Been seeing a lot of libertarian threads so I thought I'd start my own, with a twist.
In this thread we emphasize the right wing of libertarianism and ancap, to wash away the leftist stigma that Johnson and the LP have damned us with.
Hans-Hermann Hoppe -- On Free Immigration and Forced Integration
https://www.lewrockwell.com/1970/01/hans-hermann-hoppe/on-free-immigration-and-forced-integration/
Rothbard's Right-Wing Populism
http://archive.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/ir/Ch5.html
And some more basic stuff
The Market is True Democracy - Matthew McCaffery
https://mises.org/blog/market-true-democracy
How Capitalism Improves the Welfare of All
https://mises.org/blog/how-capitalism-improves-welfare-all
Socialism’s One-Percenters -- Thomas J. DiLorenzo
https://mises.org/blog/socialism%E2%80%99s-one-percenters
>>80885480
I wouldnt call Hoppe a nationalist,but he is the ultimate redpill
DONT LET YOUR DREAMS BE MEMES
>>80885480
Paleocon masterrace here
>>80885874
>Decades of communism in a nigger country yields terrible results
>This is now capitalism's fault
Thanks for playing.
>>80886062
Yes... Real (white) ancap has never been tried.
>>80885874
>a civil war between communist and islamists is ancap
what a meme my lad
>>80886447
saved
>>80886333
Those are just incident ideologies. The economic and political system is pure ancap. What is stopping a corporation from setting up in Somalia and providing security for a hefty price?
>>80886579
>The economic and political system is pure ancap
First off you're talking about the past, and second, no it wasn't. It was a country torn between several warlords.
>>80886448
>>80886447
>>80886368
>>80886235
All you guys can do is spout memes. When they're refuted, you stubbornly hold to your false ideals.
Do you think this makes you smart? Do you think you convince anyone?
It's very evident you've never read anything about the ideology beyond those MS paint macros.
>>80886770
>It was a country torn between several warlords.
ancap
I think if I identified as anything, Libertarian nationalist sounds good. But im above your mortal politics. This realm is all for naught. So I'll waste my time. Shitposting the night away
strawpoll dot me/10740130
Question intended for libertarians.
>>80886803
>When they're refuted
lol. All your "refutation"is calling them memes. Nothing more
>>80886835
no they weren't ancap, as I mentioned, some were Islamists and the former gov was gommie
I mean really if all you have is "any form of civil war is ancapy" it's a pretty weak argument.
>>80886669
The leader invests in himself as he should. Does this upset you?
I've already been planning for years to lead a National Liberal movement someday
How has nobody mentioned the NAP
>>80886770
>warlords
What are wealthy individuals in an ancap system?
>>80886911
They literally are, though, and you can't deny that.
But that's beside the point. Nearly each and every image you post is either internally inconsistent, or reliant on a false pretense about libertarianism or the NAP.
It only displays that you have never researched the topic, not even at the most basic level. You get blown out every thread because you haven't the first clue of what you're talking about.
This is now an An-cap meme thread
>implying all An-cap threads aren't meme threads
>>80887266
Well spook'd my property
>>80886803
We try debating you but you refuse to listen to logic that dictates that the vast majority of people don't want to live in a profoundly inhumane and unstable society.
>>80887266
If I build a road you shouldn't be allowed to stand in front of my tank. Fucking statist
>>80887266
why is that T-34's turret facing behind it and driving backwards
>>80887283
I don't know, wealthy people?
Those guys were Islamists and bent on applying Sharia, not capitalism.
>>80887283
>What are wealthy individuals in an ancap system?
warlords
>>80887342
>They literally are, though, and you can't deny that.
some of them
>>80887379
Property rights violate my Freedom.
>>80887416
Shariah doesn't really say much on economics. All it does is ban usury.
And require the gold standard.
Other than that it says nothing about the means of production.
