If the minimum reason a government exists....

[Bitcoin Oz]

is the protection of property what is the point of its existence in a world where property and contracts are unenforceable ?

People can steal your coins and there is nothing the state can do to get them back. Bitcoin and the state are mutually exclusive because if bitcoin exists the purpose and excuse for government flies out the window.

In this case you may as well use the mafia to break peoples legs. But if a government exists it will prevent the mafia from doing so...

You can see in this scenario that a government existing when bitcoin does prevents retaliation and protects criminals. They can steal your coins but the government prevents you from seizing the criminals property to reimburse the victim.

[ECore]

The government doesn't exist to protect your property. That's YOUR job.  It's the police dept. job to investigate any wrongs, but what you are implying is that you are throwing your wallet out into the street and the gov'ment is supposed to be there to guard it.

The federal government exists for infrastructure and defense, not to hold your hand in your financial decisions.

[Rudd-O]

The government doesn't exist to protect your property. That's YOUR job.  It's the police dept. job to investigate any wrongs, but what you are implying is that you are throwing your wallet out into the street and the gov'ment is supposed to be there to guard it.

The federal government exists for infrastructure and defense, not to hold your hand in your financial decisions.

To the extent that I was informed, you are mistaken. Allegedly the whole point of the government is to provide protection -- this is what is known as "duty of protection" that you get in exchange for your "duty of allegiance" that you owe to the government. And yes, this "duty of protection" allegedly extends to your property. Why do you think theft and fraud are statutorily codified as crime?

Now, to be fair, government has repeatedly stated that they owe no such "duty of protection" (look up the Marc Stevens talk called Delusions). This means that the reason given by people doing business as "government" to boss you around and violently punish you when you fail to fulfill your "duty of Allegiance" is obviously a false reason -- in short, that they are operating nothing more than a massive criminal scam under color of legitimacy.

But we knew that already.

[Richy_T]

Various governments around the world exist for lots of different reasons.

Unfortunately, for some reason Bitcoin seems to attract a few extremist nutters who worship Property (and money) above all else as their god, and equate most forms of 'community' and organisational structures with Satan. They see Bitcoin as a useful tool that they can misuse to promote their crazy utopias.

If property is such a terrible thing, why do the statists want to take it so badly?

[Rudd-O]

Various governments around the world exist for lots of different reasons.

Unfortunately, for some reason Bitcoin seems to attract a few extremist nutters who worship Property (and money) above all else as their god, and equate most forms of 'community' and organisational structures with Satan. They see Bitcoin as a useful tool that they can misuse to promote their crazy utopias.

If property is such a terrible thing, why do the statists want to take it so badly?

Because they're lying, or they're hypocrites, or they want the use of property for themselves but not for others, or... well, insert any corrupt reason you can think of.  It's the same shit pie that Catholicism sold to everyone ("be poor, give all your money to the church because property is bad"), just shrinkwrapped in a new statist package.

[myrkul]

is the protection of property what is the point of its existence in a world where property and contracts are unenforceable ?

People can steal your coins and there is nothing the state can do to get them back. Bitcoin and the state are mutually exclusive because if bitcoin exists the purpose and excuse for government flies out the window.

In this case you may as well use the mafia to break peoples legs. But if a government exists it will prevent the mafia from doing so...

You can see in this scenario that a government existing when bitcoin does prevents retaliation and protects criminals. They can steal your coins but the government prevents you from seizing the criminals property to reimburse the victim.

You've got maximum and minimum mixed up. But other than that, you've a good point.

[tbdunamis]

Who says that the reason for a government to exist is the protection of property?  From what I've learned, the reason for the existence of government is the protection of people from those people who seek to cause harm.  If people would come to the place of agreement that telling the truth resolves everything, while causing harm resolves nothing, then government would become obsolete.  Of course, those who take offense at the truth tend to interpret that as being harmed by it, and respond with harmful retaliation to the messenger.  This in turn not only justifies the existence of government, but creates the conditions for it to proliferate in the varying aspects of people's life.

[Richy_T]

The reason for the existence of government is that some people want to tell others what to do and profit off the fruit of their labor. Anything else is post-hoc rationalization. This is why some of the founding fathers attempted to defang the government as much as possible and why they had so much trouble doing so.

