/liberty/ - Liberty

>private nukes

Some ancaps are literally okay with private nukes so I think I'm justified in skepticism. Death by nukes

>tanks and machine guns

You could make the government stop invading places. A lot of governments haven't now for a long time. But tanks in the hands of random psychos seems bad. Death by tank

>Immigration

The incentive will be to steal / blow people up. Not welfare. Death by al-Qaeda, the Mafia, and disease

>Pollution

Most ancaps say you can't bring a case without strict causality leading to damages. Otherwise you'd break the NAP. So you can't tax someone just for emitting -for example -CO2. Death by CO2

>Child abuse

I mean the case where some parent is raping his kid or whatever but his defence firm he hired agreed that should be legal. Death by rape.

>>17345

It would be dank for the first few years

>>17348

Strawman argument, the initial nationalization process was performed via theft and so its ownership by the descendant is not recognized as legitimate since it is still stolen property.

>>17348

Stolen goods should be returned to their original owners m8

>>17349

>>17350 (You)

Nice

>>17344

>Death by nukes

How many people do you expect to be simultaneously responsible enough to gather the funding to purchase a nuke and impulsive enough to use it irresponsibly?

>Death by tank

Same as above, but with a lower threshold and lower consequences. Keep in mind that in both cases, you aren't the only one with the freedom to buy these things and you invite the ire of everyone else.

>Death by al-Qaeda, the Mafia, and disease

The first two are enabled in their criminal endeavors by governments. The last exists with or without government, and private property owners typically do business with people who don't want to die; they're likely to implement their own safety protocols, and many already do.

>Most ancaps say you can't bring a case without strict causality leading to damages. Otherwise you'd break the NAP.

Actually, AnCaps don't go around dictating how people can run their dispute resolution institutions, so that's up to the law providers that people choose to patronize. Good luck doing business without agreeing to arbitration by a firm in good standing.

>So you can't tax someone just for emitting -for example -CO2. Death by CO2

But you can sue them. It was done all the time, successfully, prior to the creation of the EPA, which effectively outlawed the practice.

See post above with link.

>I mean the case where some parent is raping his kid or whatever but his defence firm he hired agreed that should be legal. Death by rape.

How do you expect such a firm to remain in place? Do you honestly take such a dim view of humanity that enough of them would be willing to patronize such an institution to keep it in competition with other firms? How do you figure the child-raping constituency is large enough to keep such a reviled practice afloat in a market, but not large enough to have their practice enshrined in law in a statist environment?

>>17354

>Nukes

Doesn't seem they're much more than $10 dollars. Could be some Islamist group-funder or Saudi millionaire, or maybe someone borrowing to blackmail people + profit

>Tank

Lower consequences, but cheaper. Could be really bad

>Al-Qaeda, Mafia, disease

Maybe the actual two organisations are enabled by government but you would still have similar groups with different practises

I'm not SURE about disease but I suspect it suffers from the public good problem + it's more efficient to have one border

>CO2

You can't sue billions of people tho. There are big companies who pollute but just suing them seems less fair + less efficient than a tax on the pollutant

>Child rape

I don't see who the bad defense agency would be competing with. There's no-one to defend the child's rights.

Defence agency was set up exclusively to defend the rich guy from moralfags

[maybe this one COULD be solved by charity]

>>17349

>Strawman argument, the initial nationalization process was performed via theft and so its ownership by the descendant is not recognized as legitimate since it is still stolen property.

It's not a strawman argument because that just highlights something that happens all the time.

Every tract of land in existence has passed hands many times through violence before being traded in our modern systems. But you never see any Ancap calling all existing property illegitimate and splitting it up into shares.

If the King in the second pic is illegitimate, then so is all existing property. It's not a strawman, it just makes the existing situation more extreme by hyperbole to highlight the fact that all property was violently acquired firstly.

Add to that: all the big corporations that exist are heavily dependent on state violence to exist due to their subsidization, and with the banks; bailouts. How come their property is legitimate? They would have lost it in the market if it weren't for the state, so why is it wrong to revolt and expropriate it?

>>17350

>Stolen goods should be returned to their original owners m8

What if the owners are dead or no one knows who they are? Ancap already uses a statute of limitations like this to counter the argument about initial appropriation. But now it suddenly doesn't apply when it makes you uncomfortable?

>>17365

In principle it would be nice to undo everything government ever did

But I don't about in practice

>>17371

Know about practice

>>17371

Right, you can't undo it, so you have a statute of limitations after which private property is legitimate regardless of how it is acquired. Or that's how Ancap seems to treat it.