>>80887441
>>80887699
Really impressed moortugal. The only people that like taxes are people reliant on handouts. Maybe you should kill yourself
Any Libertarians here that were for Bernie before he cucked out and endorsed Hillary?
>>80887735
>>80887735
>>80887380
>We try debating you but you refuse to listen to logic
That's funny, I was going to say the same to you.
Of course, I'm not the one relying on memes and greentext stories as the backbone of my argument.
>the vast majority of people don't want to live in a profoundly inhumane and unstable society.
No argument there, precisely why I want to move away from the state, the cause of most of society's inhumanity and instability.
>>80887441
You only post these images because you're incapable of original thought.
How can you have such a vehement opinion on something you've never cared to study?
>>80887831
not an argument
>>80884798
>I thought the libertarian thing was negative income tax.
A technical detail, no?
Who you tax to give out the UBI is of course important but the interesting part, namely that you don't keep up a big bureaucracy to determine who gets how much, that's something where you can shrink the government remarkably.
>Nice strawmen. people will no longer want to socialize. Genious conclusion.
Wasn't meant to be a strawman.
I'm just wondering what you think an automatised society will look like. You said
>people will no longer be required to do things
but we probably want to be served in a restaurant by a human and not by a robot, right? That's what I meant with "human interaction". I think there will always be a demand for human interaction and be it only for entertainment.
>>80887674
>Shariah doesn't really say much on economics
well memed bruh
>All it does is ban usury.
Which is a pretty big deal, on top of not being to buy whatever you see fit.
>>80887901
>You only post these images because you're incapable of original thought.
I only post to trigger lolbertarians
>>80887854
>Implying all libertarians aren't jew cucks to begin with.
>>80887901
>How can you have such a vehement opinion on something you've never cared to study?
>what is socialism
>>80888020
that only works if you're not the person with most posts in the thread
Right now you seem pretty triggered, so much so that you refuse to confront your ideas honestly and hide behind the veil of "I'm just being facetious lel" instead of exposing your arguments.
>>80888006
>well memed bruh
How about you try countering me.
>All it does is ban usury.
So does Catholicism.
>on top of not being to buy whatever you see fit.
You can buy whatever you want in a fully compliant shariah state
>>80888123
stop posting retard
>>80888020
That's how I know you're stupid. I don't give a fuck about anything. If you come to my house and shoot me, I know the next world I'm going to.
#pleiadianblackpill2016
>>80885874
But Trump is going to make memes real using the power of Kek. You're memes will come true if you pay proper respect.
>>80888304
>telling me stop practicing my right to shit-post
STATIST
Last thread died right as I posted this.
How would libertarianism function in a post-work/post-scarcity society? We're fast approaching the end of a lot of human labor and there will be many people who's skill sets simply aren't needed and production is controlled by someone like Google who developed the AI. So at that point, even dissolving government, there would still effectively be a government controlled by large corporations due to the extreme cost and resource requirement to develop AI and create machinery to automate making starting it at a small scale impossible.
>>80886936
What would they retrain to? The jobs created maintaining the machines and programming will be nowhere near the amount of jobs eliminated, and as the automation further advances they'll be able to maintain and replicate themselves.
>>80888273
>So does Catholicism.
Wrong, there has been nothing in the code of canon law about usury for a long time.
>You can buy whatever you want in a fully compliant shariah state
Except pork Abdul.
This is irrelevant anyway, why are you trying to steer the conversation that way? Instead of asking dumb rethorical question, try to explain why you think a civil war brought about by a communist government has anything to do with anarco-capitalism.
>>80888020
I think you're helping our side more than hurting it.
But if debating a topic you know nothing about helps you sleep at night, then I won't try to stop you.
>>80885696
Thanks anon. I've being looking for that for ages.
>>80888542
Ideally start buying precious metals, ammunition, and real estate asap. You'll die if you dont
>>80888491
stormfront is that way --->
>>80885480
Currently reading man economy and state, not an ancap just a anti immigration libertarian.
