A picture of AnCapistan

[myrkul]

It was pointed out that the "libertarian fantasy-world" was ill-defined. I'd like to state that that's not intentional as far as it goes... There's only so much that we can predict with any certainty, due to the fact that most things would be determined by the market, and as such, not only will almost everything be tried, we can't predict which one will come out on top.

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."

And that law is supported by Property rights based upon the concept of self-ownership, that each man owns his body, and may claim unowned property by mixing his labor with it, or acquire previously owned property rightfully only through voluntary means - trade or gift.

First: the difference between AnCapistan and Libertopia (Libertopia being the place where a government is instituted to enforce the above law)

In Libertopia, one, and only one, agency does that enforcing. There is a state law enforcement agency, state court, etc.
In AnCapistan, the Market provides those services, meaning there is no monopoly on law enforcement, and judges are not elected, but chosen (mutually) by the people involved in the case.

Second, Let me head off an argument before we even gets started: Somalia. Somalia is neither Libertopia, nor AnCapistan. Somalia is a land of tribal warlords, each trying to be the government. In AnCapistan, the enforcement agencies themselves would be bound by the NAP (the above law), and so, wouldn't attempt to become a government. Should one try, the others would be contractually obligated to stop them (by definition, a new government would attempt to start taxing everyone, and tax is collection of funds on threat of violence, and thus what the enforcement agencies are there to protect their clients from).

In both AnCapistan and Libertopia, everything else, roads, utilities, the whole ball o' wax, is provided privately.

The rest of the thread is open to discussion on how each of those services might be provided, but let it not be said that our 'fantasy land' is ill-defined.

[1715107611]

1715107611

[1715107611]

1715107611

[1715107611]

1715107611

[MatthewLM]

Now paint a real picture.

[myrkul]

Now paint a real picture.

What, you mean with actual paint? Sadly, my artistic talent is not quite up to par with my rhetorical skill.

[Rassah]

Have you read Snow Crash, and if yes, what model does that world fall under?

[myrkul]

Have you read Snow Crash, and if yes, what model does that world fall under?

I have, and TBH, I don't remember much of the 'real world', though what I do remember was a mostly failed US State (suffering hyperinflation), surrounded by a mostly AnCap society... though I may be remembering incorrectly. I'll have to see if I can dig up my copy.

Edit: While we're on Neal Stephenson, the society in Diamond Age is one I can pretty much get behind. The way the Phyles work, at any rate.

[Rassah]

Have you read Snow Crash, and if yes, what model does that world fall under?

I have, and TBH, I don't remember much of the 'real world', though what I do remember was a mostly failed US State (suffering hyperinflation), surrounded by a mostly AnCap society... though I may be remembering incorrectly. I'll have to see if I can dig up my copy.

Edit: While we're on Neal Stephenson, the society in Diamond Age is one I can pretty much get behind. The way the Phyles work, at any rate.

I think a p2p version of SecondLife with bitcoin backed economy would be a cool idea. I've never really forgiven that company for singlehandedly killing their game's economy just as it was switching from industrial to service/financial based one... But I digress

[NghtRppr]

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."

We also have to define property rights. If I grab the shirt you're wearing, am I the aggressor? Well, it depends. If you stole the shirt from me yesterday then you're the aggressor and I'm just reclaiming my property. If you own the shirt though, I'm the aggressor. We have to detail property rights before we can sort out who is the aggressor. The theory of property rights we advocate is homesteading and legitimate title transfer. You can claim unowned property by mixing your labor with it or you can transfer the title to already owned property by any legitimate means, gifts, gambling, trade, etc.

[MountainMan]

So in AnCapistan, instead of a Public Works Department, you have customer service? Microsoft and Cisco would own the world, and you want their customer support to take the place of government?

What's the difference between a monolithic state and a megacorporation? I'm failing to see any functional difference between the American Democratic Republic and AnCapistan (both at their theoretical best.) It's what happens when they're not at their best that I have a beef with. In America, the system is correctable, and even massive abuses have ways of being mitigated, reversed, or fixed.

I think a core set of laws is necessary for regulating commerce, and unifying military, national, and international infrastructure. Corruption isn't going to go away. If anything, it will get worse, because whistleblowing suddenly become a matter of corporate security.

You have a silly little game of socioeconomic brinksmanship with private armies involved. That can't possibly end well. That essentially means whoever can snap up the most resources the fastest wins. It has nothing to do with human rights and dignity as a human being. It encourages cheating and stealing and lying, looking out for number one, imposing your will on others by any means necessary.

In AnCapistan, I guarantee I'm going to destroy you before you have a chance to hurt me. I'm not going to wait for you to make the first move, because maximizing my long term well being means establishing and enforcing whatever set of rules I deem optimal. (I being myself and whoever goes along with me.) I'm going to seize all available resources, and you will have no recourse except to get out of Dodge, because I'm not going to acknowledge your attempts to bring to me to court at some McJudge outlet. I'm going to treat with like minded individuals, those who are able to capitalize on the sudden lack of a central legal system, and we're going to be benevolent dictators. We're going to get away with it because our mercenaries are paid, trained, equipped, and indoctrinated better than your freedom fighters.

An empire will arise out of the ashes of AnCapistan, because humans are stupid, greedy, evil bastards.

