates compliance and what maintains the status of compliance? What stops le Somalia meme from happening?

I'm bored, so I'll humor you even though I don't think you're open-minded enough to seriously consider my answer, maybe this will present new possibilities to the existing libertarians on this board.

Your question can, and should be boiled down to "how can anarcho-capitalism work in practice."

Some other interesting, and highly relevant questions to consider, is "what are the bulwarks to anarcho-capitalism?" The highly obvious ones are defense, private law, to a lesser degree private security (police), and to a lesser degree roads; also "durr wouldn't warlods take over?" Just about everyone understands how capitalism can provide them groceries, pencils, firearms, etc. so I'm not going to go into that.

I'm going to go straight for the hardest question. How do you have private law in an anarchist society. Lots of ways!

Method #1. Contracts. Whenever a friend comes into my home, they either electronically or physically on paper sign a basic contract that's a few rules. The contract then lists an arbitrator for all other disputes that might arise (a Dispute Resolution Organization, DRO, that specializes in criminal and civil suits.) If something happens that wasn't expected, like I go to show my new gun to my friend, he freaks out out and breaks my arm while disarming me, that would be an issue not expressly discussed on the contract, but it would still be settled with the arbitrator as per the contract, and they could rule on a common law basis, or whatever basis they want, but if it was a shitty basis people wouldn't opt into it (if they made their decisions on coin flips not many people would want them to solve their disputes.) Whenever you take a step on someone else's land, or they step on yours, you sign a contract with a listed arbitrator for all your disputes. You go for a drive, you use the road corporation's listed arbitrator in case of an accident.

Method #2. A voucher system. Let's say I start the "Basic Criminal Compliance DRO," shitty name, but that's besides the point. What I would do is give people unique IDs, electronic or physical, that verify them as having agreed to meet extremely basic social norms. For instance, my DRO would ensure people have signed a pledge to their community that they would pay certain fines to victims of crimes they commit, ennumerating what price would be paid for waht crimes. If they accidentally injure someone, they might pay $10,000 for pain and suffering + all the medical bills. If they commit murder, they could agree to pay 6,000,000 or 1000% of their annual income, whichever is more. Nobody would want to associate with an individual who has made NO pledge to comply with such basic laws, so you would be effectively exiled if you didn't. Here's where the voucher comes in. Since people have to pay sometimes large fines if they commit crimes, no one will want to associate with someone who doesn't have a third-party insurer vouching that "if this person fucks up, we'll pay for their crimes." Obviously basically no one has 6,000,000 or 1,000% of their actual annual income on hand, so voucher insurers would exist to vouch that "this person is not a murderer, and if they become one, we'll pony up for it." Vouchers that are very selective would have lower fees, but be harder to get into if you're black- I mean they would just be harder to get into. Vouchers that have low standards for issuing insurance would have high deductibles and premiums. If Jill murder 15 people with a katana like the god-forsaken weaboo she is, the only voucher she could get would be a prison hotel voucher who would try to circumvent some of their costs by letting her do what she was most productive at (if she was a programmer, they'd want to give her an opportunity to program, if she was a really good welder, they might build me a little workshop that would pay for itself in a few years, these prison hotels would compete to be the safest and most cost effective, and the goal would not be to keep these dangerous people in as much pain as possible but to keep them from committing crimes that cost lots of insurance money.)

>>14551

Method #3. There could easily exist DROs offering their services to people who had disputes that were not within the terms of a contract. For instance, if Joe and Bob get into an accident on an unowned backroad, it's feasible that could have happened with neither of them having any court with clear jurisdiction because they don't have prior agreements between each other, which is a situation that is generally to be avoided. Solution? The victim, let's say Joe, could gather whatever evidence he could, hopefully he had a dash cam, and Joe could then offer to settle the dispute with the perpetrator at a list of 6 reputable courts. Joe could spread this information to Bob's family, friends, more importantly his employer/customers, and say "look, I've offered to settle this dispute, he's refused, if he was innocent he'd come to ONE of these arbitrators!" Hence, he would have an incentive to settle the dispute even if he was guilty because he's better off risking his day in court than being presumed to be a really dishonest person by his employer/customer/people who sell things to him.

Method #4. Sort of like #1, gated communities could be administered by corporations which give 99 year leases to all the people within, and everyone within would have to agree to the speciifc laws and arbitration agencies of that community. This sounds sort of like millions of mini-governments, but these agencies would only administer on land they have homesteaded or purchased or been given authority of voluntarily, instead of all the land they've conquered regardless of the first appropriator and legitimate titleholder.

NOTE: Violence is absolutely permissible in response to aggresison. So if someone starts taking a shit on your front lawn, you can kick them off without waiting for them to sign a contract with a third-party arbitrator to determine if some random person is allowed to shit on your lawn. And, in principle, you could take by force back what has been stolen. In practice, you'd bring judge evidence a person has stolen your shit and you'd take that evidence and court ruling to a SWAT-esque property collecting agency who would get back your stolen T.V. IF someone refuses to sign the contract that lists an arbitrator, they're trespassing by then going on your property anyways, and they can be forced off. Also, people who say private property is a fiction created by government, I encourage you to look at the territorial behavior of animals. Birds, fishes, mammals are all territorial.

