/liberty/ - Liberty

Because a state is necessary to uphold rights and make life easier.

>>15188

I think the most common answer is that the existence of a state allows one to use coercion/violence on a mass level "when necessary." (Translation: when it suits my needs)

I don't hold that against them though, anon. While I'd arguably call them a statist, they're a milder flavor of statism that isn't nearly as bitter on the tongue- like a Milk Stout instead of a Guinness. I like having Milk Stout around every once in a while- it's certainly better than a super-hops IPA.

You can't have private property without a state.

>>15188

I am.

>>15202

Define private property.

Just seems unrealistic, and if I, a fucking libertarian am suspicious of it, there is NO way to sell it to normies. Small government is the way to go. "Socially liberal, economically conservative" has been making inroads in pop culture and society for some time.

>>15218

I regard minarchism as a necessary transitory state. Most ancaps do, even Rothbard did, implicitly. Once we have it, ancapism will be a whole lot easier to sell.

Personally, I think the ancaps make your goal a lot easier. We are the extremists, which makes you the moderates. People fear extremism in itself, regardless of its content.

You typically make these threads when the subject is not the majority thinking on the board.

>>15224

Frankly a brief stroll through breitbart comments sections, which represent the left's only real opposition in the only country with a meaningful right wing, has left me convinced both mainstream sides are so unspeakably retarded and similarly infatuated with big government that there is no hope for either of our models until the system totally collapses and these morons are forced to dig through the rubble of their labors.

I believe in getting government as small as possible. If you can prove to me that we can do away with it entirely, I'll become an ancap.

>>15235

this. this and 4/pol/

>>15229

ALMOST AS IF HE WANTS TO BRAINWASH PEOPLE!!!!!!!!

jew jew jew jew jew jew

jew jew jew jew jew jew

jew jew jew jew jew jew

jew jew jew jew jew jew

jew jew jew jew jew jew

jew jew jew jew jew jew

>>15246

Fuck off back to /pol/, subhuman.

>>15235

> the only country with a meaningful right wing

The USA has no left-wing, you call the moderate right left because the others are so extremely right.

>>15264

Nah Britbong, even the Deutschbrahs, Aussies, and Swedes admit that America's not far right, everywhere else is just far left. That's just a myth that the Brits have been pushing for the last decade to keep people from realizing the bullshit in their own country.

Unless you're about to state that Feudalism, monarchism, Theocracy, and similar old philosophies are left-wing, y'all are just so far left that you don't even realize it.

>>15346

Uh, no. Most of those also lack a left-wing. I can't think of any western country that actually has.

>>15235

I'm not that pessimistic. I also don't think the system will collapse anytime soon. Almost all my close friends are more or less opposed to a big government, except for one who's a member of Mensa so he's obviously smarter than us. Seriously, his political opinions are shite. Not terrible, but the opposite of refined.

>>15346

>>15364

We do have a marxist-leninist-party in Deutschland, although these fucks have nothing to say, to my great delight. If you're talking about an influential revolutionary party, well, good luck. Anarchists got nothing to say, socialists got nothing to say, in fact, no one fundamentally opposes the social market, as we call it. Doesn't mean we aren't fed leftist propaganda. We even read a communist propaganda piece on school, and one of our teachers unironically said that socialism should be introduced to South American countries, as a transition to a social market.

>>15264

>The USA has no left-wing, you call the moderate right left ecause the others are so extremely right.

It's the other way around my european friend, you've just been teabagged by socialism too long to see it. Europe has no right-wing, you call the hard left right because the others are basically full blown communists. Christ, England is the most right-wing country in Europe and their left is headed by a literal (LITERAL) literal communist.

>>15364

Oh, disregard my last post, I didn't realize you were one of those 'communism has never been tried' types. In that case POWER TO THE PEOPLE, COMRADE! GLOBAL WORKER'S REVOLUTION SOON!

I don't want to defend my property at gun point all time.

>>15189

/thread 2bh

>>15422

Proudhon would be ashamed of you.

