So, let's say this is a matter of faith...

[Timo Y]

In principle I agree with you, I just think that your scale is not practicable.  Democratic government is a necessary evil, because without it, the stronger members of society start bullying the weaker members of society until a mafia emerges that doesn't give a shit about the non-aggression principle.

I would love to be proven wrong though...

Democratic government is the stronger members of society bullying the weak.

Look at the US fight over Gay marriage. Because they're in the minority, they are denied the right to sign a contract!

So they move to states that are gay-friendly like California and form gay colonies, thus taking away tax dollars and brainpower from gay-unfriendly states.  (statistically, gays are more wealthy and industrious than non-gays).  

That is an example of competitive government, though an imperfect one.

The question is: Would gays be better off in an anarchy where the majority is homophobic? I seriously doubt it. An anarchy has no "bill of rights".  They would be marginalized and ostracized by the major Personal Defense Agencies to the point of being unable to function in society ... until they congregate in a gay colony somewhere far away and form their own Personal Defense Agency.  

Either way, they are still forced to move.

[1714184198]

1714184198

[1714184198]

1714184198

[1714184198]

1714184198

[1714184198]

1714184198

[1714184198]

1714184198

[myrkul]

So they move to states that are gay-friendly like California and form gay colonies, thus taking away tax dollars and brainpower from gay-unfriendly states.  (statistically, gays are more wealthy and industrious than non-gays).  

That is an example of competitive government, though an imperfect one.

The question is: Would gays be better off in an anarchy where the majority is homophobic? I seriously doubt it. An anarchy has no "bill of rights".  They would be marginalized and ostracized by the major Personal Defense Agencies to the point of being unable to function in society ... until they congregate in a gay colony somewhere far away and form their own Personal Defense Agency.  

Either way, they are still forced to move.

You have no idea how refreshing it is to debate with someone who actually understands what I advocate.

Yes, in a community with as extensive homophobia as that, they would be forced to form their own support structure. But you forget one thing: they are everywhere. And as you said, they do tend to be more wealthy (I attribute that to not raising kids ), so there would be sufficient market in any major city, and almost every minor one. People who discriminate like that are really only hurting themselves.

[FredericBastiat]

Another problem with this is, if a doctor or an airplane maker screws up, I can abandon them and go for a replacement immediately. With politicians I'm pretty much stuck until the ignorant masses change their minds.

That's why I'm a believer in highly federated, localized "competitive government".  

So am I. We only differ in scale.

I'll assume you mean to say all the way down to the individual level. As it were, discrete and indivisible at that point. Notwithstanding, we can delegate our protections to any collective we choose, as long as we can come and go at will (or at least according to our contract).

What most people never get, is we can't delegate other people's rights; that would be enslavement. Actually, I better be careful. One can't denounce his own rights either. It's an oxymoron. To willingly give one's rights up would be to do so freely. You couldn't enslave yourself either.

[myrkul]

Another problem with this is, if a doctor or an airplane maker screws up, I can abandon them and go for a replacement immediately. With politicians I'm pretty much stuck until the ignorant masses change their minds.

That's why I'm a believer in highly federated, localized "competitive government".  

So am I. We only differ in scale.

I'll assume you mean to say all the way down to the individual level. As it were, discrete and indivisible at that point. Notwithstanding, we can delegate our protections to any collective we choose, as long as we can come and go at will (or at least according to our contract).

What most people never get, is we can't delegate other people's rights; that would be enslavement.

You would be right.

[FredericBastiat]

I do have an oddball question. Assuming we lived in an anarchy or nationless/stateless society, what would happen were we to come under attack from a nation unified in it's effort to destroy or enslave us?

I ask this because it would seem that the free-rider issue comes into effect. What I mean is, all real estate (land) has external borders, which are first in line to be attacked. Being that we couldn't of a natural right force other security firms to take up arms to protect "society" as a whole, what could be done to remedy this situation?