>>14551

Defense. In some senses, it's a public good. If the smallest size I can build a forcefield is with a 10 mile radius, my neighbors get protected by that even if I hate them.

Let's just talk public goods in general, funding of them is frequently narrowed down to coercion. We have to force people to pay in!

#1. People can pay in on the basis of conscience, it's a thing we have

#2. We can delegate the responsibility of ensuring funding to individuals in the community who go door-to-door and use social pressure to encourage cooperation

#3. We can require all people in a community of a minimum economic standing to pay some minimum towards whatever public good. We'll say defense.

Okay, back to defense.

-Some defense goods are not a public good. If I build a SAM-site, I don't have to fire my missiles at bombers coming to bomb the community where no one paid for defense. If I have a fireteam, I don't have to deploy it to a community on the border that pays nothing to defense. If I build defensive structures for paying customers, obviously non-paying customers will not have ready access to them.

-If hundreds of businesses take out a combined 50 billion dollar military insurance policy on my stuff near the border, that insurer has an incentive to spend at least 25 billion if an attack seems imminent (like the foreign government falseflags their own people to justify a war.) The greater the threat perceived, the more insurance people will buy, the more defense will be ordered to deter attacks and massive payments to victims.

-It's easier to defend than to attack

-There will be no tax structure to assume

-There will be no public support for invading government, but there will be a gun behind every blade of grass

>>14553

>durr, wouldn't warlords take over?

NO, FUCKING NO!

War is only cost effective if you can force other people to bear the costs.

If you have to, as a military agency, pay for all the healthcare, disability benefits, training, arming, and so on of all of your soldiers, war is less palatable.

Would Bill Clinton have been less likely to fire off a bunch of missiles to draw attention away from his dick if each one cost him over $100,000 he could spend on some other endeavor? Of course. But since he could only fire them or not fire them, he had no incentive to save them.

War is not profitable and any warlords will not have ideological support or a sheepish tax structure to fund their bullshit.

>>14554

Show me a society that would be peaceful under government with its enlightened populace would suddenly enter into a state of constant war if they transition to anarcho-capitalism.

>>14551

>>14552

>>14553

>>14554

I sure hope someone reads this so I can justify having written it ;_;

>>14601

I'm not going to.

>>14601

No worries, m8.

>>14551

First of all, the phrase "private law" is an oxymoron. Laws are rules which come down from a court or sovereign legislature; they are universal to all in the territory in which the authority who gives them is sovereign.* Even in primitive units of human organisation, laws come down from a tribal chief or council. In the Anglo-Saxon tradition we had folkmotes and witans, from which come our parliaments and early common law. Back then, a sovereign's authority didn't come from the contractual agreement of every member of the governed but from the sovereign's ability to exert power and from the majority's choice to tolerate and enforce it.

So what you describe in those three systems is not law, it's order from contract expressed in three ways. Under those systems, people have to wilfully associate with private agencies for the 'law' to protect them. A 'crime', say a theft or murder, which occurs outside of a non-aggression contract is not a crime at all. Thus, stealing is merely taking, rape is merely sex and murder is merely unnatural death. The victims of crime and those vulnerable to it naturally have an interest in the creation of non-aggression contracts; they have everything to gain from the establishment of a system that can protect them. Those who do not want or need contracts will not sign them, and those who will not are many. A DMO has no right to reclaim goods claimed by someone who has never written that he recognises property. It has no right to reprehend someone who has never said he will never kidnap, enslave or murder. These are all violations of the non-aggression pact, sure, but 'DMOs' aren't the government, and they have no power to compel compliance over and above what free men have allowed them to have in the form of written contract. If a private agency were to enforce the non-aggression principle, it would be enforcing rules over people who never chose to be party to them.

No social or market pressure could ever make those who have little to gain from recognising rules, accept them. They won't sign your contracts, they won't take your ID cards and they won't respect your proprietary communities. They have no reason to sacrifice their right to do wrong. The very concept of voluntary law is a joke for this reason.

*I don't mean universal in effect. The law can affect different people differently, there are exemptions written into the law for sorts of people, but everyone follows the same law. The law is common to all.

>>14619

>A 'crime', say a theft or murder, which occurs outside of a non-aggression contract is not a crime at all

Yes it is, and it can be responded to with violence whether the perpretator agrees or not. That's perfectly fine in principle, in practice we pressure people socially and economically to settle their disputes in a court.

>A 'crime', say a theft or murder, which occurs outside of a non-aggression contract is not a crime at al

Then no one will trade with them. Have fun dinduing when no one will sell you water, groceries, electricity, or water. And if you do crime, have fun getting shot.

> It has no right to reprehend someone who has never said he will never kidnap, enslave or murder.

Yes but if you don't make that pledge you're functionally exiled. You either starve, or move to somewhere else and become a subsistent farmer. Or move to an extra legal zone full of criminals. Or move to a prison hotel that will take in functional but untrustworthy people until such a time a nicer place to live will accept them.

