This is true, and the cost for a sniper post will always be less than that of an assault force.
Oh gosh! That is so cool! I want to live in your world, where everyone has to pull money out of their pockets to hire armies with guns to defend the contracts we've signed and when I walk out onto the street (which is owned by various different parties each with their own stipulations), I have to be concerned about various snipers and armies all taking care of business for others. Like I said, I'd just rather pay taxes and get some generally consistent and mostly guaranteed infrastructure without little corporate and private wars being waged all around me, and know that most all streets are public and subject to a consistent set of laws, even if it is inefficient, because it's run by a government. |
|
|
|
Yes, you're right. It's so much better to be forced to pay for armies to fight in OTHER people's streets.
The fighting in other people's streets has nothing to do with this discussion. If you want to discuss that, first get a grounding in ecological economics and steady state growth, which I have asked you to do now for about three weeks. I have provided the links in other threads. Then come back and we can discuss that issue. |
|
|
|
So, let's imagine that there are no governments and that the rich and powerful have vast private armies. Let's also imagine that, as would be likely, there are a bunch of other private armies and though they are each far smaller, altogether the number of soldiers is greater than that in the private armies of the rich and powerful.
Now, let's simplify things a bit. Let's say that there is one big army of 1,000 soldiers owned by the rich and powerful and there are 500 small armies each with 100 soldiers owned by everyone else. If the big army were to attack any of the small armies one-on-one, they would win. So, it seems like whoever controls the big army, controls everything. But wait, what if the big army started attacking each of the small armies one after another to grab for that power? Would each of the small armies line up like dominoes waiting for their turn to be knocked down? I don't think so.
It's more likely that, even though the small armies are controlled by many different people, since they have a common enemy, they would unite long enough to take out the big army. It looks like it's not merely the biggest gun that wins. A bunch of smaller guns can win by working together and they have a motivation to do so, out of their own selfish sense of self-preservation. It's naive to think that you can just knock down army after army without being perceived as a threat to the others and taken out by a briefly united group of small armies.
Or you could just pay some taxes and in general, live in a nation that does not have a bunch of armies fighting each other in your backyard. You're rambling on about the theory of whether the biggest gun wins or not, and totally missing the point. Who wants to be concerned about hiring private armies to do battle for you in the streets? I think I'd just rather pay some god damn taxes. |
|
|
|
Because anything else would not be AnCap, by definition. It may call itself that, but it would not be. Much like the current United States insists upon calling itself a Democratic Republic, though it abandoned those principles some 150 years ago.
You seriously insult me if you think that is an answer. Let me ask the question again. In your AnCap system, which I will allow you the unrealistic supposition that NAP is the law everywhere, how is it that NAP will remain the law, and not mutate into various versions of SSOLWADNNAP, depending on locale or region? Or, in a more realistic hypothetical world, however did NAP become the law, when it is in competition with various versions of SSOLWADNNAP? |
|
|
|
What is this jibber-jabber? (bolded)
Some set of laws which are decidedly not NAP. |
|
|
|
So, with that in mind, I'd like to paint a picture of AnCapistan, A country with no borders, a land with no government, a place where there's only one law: "No one may threaten or commit violence ('aggress') against another man's person or property. Violence may be employed only against the man who commits such violence; that is, only defensively against the aggressive violence of another. In short, no violence may be employed against a nonaggressor." It certainly is ill defined. But first, let's make sure we're not building this society on a set of shaky legs. I think the first order of business is to get a solid answer to the following question: How is it that that NAP is the law, and not various versions of SSOLWADNNAP, depending on locale or region? Everything else is pointless supposition until the above question is answered. |
|
|
|
You're outmatched and you're frustrated so you resort to your default sarcastic douchebaggery self-defense mechanism.
Who is he outmatched by? |
|
|
|
Again, you said that people would not read it. People do.
I never said any such thing. I stated that people would not read your hypothetical book, as a way of demonstrating how your arguments do not adequately capture the way human societies come into being, and evolve. Furthermore, regarding the examples you have given, consider the audience who is reading such material. Hint: look in the mirror. |
|
|
|
The technical term is Science-Fiction.