[myrkul]

The reason for the existence of government is that some people want to tell others what to do and profit off the fruit of their labor. Anything else is post-hoc rationalization. This is why some of the founding fathers attempted to defang the government as much as possible and why they had so much trouble doing so.

And why they failed so miserably.

[CountSparkle]

The OP is giving the Mafia a bad name. They don't break legs, they provide black market jobs for those who need them (making wallets, purses, counterfit clothing, and things like that), and keep neighborhoods clean and safe. Go visit southern Italy some time. Not even drug pushers on the street, because the Mafia has a very dim view of anyone trying to sell drugs to bambini.

[myrkul]

The OP is giving the Mafia a bad name. They don't break legs, they provide black market jobs for those who need them (making wallets, purses, counterfit clothing, and things like that), and keep neighborhoods clean and safe. Go visit southern Italy some time. Not even drug pushers on the street, because the Mafia has a very dim view of anyone trying to sell drugs to bambini.

The Mafia do the same things governments do, and they're typically politer about it when they do.

[myrkul]

The OP is giving the Mafia a bad name. They don't break legs, they provide black market jobs for those who need them (making wallets, purses, counterfit clothing, and things like that), and keep neighborhoods clean and safe. Go visit southern Italy some time. Not even drug pushers on the street, because the Mafia has a very dim view of anyone trying to sell drugs to bambini.

Do they also provide schools for normal children whose parents don't have enough money for "home schooling"? What about hospitals for normal non-rich people? Orphanages for normal kids without huge inheritances? Asylums for crazy people without rich relatives, and all those other unprofitable things that Capitalism is unable to provide?

If I had all day, I could probably come up with at least one hundred unique services that governments do but Capitalists won't do, even in a political vacuum, because they're inherently unprofitable. Well, I suppose one could, theoretically donate to 100 different charities, individually inspect their operations and finances, and kindly volunteer to pay extra because of all the other people who don't want to... But I thought Capitalism was supposed to be so much more efficient than a mixed system with some Capitalism and some Socialism -- what gives??

First off, you haven't come up with one service that capitalists wouldn't provide, much less one hundred. If you can't think of a way to make something profitable, you're not cut out to be a capitalist. Get a job working for one.

Secondly, why the need for one person donating to 100 individual charities? Couldn't 100 people, each donating to a charity, provide the same benefit, more efficiently, as 100 people each donating to 100 charities? Seriously. The box. You are stuck inside it.

[myrkul]

The OP is giving the Mafia a bad name. They don't break legs, they provide black market jobs for those who need them (making wallets, purses, counterfit clothing, and things like that), and keep neighborhoods clean and safe. Go visit southern Italy some time. Not even drug pushers on the street, because the Mafia has a very dim view of anyone trying to sell drugs to bambini.

Do they also provide schools(1) for normal children whose parents don't have enough money for "home schooling"? What about hospitals(2) for normal non-rich people? Orphanages(3) for normal kids without huge inheritances? Asylums(4) for crazy people without rich relatives, and all those other unprofitable things that Capitalism is unable to provide?

If I had all day, I could probably come up with at least one hundred unique services that governments do but Capitalists won't do, even in a political vacuum, because they're inherently unprofitable. Well, I suppose one could, theoretically donate to 100 different charities, individually inspect their operations and finances, and kindly volunteer to pay extra because of all the other people who don't want to... But I thought Capitalism was supposed to be so much more efficient than a mixed system with some Capitalism and some Socialism -- what gives??

First off, you haven't come up with one service that capitalists wouldn't provide, much less one hundred. If you can't think of a way to make something profitable, you're not cut out to be a capitalist. Get a job working for one.

I already listed four. Furthermore, those are mostly umbrella terms covering a variety of more specific non-profit services. The onus is on you to debunk, if you can. Why must you be so arrogant and stupid?

No, you listed four services which you think cannot be made profitable. I say again: If you can't think of a way to make something profitable, you're not cut out to be a capitalist. Get a job working for one.

[TheButterZone]

The OP is giving the Mafia a bad name. They don't break legs, they provide black market jobs for those who need them (making wallets, purses, counterfit clothing, and things like that), and keep neighborhoods clean and safe. Go visit southern Italy some time. Not even drug pushers on the street, because the Mafia has a very dim view of anyone trying to sell drugs to bambini.