>If a private agency were to enforce the non-aggression principle, it would be enforcing rules over people who never chose to be party to them.

the NAP defines what self-defense is, to act in self-defense is permissible violence i.e. not aggression

>They have no reason to sacrifice their right to do wrong

In principle they have no right to do wrong, they can only sacrifice their right to be represented. For instance, if you rob me and refuse to go to a court, I'm going to go to show a reputable court my evidence, have you tried without you there, and use the guilty verdict as a go-ahead for the repo SWAT team to get my shit back.

>>14621

Two of your assumptions.

1) that in an anarchy you would have the numerical supremacy to exert pressure on dissenters

2) that collectivists, revolutionaries, organised criminals and dissenters cannot in return exert pressure on you

>>If a private agency were to enforce the non-aggression principle, it would be enforcing rules over people who never chose to be party to them.

>the NAP defines what self-defense is, to act in self-defense is permissible violence i.e. not aggression

>>They have no reason to sacrifice their right to do wrong

>In principle they have no right to do wrong, they can only sacrifice their right to be represented. For instance, if you rob me and refuse to go to a court, I'm going to go to show a reputable court my evidence, have you tried without you there, and use the guilty verdict as a go-ahead for the repo SWAT team to get my shit back.

DMOs can't enforce the NAP on people who haven't agreed to it. You might believe you have the moral right to act, and you do, but you have no legal or contractual basis to do so. Were your private militias to attempt the enforce the NAP on violators who haven't signed your "Basic Criminal Compliance" treaties, they would be policing universally on everyone has a bounty laid on their head in abtensia for any reason i.e. they'd be private tyrannies operating without the consent those they sanction.

>>14624

> they'd be private tyrannies operating without the consent those they sanction

like governments

>>14624

>1) that in an anarchy you would have the numerical supremacy to exert pressure on dissenters

You wouldn't have an anarchy without numerical supremacy of anarchists, now, would you?

>2) that collectivists, revolutionaries, organised criminals and dissenters cannot in return exert pressure on you

Sure they can, but like any minority, they won't have much success overthrowing the system with violence, or getting away with violent acts.

>DMOs can't enforce the NAP on people who haven't agreed to it.

They can, though. They can do it factually and legally. This isn't news, it's one of the basics of libertarianism.

>>14625

>like governments

Enforcing the NAP is not the initiation of aggression, and it's one of the defining characteristics of states that they initiate aggression. I'll let you draw the conclusions yourself.

>>14624

>Two of your assumptions.

I have assumed nothing because I have not claimed that anarchy is likely given circumstances, merely that it is possible and desirable with the right amount intelligent an-caps (we're not going to convince the majority of stupid people, but if we can get all the smart people we can economically secede from government, hopefully.)

>1) that in an anarchy you would have the numerical supremacy to exert pressure on dissenters

Economic pressure is independent of numbers, if you get the right people.

>2) that collectivists, revolutionaries, organised criminals and dissenters cannot in return exert pressure on you

War is not profitable if you bear the costs of it. War is profitable for certain industries and politicians who do not own the government but can profit off of it with certain deals and beneficial legislation. They have an incentive, as it is now, to steal from the very beast they control. If they owned the government, a welfare warfare state would not be in their interest. This is part of the reason absolute monarchies are so much more sustainable than representative democracies.

>DMOs can't enforce the NAP on people who haven't agreed to it. You might believe you have the moral right to act, and you do, but you have no legal or contractual basis to do so.

If you're committing an act of aggression I can use

AS MUCH FORCE AS NECESSARY

to stop that act of fraud, murder, rape, theft/larceny/robbery, etc.

>Were your private militias to attempt the enforce the NAP on violators who haven't signed your "Basic Criminal Compliance" treaties, they would be policing universally on everyone has a bounty laid on their head in abtensia for any reason i.e. they'd be private tyrannies operating without the consent those they sanction.

Okay. It's ONE thing to violently stop people in the act of aggression, in principle, that's acceptable regardless of agreements. You don't need contracts to do that, it's justified by principle. These militias would be justified in stopping and punishing such crimes, but since we don't want to resort to vigilantism we "force" people (pressure socially/economically) to go through the reputable courts.

>>14628

>Enforcing the NAP is not the initiation of aggression,

This times a billion.

ENFORCING THE NAP IS BY DEFINITION, SELF-DEFENSE

If I use violence to enforce the NAP against someone who has committed or is committing fraud, rape, theft, murder, etc. that is self defense.

>>14628

>>1) that in an anarchy you would have the numerical supremacy to exert pressure on dissenters

>You wouldn't have an anarchy without numerical supremacy of anarchists, now, would you?

Except you're not merely an anarchist, you're a naive libertarian who thinks other anarchists think exactly like he does. He thinks the wealth of people, and their associations, will adopt his rules, recognise his notions of property and follow his ideological strictures just like that.

>>2) that collectivists, revolutionaries, organised criminals and dissenters cannot in return exert pressure on you

>Sure they can, but like any minority, they won't have much success overthrowing the system with violence, or getting away with violent acts.

You are the minority. As you are in this world, so you shall be in the next. Out voted, out shouted, out armed. You have never explained why libertarian anarchists will never come into the ascendant even among a perfect consensus of anarchists.

The logical consequence of anarchy is not voluntary capitalism. It might be communism, it might be tribalism, it might be a war of all against all. You don't know, but you assume anyway because you're a naive child.

>>DMOs can't enforce the NAP on people who haven't agreed to it.