Why not impose a central state designed to mitigate the greedy, evil tendencies and maximize freedoms? A Democractic Republic seems like a pretty good system to me.

[NghtRppr]

Microsoft and Cisco would own the world, and you want their customer support to take the place of government?

No, Microsoft and Cisco wouldn't exist because they are based on government enforced intellectual property laws.

What's the difference between a monolithic state and a megacorporation?

If you don't want to give your money to a state, you're kidnapped or murdered. If you don't want to give your money to a corporation, you're forced to do without their goods or services.

Why not impose a central state designed to mitigate the greedy, evil tendencies and maximize freedoms?

Who do you think is going to try to seize control of the state hardest of all other than the evil greedy bastards you're trying to stop?

[Rassah]

Let's break this up bit by bit

So in AnCapistan, instead of a Public Works Department, you have customer service? Microsoft and Cisco would own the world, and you want their customer support to take the place of government?

Microsoft would compete with Google and Linux, like they do now. Cisco would have to either continue to provide best service possible, or start competing with distributed mesh networking. For every monopoly, an upstart can and does arise to take them down when people get too annoyed with them.

What's the difference between a monolithic state and a megacorporation? I'm failing to see any functional difference between the American Democratic Republic and AnCapistan (both at their theoretical best.) It's what happens when they're not at their best that I have a beef with. In America, the system is correctable, and even massive abuses have ways of being mitigated, reversed, or fixed.

In one, you're fighting for votes. In the other, you're fighting for revenue. Actually, at this point, it seems in both we're fighting for revenue. So, yes, both will have corruption. Though like with monopolies, hopefully better systems will pop up once people get frustrated enough.

I think a core set of laws is necessary for regulating commerce, and unifying military, national, and international infrastructure. Corruption isn't going to go away. If anything, it will get worse, because whistleblowing suddenly become a matter of corporate security.

No different from government corruption. Enter Wikileaks...

You have a silly little game of socioeconomic brinksmanship with private armies involved. That can't possibly end well. That essentially means whoever can snap up the most resources the fastest wins.

At this point, the most valuable resource is human intelligence. Engineers, scientists, programmers, etc. If you snap up those resources and treat them well, what's the problem? If you abuse them, that resource can leave (brain drain).

In AnCapistan, I guarantee I'm going to destroy you before you have a chance to hurt me. I'm not going to wait for you to make the first move, because maximizing my long term well being means establishing and enforcing whatever set of rules I deem optimal.

Unless your goal is to make a lot of money from a lot of people, which means you have to do what you can to make as many people at least minimally satisfied. Only problem is, if you have power, you can print and/or control the money. I believe Bitcoin just solved that problem. If you mean the above in business competition sense, you'd either buy the competitor, or try to out-compete. And if you screw up, small startup (Google) will kick your ass.

I'm going to seize all available resources, and you will have no recourse except to get out of Dodge, because I'm not going to acknowledge your attempts to bring to me to court at some McJudge outlet.

See above for resources. Also, customers vote with their dollars. If you're an ass and are legally untrustworthy, those involved with you from a business sense, those being both the end-customers buying your products products and your suppliers selling you materials, will both start to dump you.

I'm going to treat with like minded individuals, those who are able to capitalize on the sudden lack of a central legal system, and we're going to be benevolent dictators. We're going to get away with it because our mercenaries are paid, trained, equipped, and indoctrinated better than your freedom fighters.

Your mercenaries cost you money, and can't force people to buy stuff from you. People have the money you want...

An empire will arise out of the ashes of AnCapistan, because humans are stupid, greedy, evil bastards.

AnCapistan will likely be a rather wild place, no doubt. But those who are stupid will have no power, those who are bastards will not be able to compete in a system where reputation counts, and those who are greedy will keep looking for ways to exchange their goods/services for our money

Why not impose a central state designed to mitigate the greedy, evil tendencies and maximize freedoms? A Democractic Republic seems like a pretty good system to me.

Mitigating tendencies by force still gets rid of freedoms. They may be freedoms to be a greedy bastard, but it's still a freedom that no longer exists.
I'm kind of somewhat of a liberal Dem, and also think that a Democratic Republic is a pretty good system, but this AnCap and Libertarian thing still sounds neat to me (I'd love to see it in action, just as I'd love to see deflationary Bitcoin economy in action).

[myrkul]

We also have to define property rights.

Agreed, original post amended.

You have a silly little game of socioeconomic brinksmanship with private armies involved. That can't possibly end well. That essentially means whoever can snap up the most resources the fastest wins. It has nothing to do with human rights and dignity as a human being. It encourages cheating and stealing and lying, looking out for number one, imposing your will on others by any means necessary.

Yes, because it's SO much more profitable to steal from people and get shot on the third try than to deal with people fairly and have millions of customers.

[MountainMan]

No, Microsoft and Cisco wouldn't exist because they are based on government enforced intellectual property laws.

Something people seem to be forgetting is that any change to AnCapistan is going to have to happen in the real world. You can't just invent this society as if it exists in a vacuum. Microsoft and Cisco do exist.

Remove the legal system, good luck trying to switch to other networking infrastructures or finding compatible software, when instead of IP laws they simply send their mercenaries to your house for violating their contract agreements and take your shit away.

If you don't want to give your money to a state, you're kidnapped or murdered. If you don't want to give your money to a corporation, you're forced to do without their goods or services.