Do they also provide schools(1) for normal children whose parents don't have enough money for "home schooling"? What about hospitals(2) for normal non-rich people? Orphanages(3) for normal kids without huge inheritances? Asylums(4) for crazy people without rich relatives, and all those other unprofitable things that Capitalism is unable to provide?

If I had all day, I could probably come up with at least one hundred unique services that governments do but Capitalists won't do, even in a political vacuum, because they're inherently unprofitable. Well, I suppose one could, theoretically donate to 100 different charities, individually inspect their operations and finances, and kindly volunteer to pay extra because of all the other people who don't want to... But I thought Capitalism was supposed to be so much more efficient than a mixed system with some Capitalism and some Socialism -- what gives??

First off, you haven't come up with one service that capitalists wouldn't provide, much less one hundred. If you can't think of a way to make something profitable, you're not cut out to be a capitalist. Get a job working for one.

I already listed four. Furthermore, those are mostly umbrella terms covering a variety of more specific non-profit services. The onus is on you to debunk, if you can. Why must you be so arrogant and stupid?

Blablahblah: "If I can't think of a way to make these general services profitable, THEN NOBODY CAN!"

That is the height of arrogant stupidity.

[ElectricMucus]

Well, most charities and organisations are per definition non-profiting. (Hence not-for-profit)

But saying that they could be profitable is splitting hairs: They would be structured very differently if so.

[myrkul]

Well, most charities and organisations are per definition non-profiting. (Hence not-for-profit)

But saying that they could be profitable is splitting hairs: They would be structured very differently if so.

Yes, but he's saying that those services can not be provided profitably at a low price. Which is, as TBZ points out, arrogant stupidity (a specialty of wawahwah's). And even if they were provided on a charitable basis, private charity is 233% more efficient than government programs. Which makes sense, since they're competing for charity dollars, instead of stealing tax dollars.

[ElectricMucus]

Well, most charities and organisations are per definition non-profiting. (Hence not-for-profit)

But saying that they could be profitable is splitting hairs: They would be structured very differently if so.

Yes, but he's saying that those services can not be provided profitably at a low price. Which is, as TBZ points out, arrogant stupidity (a specialty of wawahwah's). And even if they were provided on a charitable basis, private charity is 233% more efficient than government programs. Which makes sense, since they're competing for charity dollars, instead of stealing tax dollars.

I would counter that they could not be provided to the poor, or in detail they wouldn't be able to provide services at a negative income.
I say: Today's non-profiting organisations do not need the Government. But if they were to rely on capitalism that would raise some issues when aiming for a class-free society.
They should rely on gift culture instead.

[myrkul]

Well, most charities and organisations are per definition non-profiting. (Hence not-for-profit)

But saying that they could be profitable is splitting hairs: They would be structured very differently if so.

Yes, but he's saying that those services can not be provided profitably at a low price. Which is, as TBZ points out, arrogant stupidity (a specialty of wawahwah's). And even if they were provided on a charitable basis, private charity is 233% more efficient than government programs. Which makes sense, since they're competing for charity dollars, instead of stealing tax dollars.

I would counter that they could not be provided to the poor, or in detail they wouldn't be able to provide services at a negative income.

So, you're basically saying the same thing: that they could not be made to turn a profit at low prices. Why? What barriers do you see to, say, low price schooling?

[TheButterZone]

Well, most charities and organisations are per definition non-profiting. (Hence not-for-profit)

But saying that they could be profitable is splitting hairs: They would be structured very differently if so.

Yes, but he's saying that those services can not be provided profitably at a low price. Which is, as TBZ points out, arrogant stupidity (a specialty of wawahwah's). And even if they were provided on a charitable basis, private charity is 233% more efficient than government programs. Which makes sense, since they're competing for charity dollars, instead of stealing tax dollars.

I would counter that they could not be provided to the poor, or in detail they wouldn't be able to provide services at a negative income.

So, you're basically saying the same thing: that they could not be made to turn a profit at low prices. Why? What barriers do you see to, say, low price schooling?

The government itself. Namely, taxation and regulation.

[myrkul]

Well, most charities and organisations are per definition non-profiting. (Hence not-for-profit)

But saying that they could be profitable is splitting hairs: They would be structured very differently if so.