>They can, though. They can do it factually and legally. This isn't news, it's one of the basics of libertarianism.

No, it's one of the basics of libertarianism under a state. Libertarians recognise that the state has to enforce the NAP in order to reserve a status of peace. The state is self-justified in upholding the NAP because that is only way to create an environment where capitalism can exist.

A DMO that enforces its politics (its "contracts") on free anarchists ceases to be private institution, a voluntary institution, an anarchist institution, the moment it coerces without consent. In that moment it is a primitive government. What you have done is create a market of governments, where none need to be democratic, transparent or accountable to anyone. You also don't seem to be aware that they can enforce much more than the NAP "factually and legally" when they are law unto themselves and beholden to nobody but themselves and their obviously ultra-scrupulous consumers.

You're a statist who doesn't even know it.

>>14628

>>14630

>Enforcing the NAP is not the initiation of aggression, and it's one of the defining characteristics of states that they initiate aggression. I'll let you draw the conclusions yourself.

>If I use violence to enforce the NAP against someone who has committed or is committing fraud, rape, theft, murder, etc. that is self defense.

You're so accustomed to your lect that it's become the only language you people can understand. Nothing I have said is contingent upon who is the initiator of force. A PMC or band of bounty hunters that go after a "criminal" are not initiators of force, but what does it matter? They are enforcers of conduct vindicated by their own moral code. They invent their own ethics and act in accordance with their invented ethics. The NAP is just one form of deontology. It is by no means universal.

If this is too much to understand as an argument, here is an example. Property. The right to property is axiomatic and inalienable in the minds of capitalists. If an anarchist regards land as common, a libertarian (with the support of an agency) cannot then come and assume ownership. The notion of ownership is his own conception, and he seeks to enforce this conception with force. He calls his right to protect his property, perhaps with lethal force, "self-defense". It doesn't matter whether the anarchist assents because the capitalist is the "law" maker and the "law" enforcer. His mouth, justifies his gun.

My first question ITT is how can you have capitalism (property), without government? See here how you can't. In anarchy, you can only ever claim property. Whether your claim means anything depends entirely on whether you can defend your property.

>I have assumed nothing because I have not claimed that anarchy is likely given circumstances, merely that it is possible and desirable with the right amount intelligent an-caps (we're not going to convince the majority of stupid people, but if we can get all the smart people we can economically secede from government, hopefully.)<

This really speaks for itself.

>>14686

>Except you're not merely an anarchist, you're a naive libertarian who thinks other anarchists think exactly like he does.

Actually, I don't. And you sound like someone who has no idea how customary law works.

>A DMO that enforces its politics (its "contracts") on free anarchists ceases to be private institution

True, unless they only enforce the NAP.

>You also don't seem to be aware that they can enforce much more than the NAP "factually and legally" when they are law unto themselves and beholden to nobody but themselves and their obviously ultra-scrupulous consumers.

Except they aren't law unto themselves, and no one here ever said they were. Nor did anyone here ever claim that DRO's had any kind of legal immunity. Of course they can assume that, just like any democratic parliament can decide to grant itself executive rights, and any government can walk into the highest court, shoot all the judges and instate new ones. That isn't news. The question is not whether that can happen, it's how likely that is, and you have done nothing to show how a takeover by a statist DRO is in any way likely.

>>14687

>They are enforcers of conduct vindicated by their own moral code.

That's the exact same thing states do, and I don't see you criticize them for it. The important difference between states and DRO's, as we envision them, is that DRO's enforce the correct set of laws.

>They invent their own ethics and act in accordance with their invented ethics.

Whether you invent them or discover them is irrelevant. Not all sets of ethics are created equal.

>The NAP is just one form of deontology. It is by no means universal.

Take your subjectivist bullshit elsewhere. Every moral system worth its salt is universal. The important question is which moral system is the correct one, and this place belongs to the NAP.

>If an anarchist regards land as common, a libertarian (with the support of an agency) cannot then come and assume ownership. The notion of ownership is his own conception, and he seeks to enforce this conception with force. He calls his right to protect his property, perhaps with lethal force, "self-defense". It doesn't matter whether the anarchist assents because the capitalist is the "law" maker and the "law" enforcer. His mouth, justifies his gun.

Again, that isn't an issue original to any brand of anarchism. Conflicts like these can potentially arise in any nation. In an anarchist nation, the parties would take their case to a court, and the court would rule in the favor of one of them. Repeat that often enough, and you end up with a common law. This common law would ultimately be upheld through violence, true. Good luck naming a law that is upheld through other means, though.

>>14688

>Actually, I don't. And you sound like someone who has no idea how customary law works.

And you sound like someone who has no idea of what customary law is.

>Except they aren't law unto themselves, and no one here ever said they were. Nor did anyone here ever claim that DRO's had any kind of legal immunity. Of course they can assume that, just like any democratic parliament can decide to grant itself executive rights, and any government can walk into the highest court, shoot all the judges and instate new ones. That isn't news. The question is not whether that can happen, it's how likely that is, and you have done nothing to show how a takeover by a statist DRO is in any way likely.

All DROs that police behaviour without the consent of those they police are necessarily statist.

>Nor did anyone here ever claim that DRO's had any kind of legal immunity.

