Lets start with privately funded security.
What happens when one such security provider becomes tyrannical and starts abusing people?
Fallacy: begging the question.
You make an assumption that security is only provided by privately funded security businesses and then you make a conclusion that we ancaps should now argue against. Well many ancaps may fall into this trap, but I wont. I never conceded to your assumption that private security firms would be the only way security would be provided in an ancap society.
[...]
Great job.
To be fair, I no longer answer questions like the one you're answering, where the hypothesis is privileged by constructing a crazy fictional scenario of Mad Max statelessness.
Why? Simply because (a) said questions are not really genuine questions, (b) because when I flip the question their "solution" is worse than AIDS + cancer, (c) because people asking the question are simply mad.
--------------------------------------
(a) To understand the folly of this question, I offer a simplified version:
If I complain that there is a bully who steals half of what everyone makes, and as a response my interlocutor asks "What? You wanna do away with the bully? Then how are you going to solve the problem of random people becoming strong and bullying others?", it's
obvious that the question is not really a question -- it's merely an attempt to evade a painful reality. It's nothing but a stupid complaint
in the form of a question, that erroneously complains about the very situation they're already in, as if they weren't in that situation.
Why do they dare demand you give them a solution for fictional bullies, when they are already living under the thumb of a very real bully? Hint: it's not because they care about the truth -- it's because they hate it.
--------------------------------------
(b) Now, let's flip the original question around and ask:
What do
statists do when
their "security" provider becomes tyrannical? Vote? Hah, no they don't. Look at history.
They all quietly and impotently are murdered by the millions. Even in "non-tyrannical" societies, many millions are in cages for "legal" decisions that could only be described as malevolent and clearly unjust. In these societies, their "security" provider will murder them, if they resist the orders and demands of their "security" provider using any effective means.
If their theory of "society" can't stand the scrutiny of their own question, I hardly feel obligated to answer it.
--------------------------------------
(c) Not to mention that, to portray as a "security" provider any group of people that can make demands of you, and can kill / cage / brutalize you with impunity if you disobey, is rampant
madness.
That is why I use scare quotes around the word "security".
---------------------------
In sum:
(a) Their solution to an imaginary problem is a real nightmare.
(b) They do not ask the question because they want to know the answer.
(c) They are mad.
Thus, I know that the ten minutes I waste answering their bullshit "question" will surely be met with a change of subject, an insult, or denial.
Now you know why I don't waste my time explaining the basics of reality to such people anymore.
Show Posts
