This just goes back again to it being your choice to ignore others property, and their choice to defend it, with force if they must. Something that already exists in current system of government. Not sure why you would even consider this...

Because private courts and private security forces with guns likely will. You guys keep assuming that everything in liberland will be totally individualized, with everyone being in it only for themselves. That's not how business works, and not how liberland likely would, either.

Do you honestly check the deed of ownership on file for every piece of property you come across when you hike? Or do you assume that property without obvious ownership is government/publically owned? Would you simply not assume that all property was privately owned in liberland? And why do you assume that all private property owners would object to strangers hiking on their unused land?

So, are you saying that under current government system you can hike or do scientific studies on private fenced in land without asking owner's permission first?

Why would you be near that parcel of land and need to cross it in the first place?

When being a "man" or an "adult" or whateverthefuck is not a prerequisite to giving you any attention?

So, you're saying that if liberland was established somewhere, the rest of the world would stop regulating nukes? And isn't most uranium mined in Africa? Why isn't Somalia making its own nukes from stuff they can easily buy from their neighbors, or possibly dig up from the ground?

Yep, libland isn't necessarily great, and can be dangerous, especially when in its infancy and being established on the base of a very poor and desperate population. So stop with the nuke strawmen.

Here's a WAY better (in my opinion, anyway) question than the stupid, hyperbolic nuke and smallpox strawmen:
Who owns radio spectrums and air space above people's land, and how would things like radio interference or single governing body like FAA preventing planes from crashing midair and causing damage to property below, be addressed in liberland?

You were. Thanks for avoiding the point.

More fail, though I can see why you'd get confused. I'm not here to argue the points of the other guys. I'm just here to question the validity of your premises.
Would privately owned nukes held by corporations for the purposes of asteroid mining or asteroid defence be out of the question btw?

When was the last time someone in totally ungoverned Somalia lit off a nuke? If Somalia is what you believe liberland would be like, if lack of government means people will be buying nukes and juggling vials of smallpox, and if Somalia does in fact have religious and tribal infighting by warlords and heavilly armed security companies, then why are your hypothetical not happening there? Is it just a matter of time?

I didn't say anything about where the funding came from, I said specifically who they answer to. I don't pay police directly, so they have nothing to worry about regarding their paychecks if they decide to pull me over and beat me up for some made up reason. As long as the politicians, and I guess the majority of the voters support them, they feel safe (though even the later is questionable, since cops have been known to keep their jobs even when most of the neighborhood was pissed at their actions).
I wonder if there is a comparison out there between police brutality in public spaces, and security brutality at malls and stores?

There are no real world examples of lib-land, so no real world issues it currently faces, thus


is fail in a discussion about hypothetical governing systems, and


is just total fail, period.

If you wanted to discuss free market capitalism supported by libertarians, as it would apply within a democratic government based on taxation and regulation, you should have said so, instead of resorting to childish insults. Though I believe the original discussion WAS about hypotheticals...

I never claimed that. As you suggested, I think both systems of government will have similar results. The only big difference will be that certain rules (laws) will exist because some companies are blatantly enforcing them for their own financial benefit, not because of some random arbitrary political bullshit. Current private security forces answer to corporations, and current armies and police forces answer to politicians (and sometimes also corporations). They do not seek funding from private citizens, do not depend on it, and thus do not have to answer to citizens. Can you not at least concede that having a portion of their income come from protecting individuals would at least give them an incentive to work on keeping individuals safe, and not waste money on arbitrary wars on concepts like war on terrorism?
Also, um, why would private corporations waste money on paying their security companies to wage war?



Because unlike you, I don't believe I have all the correct answers, don't believe the world is exactly as I have constructed it in my limited scope of mind, and am willing to learn about other alternatives, even if I don't believe they are realistic, as opposed to just dismissng them out of hand with "that's stupid?" In short, I don't think I'm an omnipotent god with all the answers. THAT would be delusional.

Time to readjust arbitrary long-term trendlines downwards, and come out with new useless projections?

It's gone viral once before already, many years ago. People kind of knew me just because of the table. About 5 years ago someone even made an exact replica of the table in Second Life, pic and all, and upgraded it to be able to display a slide show of images people load themselves. A large long LCD panel under glass on a coffee table would be cool iRL...
Anyone still interested, the link is in the Part 2 Animal House thread, I think of page 7, first link in the group FAtlas posted. The rest are my bf's pics (stuff I'm not really into, so, warning, it'll likely be bleh for you too.)

I think the blatantly obvious reason (though maybe not to everyone) is that the state answers to whichever political party is in charge, or worse, whichever politician happens to be corrupt and in the pocket of a megacorporation, while those security forces and large businesses in "libertardland" still have to answer to them directly if they want their money. In short, the state gives corporations with political money the right to arbitrarily make laws that benefit only those corporations, help them establish monopolies, and force you to buy their products, while without the state those corporations would have to compete, and even monopolies will have to worry about threats from new technologies or substitutes.
Just a guess here :/

OK, so why would anyone in the production chain have a reason to make sure their stuff doesn't get used for bad purposes? Nuclear and bioweapon materials are extremely dangerous to handle and extremely expensive to produce. What's the incentive for someone making tem, and do you think there can be any incentive outside of an even bigger bullky with guns to keep those who make the stuff from selling it to whomever? (Like avoid selling a nuke to anti-nuke groups who use it to blow up your own factories?)

Here:  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=38854.0

I have yet to see any of you answer the question of how a libertarian free-market society would prevent crazy people from owning nukes, or juggling vials of dangerous bioweapons.

I think unless FirstAscent, AyeYo, or Hawker can themselves explain how exactly a free market libertarian system can address the issues they bring up, and THEN explain why that way of addressing those issues is worse than it's currently done, this whole "debate" will be nothing but a circle-jerk by people who can't even understand what they are talkimg about. "You're wrong, it won't work, because I said so/it's stupid/because it's not how things currently work" is not an argument. You guys have not demonstrated an ability, or willingness, to think things through, and instead are rather quick to let this "debate" degenerate into personal insults.