Is the law by Bastiat worth a read, what is the book on spontaneous order I can't remmber
Can I kill people without legal repercussions in a libertarian society? Or would there be prisons for people that wants to kill?
>>80888542
There is no such thing as post-scarcity since we will always want some things from other people. Be it entertainment or other.
I mean for fuck's sake there are companies right now whose business is "helping people make decisions".
>>80888542
Post scarcity is nonsense. There is an infinite wants of man and scarce means to bring them about- by nature, it's impossible.
>>80888790
Most libertarians support the second amendment and the right to self-defense. But if someone was just murdering innocent people for no reason, they'd probably get killed.
>>80888556
>Except pork Abdul.
You can buy and sell pork in an Islamic society. All that's forbidden is for muslims to eat it. Alcohol is also allowed to be bought and sold by non-muslims in a shariah state. They just have to drink it in private.
Source: Ex-muslim
>>80888790
Libertarian=\=ancap. Libertarian is small state free market political idealogy, ancap is political philosophy.
>>80888722
I'd rather go to Somalia. The An-Cap paradise.
>>80889360
>they'd probably get killed
If they know who is killing, FBI uses a lot of resources on homicidal investigations.
>>80889413
Cool, i see.
>>80889360
How would you enforce the second amendment? What if my militia decided to take away your guns.
>>80889578
You shoot them
>>80889378
>All that's forbidden is for muslims to eat it.
Does that seem respectful of property rights to you?
>>80889651
>One person against a militia
You would probably just get fucked by artillery
>>80888817
Post-scarcity doesn't mean all scarcity has been eliminated. It just means everyone could easily have their basic survival needs met along with a good portion of general desires
Not everyone is going to be able to sell their artisanal baskets and paintings and advice giving service if everyone else in the world is doing the same though
>>80889749
I find it hard to believe only one person would be afflicted in this scenario.
In addition, other people can intervene in the event of property violations, so you could enlist support from other people.
I don't think the militia would risk their lives to take away one dude's gun.
>>80888790
Courts of law are a lot older than centralized government. Germanic tradition had no problem seeing several codes of law naturally compete.
If that's too much for you to believe, then at least understand that subsidiarity is at the heart of libertarian political philosophy. In other words regions being freely able to choose their code of law is prefferable to having it decided at the national level, and cities being able to choose their code of law is better than doing it at the regional level and so on.
>>80889570
>If they know who is killing, FBI uses a lot of resources on homicidal investigations.
I was thinking more of a situation of someone just going through the streets with a machine gun killing people; someone would probably shoot them down. But, as that other guy pointed out, libertarians are not anarchists and are not entirely against the police (or not against them at all in some cases). Libertarianism is about minimizing government control and interference, not eliminating it.
>>80885480
How do you physically remove people without violating the NAP?
>>80890003
Food and water are scarce by nature and cannot become general conditions of nature, like air for instance.
>>80889770
If everything is just so cheap then it won't be an issue to get your needs even with not very marketable skills innit?
It is certain that getting rich through wages will probably become impossible and pretty much already is, but entrepreneuriat is easier than it has ever been, and will likely be a much, much more common activity in the future.
>>80889578
The same way it's enforced now - it would be recognized as a constitutional right / inherent right, granted to all US citizens. So a militia would not be allowed to go around taking away other peoples' weapons.
>>80886669
>protection
aren't there guns for everyone in a free society?
>>80890010
They might not come for the gun they might come for your property and to take slaves from your town
This has been what have been propelling humans into civilization basically.
>Oh fuck some assholes on horses just came and took the neighbour villages women and gold!
>We probably need to make some swords and assemble every able bodied man in town to protect ourselves
>Taxes come in
>Conscription comes in
>Civilizations start
>>80890115
Non-aggression does not mean pacifism.