This is a curious claim. What you going to file a claim against MEGACORP inc. at Slaughter & Protect LLP? There's no law, only contracts, and contracts are only binding on signatories. Each DRO is a creator of "customary law", remember? The law enforcer is the law maker. Unless a DMO signs up to be under the aegis of another, you have no "legal" claim.

>That's the exact same thing states do, and I don't see you criticize them for it. The important difference between states and DRO's, as we envision them, is that DRO's enforce the correct set of laws.

Because I'm not a hypocrite.

>Whether you invent them or discover them is irrelevant. Not all sets of ethics are created equal.

>Take your subjectivist bullshit elsewhere. Every moral system worth its salt is universal. The important question is which moral system is the correct one, and this place belongs to the NAP.

I'm not the one pretending to respect the freedom of people to associate how they please. When I, a "statist", claim moral supremacy and the right to coerce benevolently, I don't have the nerve to then call my politics "anarchism". I know what I am, you don't. That's the difference between us.

>Again, that isn't an issue original to any brand of anarchism. Conflicts like these can potentially arise in any nation. In an anarchist nation, the parties would take their case to a court, and the court would rule in the favor of one of them. Repeat that often enough, and you end up with a common law. This common law would ultimately be upheld through violence, true. Good luck naming a law that is upheld through other means, though.

The law upheld through violence by a legitimate entity. That sounds a lot like

GOVERNMENT

You're not very smart. You can't do anything but beg the question tbh. :///

**I don't then have the nerve to call my politics

for faggots who care about that kind of shit

>>14694

>And you sound like someone who has no idea of what customary law is.

Enlighten me, then.

>All DROs that police behaviour without the consent of those they police are necessarily statist.

What defines states is that they initiate aggression. As DRO's don't do that, they are not states. It's as simple as that. Self-defense is not the initiation of aggression; retribution is not the initiation of aggression. Both are reactions, not actions.

>This is a curious claim. What you going to file a claim against MEGACORP inc. at Slaughter & Protect LLP? There's no law, only contracts, and contracts are only binding on signatories.

Except that there is a law: The NAP.

>Each DRO is a creator of "customary law", remember?

Customary law isn't created like statutes are, that's the entire gig of customary law. Can you even legal science?

>The law enforcer is the law maker. Unless a DMO signs up to be under the aegis of another, you have no "legal" claim.

NAP. What' so hard to understand about that?

>I'm not the one pretending to respect the freedom of people to associate how they please.

I do respect this freedom, that does not mean I respect them aggressing against the NAP.

>When I, a "statist",

You are a statist, are you not?

>claim moral supremacy

>and the right to coerce benevolently, I don't have the nerve to then call my politics "anarchism".

WHAT FUCKING PART OF "COERCION" DID YOU NOT FUCKING UNDERSTAND?!

Seriously. I have explained this to you three times already. Coercion, as libertarians use the word*, is the INITIATION of aggression. If you don't initiate aggression, you're not using fucking coercion. Shooting someone in the face who's aggressing against you is NOT coercion.

* "Le libertarians must redefine everything!" Fuck off. Seriously, just fuck off.

>The law upheld through violence by a legitimate entity. That sounds a lot like GOVERNMENT xDDDDD

>The law upheld through violence

Every single fucking law is upheld through violence. Ansocs would use violence to uphold their laws, too. They just wouldn't call them laws, because ansocs are fucking idiots.

>legitimate entity

This nicely shows that you have no fucking clue what you're talking about. DRO's are not "legitimate entities" and normal citizens are not "illegitimate entities". DRO's have zero special privileges compared to everyone else. That's a consequence of the fact that, unlike governments, they are not allowed to initiate aggression.

>>14705

Listen. Your idea of aggression is not universal, it's a label which rationalises behaviour in your mind. To you, anything which is in contravention of the non-aggression principle is "coercion", the "initiation of force", anything which is not in contravention of the NAP is permissible. This is your ethical code and it is one you hold to higher esteem than the ethical codes of others ("Not all sets of ethics are created equal."). You would deal with aggressors (violators of NAP) in a way which you judge to be in accordance with your own code.

Earlier, you began with the concept of "private law". You treated contract as the foundation of a voluntary society. Now you espouse the existence of a higher basic law. ("Except that there is a law: The NAP.") This law is not voluntary, nobody enters into it, and it is immediately in effect in all places and on all people. Violators of this law automatically forfeit the rights to those who have understood them to be aggressors. This is a fatal contradiction. People aren't really free and their law isn't private at all, they're as free as the cardinal law of the land allows them to be. Whatever it doesn't protect is devolved down to private arbitration courts where people may form contracts in mere minimicary of real law. Their law is in extension to the NAP and can never contract it. of the basic law of the land. If you don't understand how illiberal this is. Suppose the cardinal law of the land was the "communal pact" which consisted of the three categorical imperatives with a final claim that land and capital are common. Like your claim to property, these laws would be axiomatic and violators would be "aggressors on humanity", "coercive" and "initiators of force". You'd be right in thinking that this anarchy is a hypocrisy, but it's only slightly more hypocritical than your own.