BUT if that's true, then surely the case in the pic is legitimate, or has not enough time passed? What does it take?

500 years? 1000 years?

>>17375

One way could be as long as the original owner can't come forward ?

I'm not an expert

>>17362

>Could be some Islamist group-funder or Saudi millionaire

Again, those boogeymen are all manufactured by the state.

>Could be really bad

See again about reciprocation.

>but you would still have similar groups with different practises

How? It's one thing to claim this, but you haven't provided a basis for believing that systematic antisocial behavior could succeed among a social species without manufactured belief in its legitimacy, or without another such organization using its manufactured social acceptance to skew market conditions.

In short: without a state, organized crime is unsustainable. Look at every single time criminal organizations have risen to power, it has been as a result of government regulations.

> I suspect it suffers from the public good problem

There's no such thing as a public good. The public nature of a thing negates the definition of a "good".

"More than a century ago, Carl Menger argued that four conditions must all be met in order for any given thing to be a good: (1) there must exist some unfulfilled human need, (2) the

thing must possess properties which are causally related to the satisfaction of the need, (3) the economic actor must have knowledge of that causal relation, and (4) the actor must have

sufficient command of the thing that he can actually employ it in satisfying the need.5 If any one of these conditions is no longer met, then the thing involved ceases to be a good." -The Myth of National Defense, p. 241

>You can't sue billions of people tho.

You say that like it's a bad thing. Is the guy across the street realistically affecting your health with his CO2 emissions? Will his car make a difference? Of course the billions of people thousands of miles away aren't affecting you; you aren't breathing that air. The big companies, however, who are realistically putting out enough pollutants to make a credible difference, are both credible causal factors and in a position to internalize negative externalities.

>I don't see who the bad defense agency would be competing with.

You're looking at a society. A population. There's more than just the parent and the child. Those firms must maintain other customers to stay viable in the market. Would you give money to a firm that defends child rape? If so; can you really say that it matters that much? If not; do you really think you're special? The nearly universal revulsion toward child rape makes such firms unlikely to retain any customers.

Wouldn't you prefer to pay a firm that provides pro bono defense to victims of child rape? People who represent those victims who can't represent themselves? Seems like it'd be good PR to me. I know I'd sign up.

The person receiving the service doesn't have to be the one to pay for it; it just has to be paid for voluntarily. If nobody cares enough to pay for it, what makes you think they'll care enough to vote for it?

>>17335

Ancaps are the most prevalent in this thread.

Because though they claim to hate democracy, they are so desperate to have you agree with them.

>>17380

>Boogeymen

So without government no-one would want to nuke anybody? I don't know.. GOP voters would love to nuke Muslims. And some Saudis really do hate the West and its lifestyle.

And again you could buy nukes and blackmail groups of people to earn money

>Reciprocation

I think the market would find a way to deal with tanks but there still be chaos. If you rely on defence agencies- average kill count for a shooter stopped by police is 20+. Tank might be disastrous in loss of life and property

Is it really a good thing to let just anybody buy a tank?

>Public goods

It's probably more efficient to have one border with screening. But funding a common border is more difficult without the state

>Should only sue large companies

Compared to a carbon tax it seems less fair and less likely to reduce emissions :/

>Child rape

There could probably be a solution to this in the law somehow. I was just worried that since parents are responsible for a child's rights they could buy rights that let them be mistreated or buy them no rights at all.

But if the community could fund the child's rights in that situation- and take precedence- that might work. Depends how the law would be figured out

>>17388

>So without government no-one would want to nuke anybody?

Well, if you're going to change the subject, I suppose we could talk about something else entirely.

What keeps nations from nuking each other? Mutually assured destruction. You think that would change when those nukes are held by private hands? What makes you think rich persons want to get nuked any more than countries do?

>GOP voters would love to nuke Muslims

That antagonism is manufactured by the state. You wouldn't have this whole middle eastern war, all this anti-Muslim propaganda, or any of these tensions without foreign interventionism from the state to justify military spending and capture foreign resources.

>And again you could buy nukes and blackmail groups of people to earn money

The thing about blackmail is that it only works when it's secret, and bringing a nuke into the mix makes the list of people who can afford to do it really short. That investigation won't take long.

>I think the market would find a way to deal with tanks but there still be chaos.

The market is more efficient at everything than the state. What makes you think this is any different?