>>80885480
Op do you have Skype or something as I enjoy discussing economics and informing others about it. We should make these generals regular
>>80890458
Nah earliest civs were started by coming together to make beer. That's earliest archeological I mean
>>80889770
You're correct in saying the labor markets will be largely unpredictable, but that's a reason to keep the government out of it more than anything.
Only free markets will be able to allocate the excess appropriately, just look at the industrial revolution.
Unprecedented mechanization, yet unemployment was never an endemic issue.
>>80890485
I have Skype but I don't want to post it on 4chan. I will be making regular threads as well as looking out for active ones.
>>80890400
It's actually a pretty important point that is missed by a number of detractors and libertarian alike: libertarianism isn't a self-sustaining or failure-proof system. It requires the population to have values compatible with a durable free society. Much in the same way the constitution does nothing if people don't care about it, a libertarian society can only exist if most of the people living in it are virtuous.
That doesn't make it a pipedream. The reason the western world has no autocracies today is not some accident, it's because westerners don't believe in being ruled by kings anymore. The very same can be true of centralized governments.
>>80890458
>implying a libertarian society is somehow not a legitimate civilization
On the contrary, a society based on forcing other people to behave in a manner that you want them to, when it doesn't affect you in any provable, tangible, negative way, is barbaric. The true civilized attitude is to generally allow people to do what they want.
>>80890458
People could still coalesce in the name of collective self-defense, it would just be a voluntary system rather than a coercive one.
>>80885696
Wow..
I don't read, but he has eloquently scripted my midnight bicycle lemniscate thoughts.
ty anon
>>80890601
The earliest known urban civilization is the Sumerians
They had taxes, slaves and governmental institutions to support their civilization. And yes, they also had a military.
If you don't have a military (and it better be effective also), some assholes from another land is going to raid the shit out of you and take your shit and your women.
The need for government has followed us from the earliest civilizations and will continue to do so.
>>80891013
How do you fund it? Private military? 80% would just say fuck it, im not paying, i can just freeride the shit out of this one.
>>80890885
Tell that to the babylonians lol
>>80890252
What? With certain advances I the scarcity of those could easily be eliminated. For water just lower the price of already existing flirtation devices and you can have clean water essentially anywhere. For food genetic modification + vertical greenhouses + artificial meat + storage and transportation advances
>>80889663
I mean if your muslim you shouldn't be eating it.
>>80891182
>How do you fund it? Private military? 80% would just say fuck it, im not paying
Funding or participation. If there's a looming threat as you've described, it's unlikely people will resist it and risk their livelihood to save a couple bucks.
>>80890400
Who would stop the militia? The non-existant state?
>>80891440
>to save a couple bucks
Or their live
>"Nah i'm going to sit this one out, i'm sure you guys will handle it"
If you give people the choice to be canon fodder or not they will probably choose the latter.
>>80890795
>It's actually a pretty important point that is missed by a number of detractors and communists alike: Communism isn't a self-sustaining or failure-proof system. It requires the population to have values compatible with a durable free society. Much in the same way the constitution does nothing if people don't care about it, a communist society can only exist if most of the people living in it are virtuous.
FTFY
>>80891200
They are still finite however and are subject to laws of Economics, they will solimply become cheaper, not unlimited and free.
>>80891589
>If you give people the choice to be canon fodder or not they will probably choose the latter.
That's the problem goy. In a libertarian society you must always put the nation ahead of yourself.
>>80891182
There are ways to solve the free rider problem. One of them is that defense wouldn't be a separate service, but would be paid by companies who have an interest in having defense, namely insurance companies. So if you want to be a defense free-rider, you can not get an insurance. But in case war actually breaks out, nobody will compensate you for your destroyed house.
>>80891687
Yes? The difference is that communists are wrong and that property rights are compatible with a free society and that their absence isn't.
>>80891967
Or maybe, every one pays taxes to fund for a nationalized defense force?