The thing that makes your ideology different from conventional statisms is that the cardinal function of government as the monopolist on the legitimate use of force is commercialised and allowed to be effected by private agents. The law (the only law that matters) is common, but its enforcement remains in private hands. You don't call government's legitimate coercive force "legitimate coercive force" however, you call it "self-defence". Normal governments calls violators of the law "criminals". You call violators of the law "aggressors" or "coercers". You both expect compliance without consent. It is literally only by some foul trick of language, an equivocation, that people have made decentralised tyranny sound like anarchy.

This is perhaps the third time I've expressed the same point. Hopefully, it is clearest here. If this is still too much for you understand then I'm afraid I can't help you. It's up to other anarchists and libertarians to see what I mean.

1. Unless every person assets to the laws which govern them your anarchy is not voluntary.

2. Complex voluntary societies don't exist outside philosophical thought experiments.

Like one of you said earlier, you can have utopia without coercion in a community of enlightened, moral geniuses all in perfect accord but what good is that to us the living.

N.B every single law is upheld through violence, and in a voluntary society, the recipients of violence will have at some point accepted the consequences for their future actions through contract or however else.

>>14709

>Unless every person assets to the laws which govern them your anarchy is not voluntary.

lol

people must consent to the absence of laws, too? Are you going to make animals in a jungle sign documents proving they are in an anarchy.

> Complex voluntary societies don't exist outside philosophical thought experiments.

nice statement without proof, and get ready to misconstrue "thought experiments" and what fits in them.

>>14710

The absence of laws is necessarily anarchy. Anarchy doesn't require consent, a voluntary society does. Involuntary capitalism is necessarily statist capitalism. Capisce?

Complex voluntary societies could exist outside philosophical thought experiments. They presently do not. Do you know of any?

Keep digging yourself a new one.

>>14713

>The absence of laws is necessarily anarchy. Anarchy doesn't require consent, a voluntary society does

That is what I'm saying

>involuntary capitalism is statist

why?

What does it have to do with being involuntary?

>they presently do not

never said they did

>>14714

>That is what I'm saying

And now we agree, so what?

>What does it have to do with being involuntary?

Because capitalism requires laws and the legitimised imposition of laws, irrespective of consent, is the operation a state. In an anarchy, a group or organisation can kill you as a consequence for your actions. Regularly, they are just people who have killed, but if they kill you, and claim to be enforcing the law (eg. the NAP laws), they are agents of government. The same is true of a thief and tax collector. The ancom tax man / redistributor is a legitimatised thief.

>never said they did

So the statement is true. It operative phrase is "do not exist" not "can not exist". Complex voluntary societies do not exist outside philosophical thought experiments. The statement doesn't need proof, it's a denial. Anything without valid evidence can be logically denied.

>>14708

I'll just cut this short: Nothing of what you have written is in any way relevant. You have reiterated your points, assuming that I haven't understood them, instead of actually addressing my counterarguments. If a state is defined by its coercive nature, than an entity that is not coercive is not a state. It's as simple as that. The question, then, is whether enforcing the NAP is coercion. That is not the case; the NAP prohibits coercion. To call enforcing the NAP coercive is to call the prohibition of coercion coercive. By implication, what you're saying is that a voluntary society would require that people are allowed to coerce each other. Judging by this, you either haven't thought this through or you regard voluntaryism as a logical impossibility. And judging by what you wrote here

>>14709

>2. Complex voluntary societies don't exist outside philosophical thought experiments.

you regard it at least as a logical possibility. So yeah, you haven't thought this through.

>>14721

> If a state is defined by its coercive nature, than an entity that is not coercive is not a state.

Where coercion is defined as "the initiation of aggression" and initiation is defined by moral precepts (the NAP). To legitimise your own aggression (enforcement of the NAP), you control what constitutes an initiation (by appealing to the NAP). As with states, you appeal to your own authority to legitimise your own aggression.

> To call enforcing the NAP coercive is to call the prohibition of coercion coercive.

I can't emphasise more just how dishonest this little gimmick is. Coercion is commonly understood to be influence by force. You redefine it as unjust influence by force. This seemly minor distortion then allows you to frame "just force" as "not force". Your frame of justice is the NAP, but the same faulty reasoning can be applied to any basic law which vindicates its own enforcement. If shooting a trespasser is "not coercion" as per the NAP, then shooting a usurper of common capital is "not coercion" as per the communal pact.

Even if I were to agree to these dirty semantics, what you advocate is still a system that uses uses compulsion to impose an order on unwilling subjects.

>you regard it at least as a logical possibility. So yeah, you haven't thought this through.

A voluntary society is a logical possibility. Your anarcho-capitalism however is, by your own admission, not voluntary.

>>14746

>Where coercion is defined as "the initiation of aggression" and initiation is defined by moral precepts (the NAP).

The NAP does not define what initiation of aggression is, it presupposes that it can be defined.

>To legitimise your own aggression (enforcement of the NAP), you control what constitutes an initiation (by appealing to the NAP). As with states, you appeal to your own authority to legitimise your own aggression.

That's a practical argument for making private courts and private enforcement separate entities. It's not an argument against anarchocapitalism per se, and I don't really see why it should be. Every legal actor is allowed or supposed to act in a certain way when he sees that the requirements of a legal norm are fulfilled. That's what citizens do, and it's what the different manifestations of the state do. DRO's could only be seen as state-like entities if they consistently or deliberately misinterpreted what constitutes an initiation of aggression. When they don't, then they act exactly like all citizens do.