>If you rely on defence agencies- average kill count for a shooter stopped by police is 20+

And the average kill count for a shooter stopped by armed people is less than 3. Keep in mind that owning a tank doesn't prevent anyone else from owning anti-tank rifles. I'm sure high security facilities would keep a few on hand in case somebody tries to go Rambo.

Plus, state police have no financial incentive to improve their response time, but private defense agencies sure as hell do: who's going to pay a defense agency that can't save them?

>It's probably more efficient to have one border with screening.

Why? You think private firms can't cooperate? Have a handful of firms that provide industry-standard screening services at key locations. They get paid by the places that would have to shut down in the event of an outbreak. There are tons of ways of funding the same services voluntarily. The owners of those key properties would be personally liable for letting people slip through, so they have a financial incentive to maintain safety.

>it seems less fair and less likely to reduce emissions

Except there's this thing called "history", which I've already cited above, which shows that not to be the case. People have been suing over airborne pollution for centuries, and it was working until the EPA stepped in.

>parents are responsible for a child's rights

Pretty much, I suppose.

>they could buy rights

No. Just no. You don't buy rights. You buy rights protection services. Rights are an inherent aspect of human action, and they cannot be granted or taken away.

>But if the community could fund the child's rights [protection] in that situation [redacted] that might work. Depends how the law[s that people chose to fund] would be figured out.

Fixed, sort of.

>>17391

>Nukes

What keeps people in a statist country from being nuked is a collectively funded threat of retaliation. Which is impossible in an anarchist society unless you allow for free-riders

Blackmail would work out in the open because there would be no collective retaliation without free riders

You could blame politics for all mass hatreds (or at least hatred of geographical regions) but there's also religion and bigotry/xenophobia which might be enough to create hatred and thus nukes

The danger is that markets are the real democracy which is this case is bad because people suck

>tanks

I didn't think about anti-tank rifles but it does create the problem that there have to be anti-tank rifles everywhere. As well as things to respond to flamethrowers / chemical weapons / who knows what.

It could be that it costs more to ban them, than just respond to their use, but in the cases where it isn't I don't know how the ban would be funded in an anarchist society

>one border not more efficient

There are ways of providing borders through voluntary methods but my concern is that the wall of Trump with a door in the middle is more efficient than everyone doing their own checks and monitoring whether people that come onto their property are dangerous

>common law more effective

But how can suing only the big companies for their damages, be more effective than taxing all emissions at the same rate as the damage they cause?

>definitions of rights

I mostly meant rights enforcement

>>17393

>collectively funded threat of retaliation.

Why does it have to be collectively funded? Why can't it just be funded?

>Which is impossible in an anarchist society unless you allow for free-riders

This is also false. Regional defense has historically been provided by private market actors.

https://mises.org/sites/default/files/Myth%20of%20National%20Defense,%20The%20Essays%20on%20the%20Theory%20and%20History%20of%20Security%20Production_3.pdf

>Blackmail would work out in the open

I don't think you know what "blackmail" means. Perhaps you're thinking of "ransom"? And see above about funding retaliation.

> there's also religion and bigotry/xenophobia which might be enough to create hatred and thus nukes

How do you go from hatred to nukes? You're completely ignoring the economics of developing the infrastructure necessary to carry out a nuclear program, and that's simply not sustainable without amicable global trade, which requires peaceful relationships.

>because people suck

And you think those people become better when you give some of them the power to violently coerce the rest of them?

>there have to be anti-tank rifles everywhere

Why? You really think there will be swarms of roving tanks all over the place? What are all these tank bandits doing with them? Mugging grandma? You think that's enough to keep a tank running? It'd only be worth it to attack fortified high-value targets. Nobody's knocking over the local convenience store with a goddamn tank. Banks, weapons depots, and maybe extremely wealthy business centers would do well to have a few on hand, but you don't need one at your house.

>It could be that it costs more to ban them, than just respond to their use, but in the cases where it isn't I don't know how the ban would be funded in an anarchist society

It will always cost more to ban them, because where you create a prohibition, you skew the supply curve, driving up the profit of trading in these goods and making illegal arms trade more lucrative. This requires ever more enforcement.

Plus, regional prohibition is antithetical to anarchy. If you're prohibiting certain weapons, you're restricting owners' property rights, which is not anarchy.

I don't know how many times I have to point out that if you can buy some kind of weapon, other people can too. And the notion that having a flamethrower gives you the run of the town when everybody else has their own guns is utterly preposterous. This isn't a comic book where some rich guy buys a big weapon and the whole town is on its knees; there are ruinous economic consequences to that kind of antisocial behavior.