>>80891967
> but would be paid by companies who have an interest in having defense
Or they could just fund the enemy if it benefits them. Companies don't care about nationalism. The care about profit. If the other nation offers them more customers and money they will choose it.
>>80891589
Wait, are you talking about funding or actually going fighting there? Because drafting is fairly useless for a modern military.
Besides, WW1 proved that voluntary enrolment can already provide way more than enough canon fodder.
>>80892072
>property rights are compatible with a free society and that their absence isn't.
I didn't know axioms were being treated as arguments now.
>>80892149
>B-BUT MUH NATIONALIST CORPORATE OWNER!!!!!
>>80892120
>tax
>nationalized
>>80891849
We're talking about a private military with private funding
>>80891967
>Live in town on the outskirts of the rest of the country
>Insurance companies do the calculations: "No the cost to protect this exceeds the benefits. We won't offer protection here"
Gee thanks insurance company. How would taxes not easily just solve this problem?
>>80892236
There is no intelligent counter argument for me to make since your only point was "your argument looks vaguely like a communist one". So what?
Also you're wrong, since commies sought to create a new man with a new morality. Capitalism is compatible with traditional morality. Property rights aren't a modern ideological invention and are the results of millenia of evolution of law.
>>80892220
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mqq1xEQDqko
;)
>>80892422
>private military with private funding
So somalia style.
>>80890629
Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to argue for government. It's mostly just something I've been thinking about lately and wondering how anarchism would be able to exist within this society as the problem I see with the free market in this case is just the amount of market and resource control by whatever massive companies own production. Like what if the company starts fixing the price and they're the only company who produce that product and the cost to start up production for it would be impossibly high for someone to create a rival and provide a cheaper/better service.
>>80892149
Yes, governments literally never did that.
The government of National Defense never capitulated to Bismarck in order to let him enter Paris and quell the rebellions there.
>>80892220
>Drafting is fairly useless for a modern military
No it's not, it depends on the type of war that is being fought. War between two great powers would mean forced drafting.
>>80892474
Property rights are pretty statist. You need a state to enforce them. No property rights is the most free system. Might should determine ownership.
>>80892481
>france being fucked by a darkie
Nothing new
>>80886235
>Pinochet
He only killed commies because they wanted to kill him. Other than that, the country was very prosperous, helping both the rich and the poor (unlike the previous president which helped neither).
>>80892716
>Yes, governments literally never did that.
Not saying it didn't. But trusting private corporations with national interest is like trusting a Human trafficker with my kid.
>>80892798
>Might should determine ownership
"
In such condition, there is no place for industry; because the fruit thereof is uncertain: and consequently no culture of the earth; no navigation, nor use of the commodities that may be imported by sea; no commodious building; no instruments of moving, and removing, such things as require much force; no knowledge of the face of the earth; no account of time; no arts; no letters; no society; and which is worst of all, continual fear, and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short."
What did Hobbes mean by this?
>>80893141
>What did Hobbes mean by this?
He was describing an-capism.
>>80892798
>Property rights are pretty statist
They are not.
>You need a state to enforce them.
You don't. Germanic tradition has existed for most of its history without state intervention.
>No property rights is the most free system. Might should determine ownership.
You're free to join your steppe brothers to pillage and plunder my friend.
>>80892720
Western powers mobilized millions of men with enrolment in WW1.
>>80893273
>a war fought in trenches
Yes i am sure it would totally be the same way today.
Also you haven't answered this yet >>80892422
>>80893132
I don't know of a single example of condottieri selling the people they were supposed to defend.
>>80893273
> Germanic tradition has existed for most of its history without state intervention.
You because lords and princes in feudalism aren't state enforced property rights.
>You're free to join your steppe brothers to pillage and plunder my friend.
I'de rather not live in an an-cap society.
>>80886839
10/10 post
>>80893273
>Western powers mobilized millions of men with enrolment in WW1.
Yeah. Then they realized how shit war actually was, so they had to draft everyone in WW2
>>80893476
>>a war fought in trenches
>Yes i am sure it would totally be the same way today.