>Your frame of justice is the NAP, but the same faulty reasoning can be applied to any basic law which vindicates its own enforcement. If shooting a trespasser is "not coercion" as per the NAP, then shooting a usurper of common capital is "not coercion" as per the communal pact.

True. The one important question here is whether the NAP or the "communal pact" are binding. I have said that much.

>Even if I were to agree to these dirty semantics, what you advocate is still a system that uses uses compulsion to impose an order on unwilling subjects.

I know. This isn't news; I have admitted several times that this is exactly how any legal system works. You're blatantly conflating the initiation of the use of force with the use of force in general. Only the former describes the state.

>A voluntary society is a logical possibility. Your anarcho-capitalism however is, by your own admission, not voluntary.

I have never admitted so. Anarchocapitalism is voluntary in that the only thing prohibited is the abolishment of the voluntary nature of a relationship. See how fucking retarded it looks when you can't use "coercive"? How, in your opinion, would one have to go about having a voluntary society?

>>14773

>The NAP does not define what initiation of aggression is, it presupposes that it can be defined.

The NAP is a prescriptive and normative ethical system. It has to contain a definition for what it prohibits for it to command anything. Where is the "initiation of aggression" defined if not within the NAP, the basic law of libertarianism?

>That's a practical argument for making private courts and private enforcement separate entities. It's not an argument against anarchocapitalism per se, and I don't really see why it should be.

It's not an argument against anarchocapitalism. It's an argument that such systems (those which use compulsion to impose an order on unwilling subjects) are involuntary and not anarchies.

>Every legal actor is allowed or supposed to act in a certain way when he sees that the requirements of a legal norm are fulfilled. That's what citizens do, and it's what the different manifestations of the state do. DRO's could only be seen as state-like entities if they consistently or deliberately misinterpreted what constitutes an initiation of aggression. When they don't, then they act exactly like all citizens do.

Funny choice in language. A citizen is commonly understood to be a member of a state. For the sake of accuracy, I'll replace it with individual.

Individuals aren't authoritative, agents of government are. An individual who takes without consent can be perceived to be a "thief", a agent of state who takes without consent can also be perceived to be a "thief". Both exercise violence/aggression/force (the common understanding of these words) but only one claims that its actions are fine because they're vindicated by "the law". The difference between petty aggressors and state aggressors is that state aggressors see themselves as authorities. They don't have to be sovereign (sovereign states are), they don't have to be effective (failed states aren't), they don't have to be large (tribal government aren't), they just have to claim that their aggression is the application law.

DROs are authorities. If you can't understand this through logic, then try and understand it from emotion if that's the kind of person you are >>14688:

>>>"Take your subjectivist bullshit elsewhere. Every moral system worth its salt is universal. The important question is which moral system is the correct one, and this place belongs to the NAP."

t. confused "anarchist"

>I know. This isn't news; I have admitted several times that this is exactly how any legal system works.

It's how states work. You can have law without coercion, you've already explained this through contract arbitration.

>You're blatantly conflating the initiation of the use of force with the use of force in general. Only the former describes the state.

You treat the "initiation of force" as an objective expression when it isn't. The bad use of force is "coercion", the good use of force is "self-defence" and "retaliation". If you control what constitutes as initiation, you control what constitutes as punishable aggression.

>I have never admitted so.

Well >>14714 did.

>>14773

> Anarchocapitalism is voluntary in that the only thing prohibited is the 'abolishment of the voluntary nature of a relationship

Are you sure this is the sentence you meant to write?

>How, in your opinion, would one have to go about having a voluntary society?

A society where all rules (once laws) are voluntary and private. There are no universal authorities, axiomatic precepts, dogmas or duties. All people are born free of expectation; choice (liberty) rules supreme.

A voluntary anarchy can manifest itself politically in a number of ways. For it to be capitalist, individuals will have to choose to recognise the right to property. Were the capitalists to organise, take land and declare it property, they will have in doing so become a government. There is no difference between this and the minarchies described >>14448 and >>14469.

In the voluntary society, private violence between free individuals remains obviously but state violence does not. It is the problem of private violence though which eventually destroys the voluntary society and in the end makes government essential. Without universal obligations, it is always preferable to coerce than it is to agree, and this can be demonstrated by example if you disagree. Since the institution of universal obligation is the business of state – forced compliance justified by a claim to authority – you must either accept private violence (your right to do and your right to done to) or legitimise your own by declaring your right to compel and expecting others to not. This is how the state arose from the anarchic state of nature in the first place, from cliques and families forcing compliance with their rules and ethics. It was essentially a good idea so sociocultural evolution made it dominate our species.

Not all states improved the human condition. Feudalism, communism and most tribal states are just forms of organised racketeering.

>>14796

>The NAP is a prescriptive and normative ethical system. It has to contain a definition for what it prohibits for it to command anything. Where is the "initiation of aggression" defined if not within the NAP, the basic law of libertarianism?

In libertarian property theory, to a big degree. The NAP is not the entirety of the libertarian ethical system.