>the wall of Trump with a door in the middle is more efficient than everyone doing their own checks

No, it is not. See: economics. You're talking about a monopolistic provider of a "service", which among other things means that they have no incentive to innovate or optimize. The market beats the state every time.

> how can suing only the big companies for their damages, be more effective than taxing all emissions at the same rate as the damage they cause?

Because you can't possibly know how much damage your neighbor is causing. The signal to noise ratio on those causal factors is too large. You'd need to look at the only statistically significant sources of emissions to make a difference. Automotive emissions are relatively small and dispersed over a large area, being partially filtered out by the ecosystem. Large factories' emissions are concentrated enough to make a difference.

There's also the fact that you keep responding to cited historical precedent of success with hypothetical worries, and are not considering the economics of the situation. A tax is a case of concentrated benefits and dispersed costs. There's no incentive to adjust it to reflect real damages, and that funding being drawn through centralized politically controlled channels opens the floodgates for abuse and misallocation. Central management destroys the price mechanism and prevents market signals from efficiently distributing resources to resolve problems. And the EPA just levies a fine against offenders; if you're too small to buy political influence, you get hit with ruinous fees. If you're big enough to be writing the legislation, the fees are a slap on the wrist and you keep going. Plus, the fines don't go to pay the people actually harmed by pollution. Government regulation is counterproductive both in theory and historically.

>I mostly meant rights enforcement

And I addressed it accordingly. There are loads of ways of funding it privately. I don't remember who wrote about almost that exact concern, but I think it might have been David Friedman in The Machinery of Freedom.

http://daviddfriedman.com/The_Machinery_of_Freedom_.pdf

I'll have to go digging.

>>17393

Not an ancap, but I really don't understand the 'nukes/tanks/drones' argument. From a purely practical perspective it seems like nonsense. It's like claiming a nation with no capital or leaders is going to be afraid of Blitzkrieg. How are you going to 'blackmail' (literally just inefficiently tax) an enormous amount of people by just threatening to destroy them (and their assets) using WMDs that are themselves enormously expensive? And get away with it too? The idea that crazy porcupines are going to take the threat of a WMD serious is absurd; WMDs are made to be used by and against states.

>>17399

>retaliation

I meant retaliation with a nuke ie. mutually assured destruction. Which would be hard to fund and is non-exclusive

>people sucking

In democracy there generally has to be a majority of people who suck before you starting nuking people, which is preferable to random groups doing what they want. So the government system minimises the effect of people sucking

>anti-tank rifles everywhere

Well if you don't have one it will be pretty bad.

I mean in the one case where there is a crazy person .

Same with legally purchased grenades / poisonous gas. You could literally buy them at a store, go out and start destroying buildings

>bans always less effective

If you arrest people who own bad things then you reduce demand too. Reducing demand and supply at the same time will reduce the quantity an amount for every dollar spent on measures. There's no guarantee that such a technique is less efficient at stopping 'bad things happening' than other techniques to remedy the situation.

>wall of Trump is less efficient

You don't think it would ever be more efficient to have one big wall? Gains from scale

I know it's the government but still

>emissions

But can't you assume that if big firm releases X amounts and it does this much harm, then the ratio must be the same for any amount released? And then you put a tax where anyone who releases any amount of emissions has to pay a tax equal to the proportionate harm.

I know it's all hypothetical but I think there must be some categories of potential problem that an anarchist society can't solve very well.

And it would be surprising if we didn't live in a world where any of these problems came to reality

>>17403

>In democracy there generally has to be a majority of people who suck before you starting nuking people

Do you honestly believe this? Did they pass around a ballot measure in 1945? How many people do you think were involved in making that decision?

>So the government system minimises the effect of people sucking

How? You observably don't need a majority for politicians to make decisions. Policy does not reflect public opinion. You're speaking of an idealized version of government which has never existed, rather than what we see in the world today.

>Well if you don't have one it will be pretty bad.

Why? Why would have the reason to roll a tank up on my house? Your operating costs would be higher than the payout, and you'd piss off everyone in town, some of whom might have anti-tank rifles.

>I mean in the one case where there is a crazy person.

One person who is:

1) Crazy enough to roll a tank up on someone's house

2) Responsible, functional, and well-regarded enough to afford to purchase and operate a tank.

3) Somehow immune to the negative reprecussions of driving a tank across town, over several people's private property.

4) Able to produce enough fuel, parts, and maintenance labor to keep a tank running in isolation once people are no longer willing to do business with a tank-wielding psychopath.