In MountainMan's land in AnCapistan, if you don't pay for what you use, I'm going to take it from you, either in the form of forced labor or seizure of assets. You're free to not be here, but if you show up somehow, I'm not giving you a free lunch. Now instead of MountainMan's land, imagine a coalition of property owners defining a common border (as people are wont to do) and establishing a usage fee. Something to cover the cost of using roads, cleaning up after  travellers, etc. Oh... look, we have a tax.

Who do you think is going to try to seize control of the state hardest of all other than the evil greedy bastards you're trying to stop?

That's exactly my point. In a centralized system, you have a mechanism of mitigating, stopping, or fixing abuses by the evil and greedy. Sure, it's hard, but it's easier than rebuilding a nation from the ground up. I think it would be better to revolutionize the system from within - establish accountability and instant communication, instant public auditing of any and all government expenditures, real-time voting, abolishment and reformulation of the entire tax code, outsourcing public works and maintenance to private companies, hiring private law enforcement, and so on. You see that happening in America, slowly. Why not focus your efforts and speed things up. Show people that it can be done, and why it should be done. Educational reform is happening because of Khan academy. BitCoin has the potential to demonstrate how modern commerce can work.

Why not take the best features of both instead of insisting on a 'pure' idealistic pipedream? AnCapistan has a great thing going for it. The 'capitalist' part. Market based solutions are great. Make government earn its money. Introduce competition, make politics and legislation fundamentally economic, instead of the feel-good my team vs your team bullcrap we see today.

In AnCapistan, there's no means of stopping the bastards. Might is Right. He who has the most resources wins. I just don't see that as a particularly dignified or righteous ethos.

[NghtRppr]

Microsoft and Cisco do exist.

They won't once intellectual property laws are done away with, not in their current forms at least..

Remove the legal system, good luck trying to switch to other networking infrastructures or finding compatible software, when instead of IP laws they simply send their mercenaries to your house for violating their contract agreements and take your shit away.

Contracts don't apply to third parties. I may sign a contract with Microsoft promising not to give away their software but if I do, anyone that receives that software isn't bound by that contract. They can do whatever they want. Once the cat is out of the bag...

In MountainMan's land in AnCapistan, if you don't pay for what you use, I'm going to take it from you, either in the form of forced labor or seizure of assets. You're free to not be here, but if you show up somehow, I'm not giving you a free lunch. Now instead of MountainMan's land, imagine a coalition of property owners defining a common border (as people are wont to do) and establishing a usage fee. Something to cover the cost of using roads, cleaning up after  travellers, etc. Oh... look, we have a tax.

Right. I don't expect to get anything for free. If I leave my property, I'll have to abide by the rules of others. That's voluntary which I'm not against. That's not a tax. That's a fee.

In a centralized system, you have a mechanism of mitigating, stopping, or fixing abuses by the evil and greedy. Sure, it's hard, but it's easier than rebuilding a nation from the ground up.

If the good people out number the bad, it's better to keep things decentralized because as soon as you have a single point of failure, it's easier to attack. If the bad people outnumber the good, we're fucked no matter what. See below.

He who has the most resources wins.

That always applies. Do you think you'll be able to repel invaders with a book of laws as if it were the Bible to a vampire? It'll slow down the bullets but it won't stop them. Whoever controls the most resources wins but it doesn't have to be a single person controlling them. I'll pit your single 1000-man army against a thousand 100-man armies any day.

[MountainMan]

I see we're having trouble with understanding the scope of existing institutions.

[myrkul]

Why not take the best features of both instead of insisting on a 'pure' idealistic pipedream? AnCapistan has a great thing going for it. The 'capitalist' part. Market based solutions are great. Make government earn its money. Introduce competition, make politics and legislation fundamentally economic, instead of the feel-good my team vs your team bullcrap we see today.

Bolded point marks where you enter AnCapistan. Welcome to Anarcho-Capitalism, Brother!

[NghtRppr]

I see we're having trouble with understanding the scope of existing institutions.

I see we're having trouble coming up with anything of substance to say. You're outmatched and you're frustrated so you resort to your default sarcastic douchebaggery self-defense mechanism. I swear they must have an assembly line for you statists. Oh that's right, it's called public school.

[ascent]

You're outmatched and you're frustrated so you resort to your default sarcastic douchebaggery self-defense mechanism.

Who is he outmatched by?

[ascent]

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.

[myrkul]

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.

What is this jibber-jabber? (bolded)

[ascent]

What is this jibber-jabber? (bolded)

Some set of laws which are decidedly not NAP.

[MountainMan]

No, I just see the endless circular argument you're trying to drag this down into. If you don't account for the way things are, then all the what-if speculation in the world is pointless.

What if aliens drop by and nuke the Whitehouse? What if London turns into a black hole? What if Russia had a national reform and they all became Buddhists?

Unless there's somehow a total societal breakdown in America, you're never going to apply all of the principles you endorse. I think some of them are good, and represent ideals, but like communism, they only work on paper. When you insert them into the real world, and real people become responsible for implementing them, then, like any other human endeavor, you get mistakes, corruption, downright evil bastards, and some inspiring heroes.

If you want a serious discussion about AnCap, hypothetical ideals aren't exactly useful. I can get all of that from Wikipedia. How about look to where the current system is broken and where AnCap provides a solution.