Yes, but he's saying that those services can not be provided profitably at a low price. Which is, as TBZ points out, arrogant stupidity (a specialty of wawahwah's). And even if they were provided on a charitable basis, private charity is 233% more efficient than government programs. Which makes sense, since they're competing for charity dollars, instead of stealing tax dollars.

I would counter that they could not be provided to the poor, or in detail they wouldn't be able to provide services at a negative income.

So, you're basically saying the same thing: that they could not be made to turn a profit at low prices. Why? What barriers do you see to, say, low price schooling?

The government itself. Namely, taxation and regulation.

Well, yes, that's my stance, but I'm more interested in his.

[ElectricMucus]

Well for once in order to be low priced it would need to sell the labour of the students to compensate for the lack of other income. I view this as problematic to qualify as good education.

The next thing is education would be very specific early on, depending on which employees the shareholders think to need in to future for their other companies. For instance it might not be a requirement for industry to hire people with decent language skills. And finally at some point not only the school but also the housing (of their workforce) would be owned by the same shareholders putting people who are in the system very dependent on it.

[myrkul]

Well for once in order to be low priced it would need to sell the labour of the students to compensate for the lack of other income. I view this as problematic to qualify as good education.

That's one way to generate extra income, but it doesn't address - or even touch upon - the barriers that require the extra income. The service is education. Why can it not be provided at low price?

What are the costs that preclude this?

[ElectricMucus]

Well for once in order to be low priced it would need to sell the labour of the students to compensate for the lack of other income. I view this as problematic to qualify as good education.

That's one way to generate extra income, but it doesn't address - or even touch upon - the barriers that require the extra income. The service is education. Why can it not be provided at low price?

It can but only at decreased value. In order to be still profitable there would have to be certain things be employed which improve profitability already in use in commerce.
Like overbooking. (there would be more students assigned to a class than there are seats to account for the probability of absence)
Or labour which doesn't improve education. (highly repetitive for instance)

At some point low priced education wouldn't even qualify as education any more. (by my standards)

[myrkul]

Well for once in order to be low priced it would need to sell the labour of the students to compensate for the lack of other income. I view this as problematic to qualify as good education.

That's one way to generate extra income, but it doesn't address - or even touch upon - the barriers that require the extra income. The service is education. Why can it not be provided at low price?

It can but only at decreased value.

You get what you pay for, in other words, yes?

Do you know what the differences are between a poor man's television and a rich man's television? Bells and whistles. Picture-in-picture, more channels, 3-d, extra pixels. But they're both televisions, and both do the same job. A poor person may not be able to afford the best education for their child. But teaching them how to learn, and giving them the necessary skills to learn is not hard, nor expensive, and asking them "What do you want to be when you grow up," and then pointing them to the knowledge required for that particular profession is not much more added expense. That's basic education. Extra stuff, like social studies, history, etc, can be added if you want, or studied on their own. Learning is best accomplished when you want to learn.

[ElectricMucus]

You are right, it would work. But I think it would even turn out to be worse for the proletariat (sorry to use that term)
IMO capitalism has no purpose when gift culture could replace it, there is a place for capitalism in regard to things with inherent scarcity.

For instance I am for the full abolishment of copyright and intellectual property since they only depend on artificial scarcity.
Education, obviously would be affected by this as well. Can't buy the hardcopy version? download it.

[myrkul]

You are right, it would work. But I think it would even turn out to be worse for the proletariat (sorry to use that term)
IMO capitalism has no purpose when gift culture could replace it, there is a place for capitalism in regard to things with inherent scarcity.

For instance I am for the full abolishment of copyright and intellectual property since they only depend on artificial scarcity.
Education, obviously would be affected by this as well. Can't buy the hardcopy version? download it.

That would make knowledge free (as in beer). Completely free knowledge, coupled with the other societal changes I advocate, such as the removal of licensing restrictions for entry into professions, would make upward mobility a very easy thing to do, at least to your level of ability in your chosen field.

[asdf]

IMO capitalism has no purpose when gift culture could replace it, there is a place for capitalism in regard to things with inherent scarcity.

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

How will resources be allocated efficiently in a gift culture?

[myrkul]

IMO capitalism has no purpose when gift culture could replace it, there is a place for capitalism in regard to things with inherent scarcity.

