Bitcoin Forum

Over 150 judicial and defense corporations (aka countries or governments) compete for your citizenship and taxation. Not pleased with your current one? Pick another or build your own.

Flexible options are available such as the nearly tax-free city-states of Monaco, Hong-Kong and Singapore. Confederate republics such as Switzerland and the United States are happy to provide you with the level of sovereignty you desire.

Not pleased with the current actions of overreaching defense corporations such as the US Military, NATO and the UN? Contact your local resistance group or arms supplier today.

lol.. classic Atlas.

I've already established this in numerous threads. Our AnCap society has even had one member use a nuclear weapon on another.

The difference: You actually believe that BS.

Those who tell us that X political candidate will return us to the evils of laissez-faire when we're forced to use fiat issued by the biggest laissez-faire outfit in history, an outfit  which all political candidates support to the point of buttkissing, suffer from some of the worst cognitive dissonance one can witness.

What BS would that be?

...which would be my point...

If you can't formulate a proper reply that addresses your claims, then clearly it's time to call it quits for the day. Maybe watch a movie or something. Would you like some recommendations? Try The Face of Another.

This kind of blows my mind.

I mean ok but... with such a point of view, was there any point in history when there was anything but a worldwide anarcho-capitalism?  Does this very concept mean anything in that sense?

Local anarcho-capitalism seems to be a different story.

Time for the daily logic lesson already, is it?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum

I did not sign any contract (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract) with my government.  >:(

Well, it is kind of true. There is no reason why you can't hire a different company to protect you from the one that is supressing you now?

And if it is not possible now, why would it be different in any other scenario?

We do live in an Anarcho-Capitalist world, it's just that most people don't follow the NAP.

Anarcho-capitalism is defined by the NAP. What you have just said is akin to "We do live in a world where most people follow the NAP, it's just that most people don't follow the NAP."

Actually, it's not entirely true that "most people don't follow the NAP". Most people, as individuals, do informally follow the NAP in their dealings with other individuals. Theft and assault and other forms of aggression between individuals are rare, and not generally viewed as legitimate even by non-anarcho-capitalists. Where we differ is that the average person gives the State a free pass to violate the NAP. An anarcho-capitalist applies the NAP in an even and unbiased manner; aggression undertaken by the State is no more legitimate than than aggression practiced by any other individual or group.

No, and no, not really.

That is a real argument that has been made by political philosophers regarding anarcho-capitalism: If you don't like your country, "vote with your feet" in the marketplace of sovereign states. Hong Kong, for instance, is much more libertarian than the United States, and Somalia has almost no rules at all. I wish I could remember who argued this (it was a highly developed and nuanced argument from an actual scholar), but I can't. So I might be oversimplifying and/or leaving holes here.

And true, none of us signed a contract to live our own country, but we were born in it, so our parents basically signed it for us. After all, we were babies. You have to start somewhere. It's not like there's a magical neutral place where we can grow up, develop adult consciousnesses, and make an informed decision from afar. A rough metaphor for such a place would be counter at a fast food restaurant: We can hang back in line for a while and choose our favorite from the menu. But in the real world, we're born with a cheeseburger already in front of us, even if we'd really prefer some chicken McNuggets.

In any case, it is true that we can all do whatever the hell we want, within the limitations of our physical and mental capacities, and to the extent that we can conquer powerful people that we might disagree with (e.g., the US gov't and its military). But that's a truism, and therefore not particularly useful, which is why some thinkers don't think that anarcho-capitalism is a particularly useful concept. Such a society could never be established in a democracy, anyway.

He's talking at a higher level, that of countries, not people. Most countries do follow the NAP with respect to other countries, resorting to force only very rarely and usually in response to what they at least consider force being used against them. Most countries do allow other countries to do what they wish with what is theirs, primarily interceding by using pressure (economic, moral, political) rather than force.