I see perfectly well how AnCapistan works, in a vacuum. Because of existing institutions, pure AnCap ain't gonna work. They have their own momentum and resources.

That's all I'm saying. I actually think a lot of the AnCap principles look pretty good. A culture of personal responsibility and Free Market based government are pretty damn good ideals. There are cities and counties in America who are privatizing their public services and by doing so, are drastically reducing taxes and improving quality of life. They're able to do that because of the existing system - people see results and vote accordingly.

The way I see it, you can implement aspects of AnCap, in place.

Start from reality. Define a scope. Otherwise, you're just playing at fairy tales, and I got over those right around 8 years old.

You're outmatched and you're frustrated so you resort to your default sarcastic douchebaggery self-defense mechanism.

God forbid anyone ever say anything snarky, your holiness. I didn't realize who you were. I won't ever be sarcastic with you again, promise.

[myrkul]

What is this jibber-jabber? (bolded)

Some set of laws which are decidedly not NAP.

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.

The way I see it, you can implement aspects of AnCap, in place.

You can implement the whole thing, as long as you don't mind breaking the law. (primarily the ones about not competing with government services)

[ascent]

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?

[MountainMan]

I do mind breaking the law, except as a last resort, when no options are left. As things are right now, I really think people need to wake up to the fact that America as an idealized free nation is disintegrating rapidly, and that lots of things need to be fixed. I don't think we're past the point of no return yet, so I'll be a good (if vocal) sheep for the time being.

The whole world is still in upheaval over the internet. It's still in the process of changing everything. That's why I think America as an ideal can still be fixed - won't be long before we finally get the real-time reports and audits, some sort of government based social network with logs and the like. Eventually we'll see real-time voting. Traditional politics and demagoguery starts to break down when everything is out in the open for people to see.

[myrkul]

Or, in a more realistic hypothetical world, however did NAP become the law, when it is in competition with various versions of SSOLWADNNAP?

Now this is something I can answer.

A (possibly quite small) group of people decide to make that their guiding principle. They allow all business to enter their little enclave, so long as the NAP is followed, and it prospers. More people move in, it prospers more, and it just snowballs. Because everyone who goes in knows that aggression is not an acceptable practice, and arbitration agreements are required to deal with the people there, it becomes a safe haven for all non-violent illegal activities. And as the VHS/Beta fight shows, once you have the sex industry on your side, it's all over but the shouting.

[vector76]

What stops AnCapistan from emerging right now in a country with a weak government?

If you find the answer to that question, I think you will find the conditions which doom AnCapistan in general, and then you can ask yourself whether those roadblocks can ever be absent.  I have my own theories but I am interested to hear yours.

[myrkul]

What stops AnCapistan from emerging right now in a country with a weak government?

What makes you think it isn't?  It would necessarily be 'underground' until pretty much the very last second, and a weak government is not necessary, but it helps.

[NghtRppr]

I see perfectly well how AnCapistan works, in a vacuum.

Good, that's my goal.

Because of existing institutions, pure AnCap ain't gonna work. They have their own momentum and resources.

It might not happen anytime soon. It might take generations. It might get worse before it gets better. Slavery didn't end worldwide overnight but when the time was right, it ended. That's the same kind of thing I envision for statism. When people are ready, it will happen but first it has to at least be seen as something possible and worth hoping for.

[myrkul]

I see perfectly well how AnCapistan works, in a vacuum.

Good, that's my goal.

Thought this was MY thread?

But yeah, that is our goal. Show how the system works.

The getting there is the goal of Agorism.

[MountainMan]

I agree.
I see something between AnCap and some sort of large federated states in the next couple hundred years.

After the first publicly successful AnCapistan (either in a seastead or a takeover of a failed state) people will sit up and take notice. With Wikipedia, Khan Academy, filesharing sites, the various darknets and freenet and i2p and tor, some sort of service industry, self-sufficient planning, and some good treaties/political work with some larger power, a seastead is likely going to be the first example of an AnCapistan in action. Almost everything needed to boostrap a micronation is available to anyone with a few weeks and the internet (except for viable large scale seastead technology, which is in development.)

Assuming enough funding, you can even launch private satellites and work out connectivity with major networks, so you don't have to be dependent. Imagine a seastead tribe devoted to cleaning the great garbage patch, turning the plastic into fuel or seastead modules or other products. Using portable ocean based solar energy collectors, storing massive amounts of energy in flywheels, and delivering it to cities. Creating massive networks of sensors for climate, weather, shipping, and transportation data. The possibilities are tremendous, and AnCap, or something approximating it, will be the natural form of government (limited only by the need for protection via treaties with Western powers.)

[Rassah]

I see perfectly well how AnCapistan works, in a vacuum.

So, it's decided then. TO SPACE! With SCIENCE! And maybe Virgin Galactic!

[myrkul]

I see perfectly well how AnCapistan works, in a vacuum.

So, it's decided then. TO SPACE! With SCIENCE! And maybe Virgin Galactic!

This is how AnCap works in a vacuum

[billyjoeallen]

An empire will arise out of the ashes of AnCapistan, because humans are stupid, greedy, evil bastards.

Why not impose a central state designed to mitigate the greedy, evil tendencies and maximize freedoms? A Democractic Republic seems like a pretty good system to me.