That person? I'll play the odds, thanks.

>Same with legally purchased grenades / poisonous gas. You could literally buy them at a store, go out and start destroying buildings

Once. You could do that once. And you'd be doing so among a population of armed people who rather like the idea of living. You aren't likely to get far at all.

>If you arrest people who own bad things then you reduce demand too.

That's why people rarely use illegal drugs or buy illegal weapons, right?

>Reducing demand and supply at the same time

You're increasing the supply curve, not the quantity supplied. The quantity follows. Time and again it has been shown that prohibition increases sales of the banned goods and services. Everybody knows how alcohol prohibition went down. There's nothing economically special about alcohol; everything follows that pattern. You ban it, and the black market springs up to provide it en masse because competition has been restricted.

>You don't think it would ever be more efficient to have one big wall?

No, I don't.

>Gains from scale

You haven't heard of "diseconomy of scale"? That's a thing, you know. Plus, what part of "monopolies don't work" left room for exceptions in your mind?

>But can't you assume that if big firm releases X amounts and it does this much harm, then the ratio must be the same for any amount released?

Acutally, you can't. Those emissions aren't being piped into your lungs; they're being dispersed across large areas, and the scaling isn't linear. I've already mentioned how the pollutants are filtered by the ecosystem, and I could get into all the math and science of gaseous dispersion, but suffice it to say that each car's contribution is negligible. It really isn't as simple as damage being proportional to emissions.

Much of your thinking here reflects the idea that the laws of economics must have exceptions, but they don't. They're laws precisely because they don't have exceptions. The market is more efficient at providing law for the same reason that it's more efficient at providing everything else; it's driven by the satisfaction of consumer preference, rather than the dictates of those who seek to impose their vision upon the world.

>>17403

>I think there must be some categories of potential problem that an anarchist society can't solve very well

Why? What reason do you have for this belief? You seem to be trying to invent problems to prop up a conclusion, rather than examining the ideas and deriving a conclusion from that.

I know I used to do the same thing, and I didn't even realize it. I scoffed at this free-market junk and set about reading the material with the certainty that I could punch great big holes in the theory. Once I started examining the ideas critically, I began to realize that I was operating on unfounded assumptions and trying to justify the beliefs I hand been given. The more I investigated, the less I believed the old doctrine. I eventually came to realize:

Anarchy isn't a positive proposition. It isn't an idea of how the world should be run. It is the idea that nobody can possibly know how to run the world. "An anarchist society" is just countless people living their own lives in their own ways. It's countless solutions. Insisting that "an anarchist society can't solve certain problems" logically equates to saying that "certain problems can only be solved in the one way I've imagined". You aren't rejecting any one solution; you're rejecting every solution but yours.

Once I realized this, the world became a much clearer place. I didn't have to make exceptions anymore; didn't have to pick things apart and say that sometimes thinking one way was reasonable, and others it wasn't. Once you reject the nonsense, a coherent logical structure emerges, instead of a mis-matched collection of disconnected concepts.

>>17405

The reason is, you would expect there to be some ways that a perfect government could increase utility. Saying 'forcible actions', ie of government, can never increase utility is quite a jump and there's no reason to expect it to hold true no matter what.

It would be quite a coincidence if we were in a universe where a category of actions only ever reduce utility, since reality and utility are so complicated.

In a similar way, moral codes are only guidelines that maximise utility in most cases. Usually there are situations in which breaking a particular rule does increase utility. In a similar way, you'd expect there to be some situations in which government can be good.

>>17406

And going from there the sort of situations I'd expect a government to maybe increase utility, or stop utility being lost, are

>cases where you need to ban things to stop someone blowing up the world (tanks, nukes)

>cases where it's efficient to pool everyone's resources together and achieve gains of scale- but face the problem of free riders (Trump wall, army)

>cases where everyone pollutes a little onto collectively owned property (global warming)

So in each case the examples I gave are only examples of a class of problem. You have to show that in the universe we live in they aren't a problem. In other universes they might be a problem- for example, if nukes were 2 bucks and destroyed the whole world, or if the wall would have really big gains from scale, or if global warming was actually real and we had 20 billion people polluting a tiny amount each.

>>17406

>Saying 'forcible actions', ie of government, can never increase utility is quite a jump and there's no reason to expect it to hold true no matter what.

Except that there is a reason. Involuntary interactions, by their definition, involve the transfer of value from one party to another when the party so deprived would prefer not to engage in the transaction. They thus value what they receive less than they value what they lose. Thus, there is a net loss of wealth.