You are mincing words. |
|
|
|
In fact, if you'd like, a whole chunk of such fiction has been made into comics, most of which you can read online free-of-cost at http://www.bigheadpress.com/ I highly recommend Escape From Terra. Newbies to libertarian thought should definitely start at the start, but you can jump in at the start of any storyline. And how is this not a fantasy-world? |
|
|
|
perhaps the community you live in will slowly evolve into a pirate enclave Clearly, you're the one living in a fantasy. Why are the statists on these forums such clowns? Oh that's right, because it's an ideology for idiots and/or cowards. Somalia. |
|
|
|
Tell me, in your "fantasy-world", why do you think that everyone will abide by that law?
Because those that do not will: a) pay restitution to those who they have harmed (Financial incentive) b) be ostracized (social, and to a lesser extent, financial incentive) or c) be killed in the commission of an aggressive act. What makes you think those will be the laws? Communities gather like minded individuals, and perhaps the community you live in will slowly evolve into a pirate enclave, for all you know. Keep dreaming about your "fantasy-world". You could write a fictional book about your ideal society, and most people would stop reading it halfway through because it does not realistically model human behavior. It would have the feel of a naive writer creating fiction to masquerade as his propaganda for an implausible society. |
|
|
|
Murray Rothbard does a fine job of explaining it, so I'll let him: "No one may threaten or commit violence ('aggress') against another man's person or property. Violence may be employed only against the man who commits such violence; that is, only defensively against the aggressive violence of another. In short, no violence may be employed against a nonaggressor. Here is the fundamental rule from which can be deduced the entire corpus of libertarian theory." If that ain't consistent, I don't know what is. Absolutely ridiculous. There is a large enough percentage of humans who will gravitate towards those who seem to be gathering power. Tell me, in your "fantasy-world", why do you think that everyone will abide by that law? |
|
|
|
If you were dumb enough to buy property next to my property without ensuring that you also bought access rights to get off your property, yes. However, that would rarely ever happen. A builder wants to sell houses. A road owner wants people to use his roads. These two would naturally come to an arrangement so that it would be possible. However, there might be a few cases where some idiot like yourself bought land he can't get on or off without a helicopter, in which case, too damn bad. Maybe you won't be such a drooling moron in the future.
I'm not the idiot here. How do I ensure that the people who own the land around me don't change how they wish to use it? Who regulates that? |
|
|
|
It's already been addressed. You lost the argument by admitting that I have the right to control my private property however I see fit.
In other words, you can decide to put a fence up where my driveway leads out of my property? |
|
|
|
That's just playing into his hands. Now he's going to whine about all the poor people that can't afford helicopter rides.
The point is, nobody is going to buy land unless there's a stipulation that access can never be denied by some maniac buying up all the surrounding land. When he buys the land he won't be buying up the right to deny access because that's not something the seller will own. It will have already been sold to the guy in the middle of the other land.
See Walter Block's "The Privatization of Roads and Highways" for a detailed argument.
Good point, but 'poor people' usually can't afford to buy land, either. And yes, only idiots buy land without a driveway. Who owns the driveway and who makes sure it stays a driveway? |
|
|
|
You're talking about homesteading a donut shaped parcel of land around some unowned parcel of land. You can't do that in the first place. However, if you were to homestead a parcel of land and then try to sell the center of a donut to someone, nobody would buy it unless there was a contract granting access. Just like you have title insurance when buying a house, you would have access insurance, to make sure you can actually get out of the driveway of the $200,000 home you just bought.
You don't get it, do you? Try harder. |
|
|
|
|
Imagine if I bought the land on all sides of myrkul. I could have some fun, then.
|
|
|
|
|
Mostly I agree with the Libs' arguments here, but as usual, they don't completely grasp the full nature of what they're proposing. As an example, let's say I own a parcel of land. Who and what owns the parcels of land on all sides of me? What if they have obscure rules regarding entry onto their property? I'd be totally screwed. In other words - their system is lame, despite the fact that I agree with what they're saying about private property.
|
|
|
|
|
Also, there's a huge market for moving people around the planet. Granted, there's also a huge untapped market for putting stuff in space, but it ain't nowhere near as big as the market for moving people around the planet. And thus, while we certainly have a demand to get stuff into space, it will never be able to take advantage of the economies of scale that are realizable in the airline industry.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