The problem is that evil, stupid greedy bastards are disproportionately attracted to civil service or to controlling those who are.

[Rassah]

I see perfectly well how AnCapistan works, in a vacuum.

So, it's decided then. TO SPACE! With SCIENCE! And maybe Virgin Galactic!

This is how AnCap works in a vacuum

26°C? 14°C? What witchcraft is this?

[myrkul]

I see perfectly well how AnCapistan works, in a vacuum.

So, it's decided then. TO SPACE! With SCIENCE! And maybe Virgin Galactic!

This is how AnCap works in a vacuum

26°C? 14°C? What witchcraft is this?

Well, naturally, Terra has standardized on metric.

[Rassah]

I see perfectly well how AnCapistan works, in a vacuum.

So, it's decided then. TO SPACE! With SCIENCE! And maybe Virgin Galactic!

This is how AnCap works in a vacuum

26°C? 14°C? What witchcraft is this?

Well, naturally, Terra has standardized on metric.

The "I study at home and at church" part is a little... scary. Why is it that so many people who are so pro-freedom of thought and personal choice seem to also be stuck on "that side" of personal subjugation and mental laziness? Frankly, it's rather upsetting/disappointing.

[myrkul]

I see perfectly well how AnCapistan works, in a vacuum.

So, it's decided then. TO SPACE! With SCIENCE! And maybe Virgin Galactic!

This is how AnCap works in a vacuum

26°C? 14°C? What witchcraft is this?

Well, naturally, Terra has standardized on metric.

The "I study at home and at church" part is a little... scary. Why is it that so many people who are so pro-freedom of thought and personal choice seem to also be stuck on "that side" of personal subjugation and mental laziness? Frankly, it's rather upsetting/disappointing.

A little Jesus, in small doses, isn't that bad. It's when they get belligerent about it and trying to shove it down people's throats that it gets annoying.

[MountainMan]

The "I study at home and at church" part is a little... scary.

Yeah, because any worldview outside of our own, *especially* those that admit to anything that even smells like faith, can't possibly have any validity or worth, and should therefore be feared.

Or you could choose to accept that people come to different conclusions all the time, interpret identical data in different ways, and believe different things, and that those facts are nothing to be scared of. The only thing you should find... "scary" is your unwitting lack of tolerance for alternative viewpoints. You aren't the arbiter of reason, nor the enforcer of rationality, and it's nunnayafuckinbidnez what, how, why, and where people believe. The only thing you should give a damn about is how they act when it affects you.

Seriously, "scary?" Give me a fucking break.

[rainingbitcoins]

Second, Let me head off an argument before we even gets started: Somalia. Somalia is neither Libertopia, nor AnCapistan. Somalia is a land of tribal warlords, each trying to be the government. In AnCapistan, the enforcement agencies themselves would be bound by the NAP (the above law), and so, wouldn't attempt to become a government. Should one try, the others would be contractually obligated to stop them

And what happens when the others don't try because it'll cost them too much money? Ain't nobody there to force their hand, so why bother?

See above for resources. Also, customers vote with their dollars. If you're an ass and are legally untrustworthy, those involved with you from a business sense, those being both the end-customers buying your products products and your suppliers selling you materials, will both start to dump you.

Oh yes, this always works. Except how are people even going to know what evil shit these companies are up to when a different division of the same company owns the newspapers and never prints anything bad about them? You don't even need your little AnCapistan to see the results of this right now. Coca-cola has outright murdered union organizers in Latin America and their products still fly off the shelves. Hershey's and other chocolate companies use cocoa grown by modern-day slaves on the Ivory Coast, and most people don't even learn about that, let alone have a chance to get angry about it. With the kind of corporate consolidation we see these days, you also run into the problem of trying to boycott companies that make thousands of products of every different description, and you know most people aren't going to bother with that.

Assuming people are rational actors and will always look out for their own best interests and those of society is so incredibly naive that it makes my head hurt knowing people really believe this stuff. Like others have said, this is all stuff that sounds nice and lovely in theory, but the second you try to introduce any reality whatsoever into the equation, it all falls apart.

Yes, because it's SO much more profitable to steal from people and get shot on the third try than to deal with people fairly and have millions of customers.

If I have a mercenary army, I don't have to worry about getting shot on the third try or any try. I hire people to take those bullets for me - it's just good business!

(Also apparently even a dude running around with a gun shooting people is a rational actor who always considers the ramifications of everything he does and would never do anything illogical.)

[MountainMan]

If I have a mercenary army, I don't have to worry about getting shot on the third try or any try. I hire people to take those bullets for me - it's just good business!

Microsoft and Cisco could afford pretty damn big armies.

[myrkul]

Second, Let me head off an argument before we even gets started: Somalia. Somalia is neither Libertopia, nor AnCapistan. Somalia is a land of tribal warlords, each trying to be the government. In AnCapistan, the enforcement agencies themselves would be bound by the NAP (the above law), and so, wouldn't attempt to become a government. Should one try, the others would be contractually obligated to stop them

And what happens when the others don't try because it'll cost them too much money? Ain't nobody there to force their hand, so why bother?

Ever heard the phrase 'Breach of contract'? MUCH more expensive than fulfilling the obligations.

Yes, because it's SO much more profitable to steal from people and get shot on the third try than to deal with people fairly and have millions of customers.