Voluntary transactions, on the other hand, necessarily involve each party receiving something that they value more than what they give up. Therefore, voluntary transactions necessarily involve a net increase of wealth.

>It would be quite a coincidence if we were in a universe where a category of actions only ever reduce utility, since reality and utility are so complicated.

This sounds like a very reasonable thing to say, until you recognize that utility is simply the result of subjective valuation, and that the aforementioned category of action consists necessarily of acting against persons' valuations.

It would not be a coincidence to live in a universe where the category of action that is "lighting fires" always consumed fuel, since fires necessarily consume fuel. You're missing out on the aspects of the action contained in their definitions.

Your use of moral codes as an analogy falls flat because violating an arbitrary moral code doesn't decrease utility by definition, whereas coercion does.

>>17409

I might be true that involuntary actions always reduce utility for at least one person, but there's no reason they shouldn't increase utility for other people by an equal or greater degree.

The argument for anarchy would be that overall that overall the sum of involuntary / violent actions is negative, and once you empower a body to take such actions it's impossible to limit them to only the actions which actually increase utility.

>>17412

Or shouldn't increase utility at least sometimes

>>17412

>there's no reason they shouldn't increase utility for other people by an equal or greater degree.

But you can never know that it does, because utility is subjective. You can never have justification to assert that you have increased overall utility, because you can't know. Thus, you have no justification for coercion.

>>17414

You can't know for sure, but if it's a choice between:

>probably some utility, no aggression

>probably more utility, some aggression

I would choose the latter.

You can guess at what increases utility, even if you can't know for sure

It is true though that the power of the actor performing the aggression has to be limited, since it's impossible to know whether utility is actually being increased through this aggression.

However, aiming for no aggression even if that almost certainly reduces utility, seems misguided.

Whether having any actor at all, allowed to commit aggression, will inevitably reduce overall utility, depends on the exterior factors

>>17415

But you can't possibly assert that you would have more utility, even probably, because you cannot know the content of another person's mind.

You're just presuming to have information you can't possibly have. Felicific calculus is impossible.

Your guess can't have any degree of certainty, so you're pitting a wild conjecture against the right of an individual. It's never anything more than a completely unsupported claim. You lack the dialectic strength for that assertion; it always fails.

Even leaving that aside, you still run into the fact that any claim of coercive authority is necessarily a performative contradiction; it always implies contradictory premises. Coercion cannot be justified in any logically consistent ethical scheme, and necessarily reduces utility and introduces disutility, the magnitudes of which cannot be known.

>>17415

If your valuation of a thing was so much greater than theirs, you'd be willing to offer something they value more in trade for the thing. If they don't value anything you're willing to offer in trade, they clearly value the thing more than you do.

Thus, taking something by force cannot increase overall utility.

>>17416

We know what people are. We know what utility is. We know by and large what causes utility. We can do science. It's not really that wild a guess.

The same is true with disutility.

It's useful to remember that rights are only good if they improve society and make people better off. If a world with completely enforced rights results in everyone being miserable, or getting killed by nuclear bombs, then it's not the world we should aim for. Simple as that

>>17338

>funded by states

So then you advocate global anarcho capitalism?

>Stop incentivizing people to jumpthe border

The only way to do that is make your country even worse than theirs

>NAP

muh nap

>>17344

>muh nap

>>17351

>(You)

>>17434

>So then you advocate global anarcho capitalism?

Yep.

>The only way to do that is make your country even worse than theirs

Not really. We just have to make it worse for the people we don't want to have.

>muh nap

Quoting an argument with "muh" in front of it does not make a counter-argument.

>>17438

>Yep.

And how do you intend to go about that?

>Not really. We just have to make it worse for the people we don't want to have.

This violates the nap

>Quoting an argument with "muh" in front of it does not make a counter-argument.

muh nap

>>17442

>This violates the nap

How?

How is not wanting to have the government steal money from me or voluntarily give it to charity so Laquesha can feed her 12 illegitimate hellspawn a violation of the NAP?

How did I violate the NAP when Tyrone murdered someone because he thought it was OK now that it wasn't explicitly illegal?

How did I violate the NAP when my restaurant refused to serve a group of a dozen guys all called Muhammad?

The dumb, the lazy, the repulsive, and the morally weak, all cannot exist for long in a Libertarian or AnCap society and will naturally remove themselves.

>>17442

>And how do you intend to go about that?

The same way the communist made "individualism" an insult.

>This violates the nap

Nope. Look here:

>>17452