What does this have to do with the ability to mobilize people?
>>80892422
Then stop living in a place that so indefensible that companies will refuse to insure you? You're acting like it's not stupid to build your house on the border of a precipice in a seismically active zone and complaining the insurance company won't insure you.
You would need to face a pretty dire danger for every insurance company to reject you.
>>80893495
>I don't know of a single example of condottieri selling the people they were supposed to defend.
I bet if the other side incentivized them enough they would.
>>80890485
>Non-aggression does not mean pacifism.
That doesn't really answer my question. Communists, democrats and the like he wants removed don't really have to violate anything first to be a problem - that's how subversion happens.
I want these people removed and appearently so does Hoppe, but let's be honest here: without at least some form of authoritarianism that won't be possible.
>>80893572
Lords and princes didn't make the rule of law.
>>80893690
>Then they realized how shit war actually was
Good then.
>>80886839
>Libertarian nationalist
Neo-Con?
>>80893495
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condottieri#Decline
>>80894064
>Lords and princes didn't make the rule of law.
Who does?
>Good then.
Wars still happened though. So what are you going to do when wars occur and no-one wants to fight on your side.
>>80893716
>Then don't living in a place that is so indefensible?
It's not. The cost just outweighs the potential benefit of saving it. With taxes this isn't a problem, you can live peacefully where ever you want in your country because military is build upon principle and not cost/benefit analysis.
>What does this have to do with the ability to mobilize people
You need far more manpower in wars that aren't fought in trenches but in combat between armies that goes forth and back ie ww2
>>80891510
Ok. So your point is that you need the state to stop this militia. I disagree. Prove that you need the state. Prove that they have a patent on the concept of fire / return fire - Just like how they're the only ones who can get in a truck and pour cement on the ground in a line. I think anyone could do it.
anyone else watch Christopher Cringewell?
>>80894957
> So your point is that you need the state to stop this militia. I disagree. Prove that you need the state.
Here's the thing dumbass. Eventually one militia in a stateless society becomes big enough to dominate the rest. Source: Taliban, ISIS. Without a state with a monopoly on violence militias will fight until the country is torn to shreds(somalia) or until one militia dominates and subjugates the rest(Taliban)
>>80894266
>Who does?
Courts.
>So what are you going to do when wars occur
Alliances, investment in defensive strategies and so on. Don't act like it's a simple problem either way, modern statism doesn't have an answer to the free ride problem since the whole western world free rides under the American umbrella.
>>80894287
>because military is build upon principle and not cost/benefit analysis.
Oh come on. Military is built to satisfy the objectives of political rent seekers. Modern militaries emphasize offensive strategies a lot more than defensive ones.
Besides I don't even get your point. Faced with a difficult invasion, a modern military might very well decide to leave the suburbs to the enemy and entrench inside the city. Then your suburban house is fucked either way. There is no state magic that will guarantee your safety in all situations.
>You need far more manpower in wars that aren't fought in trenches but in combat between armies that goes forth and back ie ww2
That's nonsense, are you under the delusion that WW1 was a low intensity conflict?
>>80895271
>courts
Who are these courts run by in feudal societies? The highest lord or the king.
Hoppe is a fullblown Monarch, not a libertarian.
>>80895496
>Who are these courts run by in feudal societies? The highest lord or the king.
Wrong. I suggest you learn about customary law and independant courts in feudal societies.
>>80895271
>There is no state magic that will guarantee your safety in all situations
When did i imply this? The most important aspect of having a military is not to wage war, it's to deter other nations from attacking you. If another power knows that this village isn't protected they will just go in and take it.
This is why countries will fight wars over tiny pieces of "insignificant" land. They have to, because the moment they show they are not capable of defending it, someone will move in and take it.
Vegetius said "If you want peace, prepare for war". This is basically the main function of a military. To deter.