If I have a mercenary army, I don't have to worry about getting shot on the third try or any try. I hire people to take those bullets for me - it's just good business!

(Also apparently even a dude running around with a gun shooting people is a rational actor who always considers the ramifications of everything he does and would never do anything illogical.)

Mercenaries aren't stupid. As a merc, which job would you pick? The one that lets you work out all day, or the one where you get to fight the guy who got to work out all day?

[rainingbitcoins]

Ever heard the phrase 'Breach of contract'? MUCH more expensive than fulfilling the obligations.

Ever heard the phrase "Haha try and stop me!" ?   Look at all of the treaties American settlers made with Indians. Look how many of those we kept. If there's nobody there to stop you, all the contracts in the world are meaningless.

Mercenaries aren't stupid. As a merc, which job would you pick? The one that lets you work out all day, or the one where you get to fight the guy who got to work out all day?

You're gonna have to clarify what you mean by this because I have no idea what you're getting at here.

[MountainMan]

As a merc, which job would you pick?

The one where you get paid more. When you let some other guy do all the work and then steal the fruits of his labor, you can afford to pay your mercs better. Piracy is profitable without some sort of overwhelmingly present and powerful force to dissuade it. Somalians wouldn't do it if it didn't work sometimes, and they've got everyone on their ass - if the US, now, can't functionally stop their piracy, what stops people from piracy in AnCapistan, when there's no monolithic centralized army? I'm assuming anonymity is going to be trivial in this scenario - blackface and skimasks, burned off fingerprints, blank eye contacts, padding, second skin (latex paint to prevent skin flakes) and complete waxing ( no loose hairs.) Could even do funky things like mixed blood transfusions to prevent single-sourcing DNA origins.

The risk/reward factor has to be accounted for, too. The cost of bullets will always be cheaper than the cost of honest labor.

[myrkul]

As a merc, which job would you pick?

The risk/reward factor has to be accounted for, too. The cost of bullets will always be cheaper than the cost of honest labor.

This is true, and the cost for a sniper post will always be less than that of an assault force.

[ascent]

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.

[myrkul]

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.

Gotta love it. You idiots pose a "but wait, what's to stop..." And then we tell you that it wouldn't be cost effective, and here's why:... and then you use THAT to say you'd rather not live there!

Hey, What's to stop a rival gang government from invading your turf and taking over your capitol, making you it's bitch?

"The Army, of course. It's a shell defense, and most of our troops are overseas, killing brown people, and they force us to pay for it, but it stops them, yup yup, it sure does."

Whoa, they force you to pay for it? And aren't obliged to protect you? Fuck that! I'd rather pay my security company, thanks.

Works both ways.

[ascent]

"The Army, of course. It's a shell defense, and most of our troops are overseas, killing brown people, and they force us to pay for it, but it stops them, yup yup, it sure does."

I already explained to you (in another thread), that the fighting overseas is mostly about our government's failure to address economical issues, and I provided you with reading material on that subject in various other threads. Your "fantasy-world" will be run rampant with abuse of the environment, just as it is today by corporations. I asked you to learn about ecological economics and steady state growth, which you have ignored.

I do not maintain that we live in an ideal world. Far from it. However, I do believe that your world is worse, and won't last anyway, because it's human nature that humans will gravitate towards those who seem to be accumulating power - thus your NAP laws will evolve into various versions of SSOLWADNNAP.

Hence, governments will form in different regions.

[Rassah]

Piracy is profitable without some sort of overwhelmingly present and powerful force to dissuade it. Somalians wouldn't do it if it didn't work sometimes, and they've got everyone on their ass - if the US, now, can't functionally stop their piracy, what stops people from piracy in AnCapistan, when there's no monolithic centralized army?

Um, being allowed to carry guns/weapons, for one. The main reason piracy is such a problem around Somalia is because cargo ships aren't allowed to carry ANY weapons on board if they wish to be able to dock at international ports (government law/regulation). It's why all they can resort to to fight armed pirates is water cannons, noise makers, and just locking themselves inside strongholds on the ship. It's also why Somali pirate ships stay WAY the f*ck away from any military ships.

[Rassah]

Your "fantasy-world" will be run rampant with abuse of the environment, just as it is today by corporations.

Currently, pretty much all land where those corporations mine for coal or drill for oil, is owned by the government, and is leased to these corporations on a temporary basis so they can extract their stuff (my guess the leasing has partly to do with people thinking governments will protect the pretty public land better if they owned it, and that some powerful corporations can use the lease thing to get land cheaper with help from buddy Senators)

There's a theory that, if those corporations were instead required to actually BUY the land (and on top of it, be taxed property taxes for owning it), they would have a huge incentive to make sure they either don't ruin it, or fix it up to be as good as it was when they bought it, so they can still resell it after they're done digging everything up. Otherwise they'll just go on owning a trashed chunk of land that costs them taxes.

[myrkul]

Hence, governments will form in different regions.

ANY voluntary arrangement is fine by me. Even if it superficially resembles a government. As long as they're not putting guns to people's heads and saying "pay up, or something bad might happen to you", and calling it anything but extortion, they are free to set up whatever organization they like.

Worst case scenario, We're back to where we started, Here.