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

How will resources be allocated efficiently in a gift culture?

I don't think he ever suggested they would be. Note: "there is a place for capitalism in regard to things with inherent scarcity." such as resources. For things like information, however, a gift economy would work fine.

[asdf]

IMO capitalism has no purpose when gift culture could replace it, there is a place for capitalism in regard to things with inherent scarcity.

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

How will resources be allocated efficiently in a gift culture?

I don't think he ever suggested they would be. Note: "there is a place for capitalism in regard to things with inherent scarcity." such as resources. For things like information, however, a gift economy would work fine.

Sorry. I didn't read the whole thread.

[myrkul]

IMO capitalism has no purpose when gift culture could replace it, there is a place for capitalism in regard to things with inherent scarcity.

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

How will resources be allocated efficiently in a gift culture?

I don't think he ever suggested they would be. Note: "there is a place for capitalism in regard to things with inherent scarcity." such as resources. For things like information, however, a gift economy would work fine.

Sorry. I didn't read the whole thread.

Or even the whole post you quoted?

[ElectricMucus]

IMO capitalism has no purpose when gift culture could replace it, there is a place for capitalism in regard to things with inherent scarcity.

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

How will resources be allocated efficiently in a gift culture?

First come first serve.

[CountSparkle]

The OP is giving the Mafia a bad name. They don't break legs, they provide black market jobs for those who need them (making wallets, purses, counterfit clothing, and things like that), and keep neighborhoods clean and safe. Go visit southern Italy some time. Not even drug pushers on the street, because the Mafia has a very dim view of anyone trying to sell drugs to bambini.

Do they...

No, because they don't see that as their job. Does Google make cars? Does government make cell phones? What's your point?


Are you such a horrible person that the only reason you give anything to support those poor, uneducated, retard orphans is because the government is forcing you, and believe thats the only reason everyone else gives to charity, too? Do you not know that mega corporations like Walmart, Target, Mcdonalds, and others give millions to charity every year, despite it going against their profit models, sometimes because they want good publicity for their company, and sometimes because their owners are human beings, too, and feel charitable? You have a pretty bleak view of the world   

[myrkul]

Well for once in order to be low priced it would need to sell the labour of the students to compensate for the lack of other income. I view this as problematic to qualify as good education.

That's one way to generate extra income, but it doesn't address - or even touch upon - the barriers that require the extra income. The service is education. Why can it not be provided at low price?

It can but only at decreased value.

You get what you pay for, in other words, yes?

Do you know what the differences are between a poor man's television and a rich man's television? Bells and whistles. Picture-in-picture...

Completely free knowledge, coupled with the other societal changes I advocate, such as the removal of licensing restrictions for entry into professions, would make upward mobility a very easy thing to do, at least to your level of ability in your chosen field.

You see, this is why I hardly bother replying any more. There was obviously something very, very wrong with your education.

Ask yourself this: what upward mobility would the 'poor' demographic have if -- as a result of their shitty education -- they are systematically denied the best jobs, get lower pay for the same role, are less able to support themselves, and on average their offspring are put in exactly the same situation?

<snip typical blablahblah from wawahwah>

What makes you think they would be? If you demonstrate better competency in a skill than someone who was more "educated" (as is often the case, especially in technical careers), why would you not get the job? If you did not get the job, why would you not then go into direct competition with your prospective employer, offering the same service, better, for lower rates? I say again, you're clearly not cut out to be a capitalist.

[CountSparkle]

Ask yourself this: what upward mobility would the 'poor' demographic have if -- as a result of their shitty education -- they are systematically denied the best jobs, get lower pay for the same role, are less able to support themselves, and on average their offspring are put in exactly the same situation?

Huh? Do they deny jobs based on the school you went to where you live?

In an An-Cap society, the kids could volunteer to have their organs harvested! They only really need one kidney, and the liver grows back from a stub. Bone marrow, skin grafts... What's your stance on child prostitution? If the kid agrees, it's legit, right?

Oh,  I see. So you are just a psychopath. I'm sure I'm not the first to tell you this, but the world doesn't work like this. We aren't all ready to kill or starve each other, or force children to sell their own organs to survive, with the government the only thing keeping us at bay. Seek some psychological help, dude!