Those in the interior seemingly have the obvious advantage of default protection due to being of furthest distance from the enemy. By their very nature of being circumscribed by others, and the natural tendency of man to protect his property, individuals on the interior have the unintended and perhaps "unfair" advantage of free protection.

Ideas..?

[myrkul]

I do have an oddball question. Assuming we lived in an anarchy or nationless/stateless society, what would happen were we to come under attack from a nation unified in it's effort to destroy or enslave us?

I ask this because it would seem that the free-rider issue comes into effect. What I mean is, all real estate (land) has external borders, which are first in line to be attacked. Being that we couldn't of a natural right force other security firms to take up arms to protect "society" as a whole, what could be done to remedy this situation?

Those in the interior seemingly have the obvious advantage of default protection due to being of furthest distance from the enemy. By their very nature of being circumscribed by others, and the natural tendency of man to protect his property, individuals on the interior have the unintended and perhaps "unfair" advantage of free protection.

Ideas..?

Sure, the heartland of any area is a little safer than the borders, but a shell defense is notoriously weak. Defense in depth is the way to go. Borders, especially AnCap ones are porous and unreliable.

[Rassah]

I do have an oddball question. Assuming we lived in an anarchy or nationless/stateless society, what would happen were we to come under attack from a nation unified in it's effort to destroy or enslave us?

I ask this because it would seem that the free-rider issue comes into effect. What I mean is, all real estate (land) has external borders, which are first in line to be attacked. Being that we couldn't of a natural right force other security firms to take up arms to protect "society" as a whole, what could be done to remedy this situation?

Those in the interior seemingly have the obvious advantage of default protection due to being of furthest distance from the enemy. By their very nature of being circumscribed by others, and the natural tendency of man to protect his property, individuals on the interior have the unintended and perhaps "unfair" advantage of free protection.

Ideas..?

Just a few years ago, India was just about ready to go to war with Pakistan, again. The government pulled back on war escalations due to HUGE protests by Indian companies. Since India has entered a global economy, all those companies couldn't just stop servicing all their international clients (software, phone, etc), and go to war. So, in that case, the market was able to stop the war. Perhaps invaders will find it easier and more profitable to trade with the land holders rather than just take them over by force (i.e. why do it yourself when you can hire them to do it for you?)
On the other hand, residents sitting on reserves of commodities (oil, metals, whatever) who refuse to sell them, or who sell them at high monopolized prices may be putting themselves at more risk.
Plus we have the crazy lunatic religious and political fanatics/extremists too, but hopefully people are getting fed up with those aholes.

[myrkul]

Just a few years ago, India was just about ready to go to war with Pakistan, again. The government pulled back on war escalations due to HUGE protests by Indian companies. Since India has entered a global economy, all those companies couldn't just stop servicing all their international clients (software, phone, etc), and go to war. So, in that case, the market was able to stop the war. Perhaps invaders will find it easier and more profitable to trade with the land holders rather than just take them over by force (i.e. why do it yourself when you can hire them to do it for you?)
On the other hand, residents sitting on reserves of commodities (oil, metals, whatever) who refuse to sell them, or who sell them at high monopolized prices may be putting themselves at more risk.

Yeah, That too.

Option a: Invade, fight resistance every step of the way, and you'll have to take every inch by force, since there's no capitol to take over, not to mention the fact that you'll lose the business of the companies in the area (and there will be a lot, with no taxes).

Option b: Don't invade, continue trade with companies in the area, don't piss away thousands of your country's kids.

It would take a truly insane government to invade AnCapistan.

[Rassah]

Option a: Invade, fight resistance every step of the way, and you'll have to take every inch by force, since there's no capitol to take over, not to mention the fact that you'll lose the business of the companies in the area (and there will be a lot, with no taxes).

Option b: Don't invade, continue trade with companies in the area, don't piss away thousands of your country's kids.

It would take a truly insane government to invade AnCapistan.

Also, Option c: borrow/print money, invade, use money to develop new extremely high-tech and powerful military technology, sell technology to everyone else, leave the country you didn't really need or want anyway. America, F*CK YEAH!