[ascent]

ANY voluntary arrangement is fine by me. Even if it superficially resembles a government. As long as they're not putting guns to people's heads and saying "pay up, or something bad might happen to you", and calling it anything but extortion, they are free to set up whatever organization they like.

Worst case scenario, We're back to where we started, Here.

I think for people to take you seriously, you need to stop with the "People putting guns to my head and forcing me to pay taxes" line. Yes, I concede that you can go to jail if you don't pay taxes. But let's address this side issue:

• Yeah, you can go to jail if you don't pay taxes.
• I don't know where you live, but if it is in the USA, then you only have to pay taxes if you make above some certain amount, therefore, you can decide to not pay taxes by not making a lot of money.
• You don't need to pay property taxes if you don't own property. You can rent. Sure, you're indirectly helping the landlord pay taxes, but in your world, your rent payment would be helping the landlord pay a lot of service contract fees.
• You don't need to pay sales taxes if you move to Alaska, Delaware, Montana, New Hampshire, or Oregon.
• You do consume the services provided by the government, whether you think you do or not.
• Your consumption of those services and payment of taxes result in a major offload of burden placed upon you which would be the constant evaluation, purchasing and maintenance of contracts with various companies. Frankly, it would suck more than you probably realize.
• Yes, I grant that the government engages in inefficiencies.

So, stop it with the line about a gun being placed to your head and taking money from you. I understand you don't like the tax model. I get that. But you're going to have to show me that you have experienced extreme stress and trauma in your life from life threatening actions by individuals taking money from you if you wish to continue with that line in debates with me. Do it again, and I'll just leave. If that's what you want, then fine.

[LastBattle]

ANY voluntary arrangement is fine by me. Even if it superficially resembles a government. As long as they're not putting guns to people's heads and saying "pay up, or something bad might happen to you", and calling it anything but extortion, they are free to set up whatever organization they like.

Worst case scenario, We're back to where we started, Here.

I think for people to take you seriously, you need to stop with the "People putting guns to my head and forcing me to pay taxes" line. Yes, I concede that you can go to jail if you don't pay taxes. But let's address this side issue:

• Yeah, you can go to jail if you don't pay taxes.
• I don't know where you live, but if it is in the USA, then you only have to pay taxes if you make above some certain amount, therefore, you can decide to not pay taxes by not making a lot of money.
• You don't need to pay property taxes if you don't own property. You can rent. Sure, you're indirectly helping the landlord pay taxes, but in your world, your rent payment would be helping the landlord pay a lot of service contract fees.
• You don't need to pay sales taxes if you move to Alaska, Delaware, Montana, New Hampshire, or Oregon.
• You do consume the services provided by the government, whether you think you do or not.
• Your consumption of those services and payment of taxes result in a major offload of burden placed upon you which would be the constant evaluation, purchasing and maintenance of contracts with various companies. Frankly, it would suck more than you probably realize.
• Yes, I grant that the government engages in inefficiencies.

So, stop it with the line about a gun being placed to your head and taking money from you. I understand you don't like the tax model. I get that. But you're going to have to show me that you have experienced extreme stress and trauma in your life from life threatening actions by individuals taking money from you if you wish to continue with that line in debates with me. Do it again, and I'll just leave. If that's what you want, then fine.

If you pay the Mafia enforcers on regular occasions without a fuss, they probably aren't so trauma inducing, either. I suppose that makes the Mafia a legitimate institution?

The one where you get paid more. When you let some other guy do all the work and then steal the fruits of his labor, you can afford to pay your mercs better. Piracy is profitable without some sort of overwhelmingly present and powerful force to dissuade it. Somalians wouldn't do it if it didn't work sometimes, and they've got everyone on their ass - if the US, now, can't functionally stop their piracy, what stops people from piracy in AnCapistan, when there's no monolithic centralized army? I'm assuming anonymity is going to be trivial in this scenario - blackface and skimasks, burned off fingerprints, blank eye contacts, padding, second skin (latex paint to prevent skin flakes) and complete waxing ( no loose hairs.) Could even do funky things like mixed blood transfusions to prevent single-sourcing DNA origins.

The risk/reward factor has to be accounted for, too. The cost of bullets will always be cheaper than the cost of honest labor.

Which would you rather be, a Somali pirate or a rich Western doctor?

Yeah, pirates can gain from looting, pillaging, etc but they don't gain as much as if they worked honestly. Furthermore, with competition among defense companies, there would be far more incentive to hunt pirates. I mean, the US government just doesn't give a shit about pirates unless they happen to board something the US government finds valuable. They worry more about shooting guys in Afghanistan who are likely to never do anything to the US if they are left alone, and thus don't devote any resources to protecting mariners on the sea. Furthermore, various regulations prevent the sailors from carrying guns, which would at the very least make piracy much harder. If there were multiple security companies, they would allocate their resources much more efficiently. There would doubtless be bounties on pirates, and the companies would go after targets who were actually a problem rather than phantoms conjured up by crooks in office looking for a way to carve up a little empire among third world nations.

[ascent]

If you pay the Mafia enforcers on regular occasions without a fuss, they probably aren't so trauma inducing, either. I suppose that makes the Mafia a legitimate institution?

Your analogy is so weak, it is pathetic. Here's why: I have voluntarily (as have most all people) opted to not be involved with any Mafia operations for many reasons, one of which is how random and scary life would be, part of which is related to the fact that you are dealing with multiple factions with arbitrary ways of dealing with disobedient subjects (kind of like the world you're proposing).