So yes, if a war suddenly breaks out, your village will probably be fucked. But as long as there is peace between the nations, you wont have to fear anything. In your scenario with a privately funded army, you would be totally at the mercy of cost/benefit.
>>80895953
>If another power knows that this village isn't protected they will just go in and take it.
Take it from whom?
Get another insurance then. If you're in situation where it's literally impossible to get any form of private defense then it probably means a government wouldn't fare much better in that same situation.
>>80896160
>Take it from whom?
The people in the village
>a government wouldn't fare much better
This is exactly what it would, this is why taxes are superior in the sense of defense, exactly because they will offer protection to everyone inside the states territory. In your scenario your security would be determined by the place you live.
>>80895953
And I should add, insurance companies don't like to have all their eggs in one basket, which means they would probably refuse to insure more than a certain percentage of any given region. This means that an invading force would got against several corporations, and not just one.
>>80895717
>Wrong. I suggest you learn about customary law and independant courts in feudal societies.
Who enforces these laws.
>>80896665
>This means that an invading force would got against several corporations,
Great so now the corporations would just use the states as proxies for their money grabbing.
>>80896597
Why couldn't you hire another insurance than the one who doesn't want to insure you?
In your scenario, what constitutes such a place, how come there could be a case where nobody would be willing to provide security?
Because if you want defense, and your neighbour wants defense, that means there is a market for an insurance company there.
>>80896776
The different local authorities that formed the complex society of the middle ages, what sort of question is that?
>>80896940
>In your scenario, what constitutes such a place, how come there could be a case where nobody would be willing to provide security?
Economic forces don't change that drastically from company to company. It's not like All-states cost to insure you is going to be significantly different from State-farm. IF it's cost prohibitive for one to insure you it's almost definitely the case that it's cost prohibitive for the rest to insure you.
>>80897027
So the state?
>>80896597
Why do you believe a coercive government to be so much more capable of this?
I can't imagine it would be difficult to rally a populace against a looming existential threat. If people fear for their livelihoods, of course they'll be willing to defend it.
>>80897535
>I can't imagine it would be difficult to rally a populace against a looming existential threat. If people fear for their livelihoods, of course they'll be willing to defend it.
True. You would just need a giant distribution/propaganda motion to help mobilize the message. Such as a government.
>>80896940
>hire another insurance than the one who doesn't want to insure you?
What are you talking about insurance or defense?
>Because if you want defense, and your neighbour wants defense, that means there is a market for an insurance company there.
Yes but it might not be profitable for the insurance company, so nobody will provide defense to the village. This is what ecnomomists call an incomplete market. It is also one of the reasons why there is so much regulations on insurance, because the markets might not always provide a solution to a problem.
>>80897535
Because governments will fire nukes at each other if a foreign power violates it's territory
>>80897229
You might be confused about the working of feudal society. The crown was in charge of defense and not much else.
Police was the charge of municipalities, aldermen and consuls. Municipal public force was made up of municipal officers, with the help of the so called "burgher watch".
>>80897206
How can such a thing as cost-prohibitive exist? At worse you are interested in your own security, and your neighbour is. If you make a deal to establish a perimiter defense together, it's already more efficient than doing it alone. What would make it so suddenly a higher degree of collectivization of defense would be less efficient?
>>80897810
>You might be confused about the working of feudal society....
Stop being pedantic. Plus feudal societies suck. If that's the only example of an an-cap society you can point to then it's shit.
>If you make a deal to establish a perimiter defense together, it's already more efficient than doing it alone.
Yeah because me and a couple of neighbors are going to be able to defend ourselves against marauding militia or an invading state by ourselves.
>>80897701
>You would just need a giant distribution/propaganda motion to help mobilize the message.
This has brought us nothing but needless wars of aggression to suit the purposes of those in power.
And again, why is government regarded so highly in this area?