>It's not an argument against anarchocapitalism. It's an argument that such systems (those which use compulsion to impose an order on unwilling subjects) are involuntary and not anarchies.

All anarchies impose an order on unwilling subjects.

>Funny choice in language. A citizen is commonly understood to be a member of a state. For the sake of accuracy, I'll replace it with individual.

You do that. Fucking smartass.

>Individuals aren't authoritative, agents of government are. An individual who takes without consent can be perceived to be a "thief", a agent of state who takes without consent can also be perceived to be a "thief". Both exercise violence/aggression/force (the common understanding of these words) but only one claims that its actions are fine because they're vindicated by "the law". The difference between petty aggressors and state aggressors is that state aggressors see themselves as authorities. They don't have to be sovereign (sovereign states are), they don't have to be effective (failed states aren't), they don't have to be large (tribal government aren't), they just have to claim that their aggression is the application law.

According to this definition, DRO's are still neither governments nor agents of government.

>If you can't understand this through logic, then try and understand it from emotion if that's the kind of person you are

>"Take your subjectivist bullshit elsewhere. Every moral system worth its salt is universal. The important question is which moral system is the correct one, and this place belongs to the NAP."

That was written by me, and I still see no contradiction. To prove that an action is immoral, you have to apply a system of ethics to it, naturally. I take it you think that DRO's are immoral according to the NAP. You try to prove that by showing that they declare the NAP to be a binding legal norm. This is not prohibited by the NAP. To declare the NAP a binding legal norm is completely compatible with the NAP.

>It's how states work. You can have law without coercion, you've already explained this through contract arbitration.

You can't. Name me one system of law that's not coercive. A law that can't be enforced is not a law.

>You treat the "initiation of force" as an objective expression when it isn't. The bad use of force is "coercion", the good use of force is "self-defence" and "retaliation". If you control what constitutes as initiation, you control what constitutes as punishable aggression.

The DRO's don't.

>>14846

Forgot my flag.

>>14846

What is Chaika doing?

>>14846

>create a state

>just dont call it a state

my fav meme

>>14881

>create a voluntary association of free individuals

>call it a state

best meme

>>14871

Hopefully not crossfit.

>>14881

See >>14919

A state is not voluntary.

>>14972

But even if we assume a state is voluntary, yes, "states" will exist in Anarchy, but not in the same context as they do now- they will not have a central authority top-down approach.

>>14973

> they will not have a central authority top-down approach.

Yeah, that's reserved for corporations.

>>14992

Please read up on the Economic Calculation Problem.

>>14972

kike

>>15052

>>>/oven/

KIKE

DROs are a logical extension of one's right to their body, labor, and property. That one can say they are exempt from DRO enforcement is to say that they are exempt from the NAP, which is to say they are exempt from consequence. The abstraction of rights by proxy is not as intuitive as a rancher blowing away a horse thief with a 12 gauge but it is just exchange of labor for comparative advantage in the same way any economic transation works.

Instead of going point by point, I would suggest /pol/-kun address why he thinks the NAP is coercive (if he hasn't fucked off forever). Nobody forces you to aggress against a voluntaryist, and saying "I don't agree to your rules, you statist!" as you steal their TV is nothing different than those retards in the US who try to dodge cops by saying they're sovereign citizens who never agreed to the US Constitution. You can steer completely clear of voluntaryists and you will never have to deal with them if you don't want to. Why is it that getting back what is yours, whether it be stolen property, restitution, or even vengeance, is suddenly coercion?

>>15068

Poor bait if I ever saw it.

>>14510

for a cuck like you maybe

>>14823

>All anarchies impose an order on unwilling subjects.

>I take it you think that DRO's are immoral according to the NAP.

>You can't. Name me one system of law that's not coercive. A law that can't be enforced is not a law.

Alright, I'm not going to take this any further. I'll accept that you don't understand me and leave it at that.

>>14866

You can demand things but as soon as you begin to treat that demand as law, you are operating as a state. Individuals may demand things, but only agents of state demand things and claim legitimacy as they do so.

Your desire to be respected is perfectly legitimate but as you demand respect (of your space, of your health, of your property), other anarchists might demand your capital, land or labour.

Understand that demands can go both ways, and that your system would allow anarchists to demand more than the NAP.

>>15077

>which is to say they are exempt from consequence

No, no, no. Consequence is not the same as law enforcement. DRO's are law enforcement. They claim authority.

>why he thinks the NAP is coercive

All laws are coercive. The only laws that can exist in an anarchy must be voluntary (effective because of prior assent)

>getting back what is yours

what's yours doesn't exist without a common understanding of property, which, like many others ITT you take for granted

get this

Your models of anarchy have state-like characteristics. They have laws (involuntary rules) which are enforced by organisations. These organisations have the right to effect laws on those who have never assented to them. You eliminate conventional government and assign government's functions to smaller competing firms. These firms have lawyers, law-givers, enforcers and an (assumed) common understanding of the strictures of the NAP.

Were I to concede that the systems you describe are types of anarchy, it is more than fair to say that they are wholly different beasts from the image of voluntary capitalism predicated on contract, choice and mutual association.

>>15851

>create a state

>call it something else

it's like ancap 101

>>15898

>ancap acting as an authoritarian

not even surprised tbh fam