>>15414

I'm not Ancap but I'm pretty sure private defense agencies would protect citizens in a similar way to police. In fact they'd probably do a better job due to market competition

>>15445

>private defense agencies

just don't call it a state, bro

>>15450

It wouldn't be "a state" if they're private businesses. The private sector taking on the responsibilities of the public sector does not mean that the private sector is the public sector.

>>15437

>le statism meem

>>15450

It's not a state if it respects the NAP.

>>15463

>le different definition

define or an hero

>>15437

>worrying about being looked down by a DYEL

kek

>>15483

>Le was Proudhon right faec

>>15188

>le no gubmint.

>have no historical proof where no gubmint archived any prosperity.

>Meanwhile in Libertarian system, America have achieved more than 100 years of prosperity until the Jew came and destroyed the system.

Video related.

>>15548

I'm ok with this. I recently began reading What is Property and have had a hard time fully understanding his arguments. If this state-centric understanding of property is what he's taking issue with, then I feel like I finally get him.

>>15483

Two objections.

First, you don't claim a monopoly on force or conflict arbitration on your property, you just claim a right to exclude people from your property (unless you let them come in and stay, under your conditions). For instance, if you invite someone to your house for a beer, you don't have (or claim) a right to then lock them in the cellar for no good reason. In an ancap society there is NO ultimate arbiter of conflict. Yes, you can make a rule such that you can, say, lock people in your cellar for an hour at your discretion, but then they'll have to agree to it BEFORE they enter your property, and the reason you can lock them up is that they agreed to it, not that you are the ultimate arbiter of conflict.

Second, in the usual definition of "state" an important element is usually omited. This "specific geographical region" includes the private land of people who never gave consent to this arrangement, and they are not allowed to secede from it. If one day the US government allows individual land owners and communities thereof (villages, towns, cities, neighborhoods) to secede, I think the USA would cease to be a state (a statist polity) from an ancap point of view.

>>15565

>have no historical proof where no gubmint achieved any prosperity

'rape is bad… but a society with no rape has never been tried!'

I know what you mean but I think we need reasons why anarchy would not work

>>15565

I see what you're saying because I thought like this until very recently, but I think you may be missing a pretty critical point: People would be free to join a "gated community" that is functionally identical to a minarchist government in Ancapistan, and this gated community could grow to any size. The only real difference would be that people could opt out if they so decided. In other words, this libertarian government would not own the land, so a bunch of people who wanted to go make their own gated community could just buy some and follow their own rules there at the cost of no longer enjoying the benefits of being part of the minarchist government.

So I agree that, at least as I see it, a society will see the best results if it has a small government to enforce the NAP. I think there's a great deal of historical precedence to support this. But I also see no reason to force other people, living on property that they own, to pay taxes to and obey the laws of a government that they want nothing to do with (at least while they're living on that property; they obviously would have to obey the laws of that government while within its borders). It's just that, if this method truly does result in the highest standard of living, people will naturally flock to it.

It's sort of like how a lot of people here tell commies that they're free to buy some land and start their own communist gated communities in an anarcho-capitalist society if they really want to. The only difference being that libertarianism has actually been shown to work.

>>15188

Because nature abhors a vacuum, and I'd rather provide normies with a minimal government that they can complain about all the time, but be perfectly capable of living with, rather than not having a government and having some selfish asshole convince a bunch of idiots to be his lackeys under the personality-cult-government he forms that eventually swallows up the community.

>>18435

This, bonus points for be allowed to opt-out of the system.

Also my country has shitloads of publicly owned land and instantly privatizing it would be a disaster and likely lead to violent revolts.

I just use the AnCap flag because I find the Minarchist flag gay as fuck, I dont use the snaek flag because I want less government that that

>>18435

An ancap puppet government, in other words?

>>18443

I guess

The system would end up kinda like Plato's Cave except the outside world is freedom rather than knowledge

>>15264

like a third of the country are literal marxists / SJW (cultural marxism)

>>15450

the very important differntiator is voluntarism

the obvious one is the customer side

wich among other benefits enables accountability

the other major one is the abolishment of a bad monopole. wich also means there is no longer a single point of failure.

collaboration & coordination would still work