What makes them so especially competent relative to private citizens? I find this premise hard to believe, considering all of the incompetence and downright malevolence we've seen from the state as it's grown.
>>80897810
>The crown was in charge of defense and not much else in feudal society
This is not true, the king ruled by decree, they made the laws in the country.
>>80897701
>a giant distribution/propaganda motion
We're discussing on a medium almost entirely financed by private advertisement. This isn't an issue.
>>80897702
>Yes but it might not be profitable for the insurance company, so nobody will provide defense to the village.
The village itself will.
If your point is that an isolated village caught between expansionist nations can't survive, yes I agree, and no amount of libertarianism or statism will change anything to that. Honestly your objection seems to me identical to the general objection of "how can libertarian societies exist when statist societies will just want to annex them"
Or if you're talking about a village that more of a dependency of a libertarian city, then I would object that the insurance companies are subject to the very same calculations you mentioned about not showing weakness by letting go of unimportant territory.
>>80898089
>And again, why is government regarded so highly in this area?
Because i'd rather not live in somalia.
> I find this premise hard to believe, considering all of the incompetence and downright malevolence we've seen from the state as it's grown.
Yeah because warlords and tribal leaders are definitely compassionate
>>80898334
>how can libertarian societies exist when statist societies will just want to annex them
How do you counter this?
>>80898148
There is more than one country and one code of law in feudal society. The point is germanic law wasn't tied to territories, so no it wasn't the decree of crowns.
>>80898469
This is I think a reason why libertarian societies can't just appear in some isolated geographical location. A libertarian society and the networks that go with them have to form prior to the disappearance of states. The less power the states have the easier it will be to form those networks.
>>80898368
>Somalia
Classic
>Yeah because warlords and tribal leaders are definitely compassionate
You're dodging the question. Rather than confront a reality, you retreat to some vague hypothetical which lacks basis.
The government has shown incompetence and malevolence at broad scope and scale. Why do you have so much more faith in those comprising the bureaucracy than the rest of the population?
>>80895205
So it's impossible to not have socialized medicine, and to reform the education system, and to lower taxes yet spend tax money more effectively, because without these things, we're not controlling the people enough, and it will cause this militia will form and kill everybody. Got it. That seems really realistic. The place where you're drawing the line in terms of how much we need to control people isn't arbitrary at all and how dare I question it.
>>80895205
>Without a state with a monopoly on violence militias will fight until the country is torn to shreds(somalia)
But that was the opposite that happened.
A state had the monopoly of violence and yet the country was torn to shreds.
>>80898843
>The government has shown incompetence and malevolence at broad scope and scale. Why do you have so much more faith in those comprising the bureaucracy than the rest of the population?
Because bureaucracy keeps human stupidity in check better than without it.
>>80900135
oh wow
I guess le meme commie philosopher was right when he said state bureaucracy is the last contact with the dimension of the divine to the modern secular man
>>80887441
>>80887699
Not an argument
>>80892687
> MUH MUHREENS!
Every town would likely have some militia force- it'd be seen as civic duty and they would also aid in the event of natural disasters. There is no reason to have a large military unless you want to be an empire.
>>80902734
>Every town would likely have some militia force- it'd be seen as civic duty and they would also aid in the event of natural disasters.
Italian city states had this. They were raped every time a french king felt like it
>>80903014
And yet neither Napoli nor Milano were ever integrated into France.
>>80903439
Probably because France didn't see the point. Honestly the being raped part is what worries me. Not the being integrated part.
>>80903439
wow, what a victory. wow.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naples#Aragonese_to_Bourbon
>In 1501, Naples came under direct rule from France under Louis XII, with the Neapolitan king
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p4CeGyelLOU
>>80885480
>"Austrian economics"
My sides
>>80907529
>Mein Sides
>>80908044
just let it die, bro
>>80909801
>implying An-capism isn't dead
>>80885696
Recommend any books by him?
I've been binge reading free market books? Don't know what to read next though.