[Dalkore]

Well for once in order to be low priced it would need to sell the labour of the students to compensate for the lack of other income. I view this as problematic to qualify as good education.

That's one way to generate extra income, but it doesn't address - or even touch upon - the barriers that require the extra income. The service is education. Why can it not be provided at low price?

It can but only at decreased value.

You get what you pay for, in other words, yes?

Do you know what the differences are between a poor man's television and a rich man's television? Bells and whistles. Picture-in-picture, more channels, 3-d, extra pixels. But they're both televisions, and both do the same job. A poor person may not be able to afford the best education for their child. But teaching them how to learn, and giving them the necessary skills to learn is not hard, nor expensive, and asking them "What do you want to be when you grow up," and then pointing them to the knowledge required for that particular profession is not much more added expense. That's basic education. Extra stuff, like social studies, history, etc, can be added if you want, or studied on their own. Learning is best accomplished when you want to learn.

I disagree that we should reinforce a class society any more than we do.

Myrkul is correct on his point about "basic education" and what is included in one.  Myrkul now gets a reward:  John Taylor Gatto on Education it has 5 parts over 5 hours and it is worth watching.  I have been collecting many of the source documents to verify, so don't trust him or me.  For subjects like this, do your homework. 

[deeplink]

This fundamental inequity is one of the things that makes An-Cap an utterly unacceptable proposition, in my opinion.

This is the core of our differences. I do not agree with your position, but I accept your opinion, your morals and how you prefer to live your life. But you do not accept mine.

Instead you rationalize that you have the right to enforce your will upon others by using violence and force through the leaders you voted for.

[deeplink]

This fundamental inequity is one of the things that makes An-Cap an utterly unacceptable proposition, in my opinion.

This is the core of our differences. I do not agree with your position, but I accept your opinion, your morals and how you prefer to live your life. But you do not accept mine.

Instead you rationalize that you have the right to enforce your will upon others by using violence and force through the leaders you voted for.

Are you complaining about something specific? Or do you just not like it whenever there is a group of more than 1 person and you are "brutally coerced" into compromising? Do you think I like paying taxes more than anyone else? (Or dealing with other annoying government stuff?) Hell no! But I'd rather put up with moderate governments instead of being forced to deal with "mob rule" and hard-line supremacist attitudes.

That is exactly my point. You believe that you have the right to enforce your will upon others because that is how YOU prefer to live. Where is the compromise?

[TheButterZone]

Tyranny, or death!

[FirstAscent]

This fundamental inequity is one of the things that makes An-Cap an utterly unacceptable proposition, in my opinion.

This is the core of our differences. I do not agree with your position, but I accept your opinion, your morals and how you prefer to live your life. But you do not accept mine.

Instead you rationalize that you have the right to enforce your will upon others by using violence and force through the leaders you voted for.

Are you complaining about something specific? Or do you just not like it whenever there is a group of more than 1 person and you are "brutally coerced" into compromising? Do you think I like paying taxes more than anyone else? (Or dealing with other annoying government stuff?) Hell no! But I'd rather put up with moderate governments instead of being forced to deal with "mob rule" and hard-line supremacist attitudes.

That is exactly my point. You believe that you have the right to enforce your will upon others because that is how YOU prefer to live. Where is the compromise?

Where is your compromise? And maybe that's why your world view has not manifested - it's too absence of any type of compromise for it to be accepted. Sucks to be you, man.

Voting is compromise. That's where the compromise is.

[deeplink]

No don't like emo. More into rock.

"Fuck you, I won't do what you tell me."


But back on topic. I am all for compromises, if they are made voluntarily by all parties involved. That is not the case here. Or as blahblahblah put it: AND SO DO YOU! Sorry bro, but I don't think so.

[Dalkore]

No don't like emo. More into rock.

"Fuck you, I won't do what you tell me."


But back on topic. I am all for compromises, if they are made voluntarily by all parties involved. That is not the case here. Or as blahblahblah put it: AND SO DO YOU! Sorry bro, but I don't think so.

Here is one thing a central elected authority would be better than an AnCap type, public safety.  We should not need to volunteer for safety of the public, that is something that should be mandatory.  Without a mandatory 3rd party with all submit too, it would be too easy for companies to find ways to skirt this and harm the public. 

Obviously I know it happens now but because we are talking about theoretical forms of government like AnCap, then I am lending support to a properly run democratic republic and adhered to our Constitution (With almost all amendments) and Bill of Rights.

[CountSparkle]

Sure, by using the framework and infrastructure provided by the State, someone like Myrkul can easily tell their kids "go to the library and borrow a book on the subject". However, without a government to absorb the costs, free libraries almost certainly wouldn't exist. And if Myrkul disagrees, perhaps he can demonstrate his Capitalist prowess and explain how free public libraries would be possible under a government-free system like An-Cap?

I'm all for having professionals teach students instead of unskilled parents (I really dislike homeschooling), but library? Are you serious? When was the last time you've been to one? It has been years for me, and I was in school not too long ago. We used PDF articles and study materials on our computers and tablets, and PowerPoint presentations as study guides, and used the internet (even Wikipedia) to do our reading and research. All out-of-copyright classics required for reading in English lit classes are freely available as well.

As for the rest, I'm not saying that's how it will happen, but in an AnCap society, without a centralized government social system dividing us into counties, precincts, and countries, we could have people form social groups themselves. For example, a poor immigrant community might form a tribe of sorts (Neil Stephenson called them phyles), which will want to compete against other groups in the market financially and socially. To do that, they might put social pressure on each other to do well with raising kids, and even have their own dedicated educator that is willing to take poor kids in for free. Remember, they are not competing based on the teacher making a profit, they are competing as a corporation, trying to get their kids to either run more successful businesses than their neighbors, or get into more prestigious positions elsewhere.

[myrkul]

You seem to focus on things being "free." I have some bad news. Nothing is free. Cheap is doable. Free is not allowed by physics. Since everything has costs, when you say "I want something for free," what you are really saying is "I want someone else to pay for this." When you say "I want free, tax-supported X," what you are really saying is "I want to force someone else to pay for X."

Libraries have costs, too, of course. Books, salaries, possibly rent. These costs are nothing new, they existed a couple hundred years ago, too. And like so many other problems, the founders figured out a solution for this one, too:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_library#United_States

In 1731, Benjamin Franklin and his friends, sometimes called "the Junto", operated the Library Company of Philadelphia partly as a means to settle arguments and partly as a means to advance themselves through sharing information. Franklin's subscription library allowed members to buy "shares" and combined funds were used to buy more books; in return, members could borrow books and use the library.

[compro01]

Libraries have costs, too, of course. Books, salaries, possibly rent. These costs are nothing new, they existed a couple hundred years ago, too. And like so many other problems, the founders figured out a solution for this one, too:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_library#United_States

In 1731, Benjamin Franklin and his friends, sometimes called "the Junto", operated the Library Company of Philadelphia partly as a means to settle arguments and partly as a means to advance themselves through sharing information. Franklin's subscription library allowed members to buy "shares" and combined funds were used to buy more books; in return, members could borrow books and use the library.

You appear to be equating a system that possibly worked well for a group of moderately wealthy white men with a system that is functional for the population at large.

[Richy_T]

I think libraries are nearly defunct. But otherwise, I'd be willing to contribute to a library, far more than my "fair share" since I think they provide(d) a valuable service.

Unfortunately, the local library has turned into a political punching bag between the local government and state government. It's one of those "oh noes, we'll have to raise taxes or you'll lose <service x> that you like. Don't bring up all those <service y>s that you don't like. Schools! Hospitals! End of the World!"

[myrkul]

Libraries have costs, too, of course. Books, salaries, possibly rent. These costs are nothing new, they existed a couple hundred years ago, too. And like so many other problems, the founders figured out a solution for this one, too:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_library#United_States

In 1731, Benjamin Franklin and his friends, sometimes called "the Junto", operated the Library Company of Philadelphia partly as a means to settle arguments and partly as a means to advance themselves through sharing information. Franklin's subscription library allowed members to buy "shares" and combined funds were used to buy more books; in return, members could borrow books and use the library.

You appear to be equating a system that possibly worked well for a group of moderately wealthy white men with a system that is functional for the population at large.

The population at large, eh?
The libraries in the US expend an estimated 15 billion dollars annually.
There are over 311 million people in the US.
That's less than $50 per person. Even if only half of all people actually use the library, that's only $100.
Do you think the "population at large" cannot afford $10 per month?