Note my above use of the words "random and scary". I do not feel that my life is random or scary with regard to the government. Nor do most people. You can continue to try and play the Mafia card if you want, but it won't work.

[myrkul]

So, stop it with the line about a gun being placed to your head and taking money from you. I understand you don't like the tax model. I get that. But you're going to have to show me that you have experienced extreme stress and trauma in your life from life threatening actions by individuals taking money from you if you wish to continue with that line in debates with me. Do it again, and I'll just leave. If that's what you want, then fine.

As Lastbattle said, Paying the enforcers in a timely fashion does indeed remove the 'Pain and suffering' aspect of it. And yes, self-imposed poverty does avoid the enforcers entirely. But just because the mugger is polite, and doesn't need to jab the knife at your throat to get you to pay, doesn't mean you weren't mugged.

The involuntary nature of the taxation system is the core of the problem. I would have absolutely no problem with the government, if it a) allowed competition, and b) was paid voluntarily, like any other service company.

Note my above use of the words "random and scary". I do not feel that my life is random or scary with regard to the government. Nor do most people. You can continue to try and play the Mafia card if you want, but it won't work.

No? You never feel that jolt of adrenaline when you see a cop car? You don't check everything, make sure you're following all the rules?

Now imagine if you were black.

[ascent]

The involuntary nature of the taxation system is the core of the problem. I would have absolutely no problem with the government, if it a) allowed competition, and b) was paid voluntarily, like any other service company.

How many of the government's services do you consume?

[Rassah]

No? You never feel that jolt of adrenaline when you see a cop car? You don't check everything, make sure you're following all the rules?

Now imagine if you were black.

Or were trying to set up a multinational business, and came across all the regulation requirements 

[myrkul]

The involuntary nature of the taxation system is the core of the problem. I would have absolutely no problem with the government, if it a) allowed competition, and b) was paid voluntarily, like any other service company.

How many of the government's services do you consume?

Only those which I have no choice in the matter, those forced upon me. ie, Can't help but drive on Gov't roads, etc.

[ascent]

Only those which I have no choice in the matter, those forced upon me. ie, Can't help but drive on Gov't roads, etc.

You are not being forced to drive on government roads. Create a contract with your neighbors and property owners between you and all places you visit, such that you can pass through their properties. Then you would only need to cross roads. Admittedly, not ideal, but closer to your vision.

I'm assuming your home has never caught on fire. But would you abstain from calling the fire department? What if you were mugged? Do you have a contract with a security firm, or would you call the police?

What about the services you're using but don't think you're using? There are many. Imagine all the contracts and services you'd have to evaluate, sign and so forth to make sure things aren't happening that you don't think about. And then you'd have to monitor the ownership and credentials of all those different firms going forward. What if one of them was bought by a company that has intentions counter to what you intended?

[myrkul]

Only those which I have no choice in the matter, those forced upon me. ie, Can't help but drive on Gov't roads, etc.

You are not being forced to drive on government roads. Create a contract with your neighbors and property owners between you and all places you visit, such that you can pass through their properties. Then you would only need to cross roads. Admittedly, not ideal, but closer to your vision.

I'd still be paying the taxes, though. Gas Tax. Or are you suggesting that I make my own fuel?

As for the rest, I don't see any private competition for the Fire dept, do you?

And trust me, as soon as Knight Errant Security opens for business, I'll be one of the first customers (geek points to those who catch the reference)

By the way, you still haven't responded to my question re: your reaction to seeing a cop car. Do you, or do you not, feel a little jolt of adrenaline when one shows up in your rear-view?

[ascent]

By the way, you still haven't responded to my question re: your reaction to seeing a cop car. Do you, or do you not, feel a little jolt of adrenaline when one shows up in your rear-view?

It depends on whether I am confident I am complying with the law. I used to drive for a living, so I can tell you, from vast experience, that cops don't bother me in general, unless there are issues - such as speeding, expired tags, etc. A jolt of adrenaline? Yes, in varying degrees.

Tell me, when on someone else's property, and you see security personnel (or the home owner with a gun), do you feel a jolt of adrenaline?

If your answer is no, bear in mind that your answer is only given within the experience that you are living under the greater umbrella of the host nation's set of laws, and the police to call upon. Try living in your proposed world, and then try giving a "no" answer. Bear in mind that you have never yet lived in your proposed world, and cannot say from experience what kind of adrenaline you might experience upon such an encounter. I think it stands to reason that it would be at least what you feel upon seeing a cop in your rear-view mirror.

If your answer is yes, then touche.

[ascent]

As for the rest, I don't see any private competition for the Fire dept, do you?

A county in Tennessee has fire services which are opt in. This is obviously what you want. One guy opted out and the fire department did not save his house. This raises two interesting questions:

1. Why aren't more people opting out? If they are, then where are the high quality fire services to take the place of the fire department?

2. Is the opt in solution really better? There are enough people out there that would be willing to opt out, and then they lose their house in the event of a fire. And it's not clear that insurance covered it - I'm sure they had a clause which stated that the insured's property would not be covered if the insured chose to opt out of fire services.

[myrkul]

Tell me, when on someone else's property, and you see security personnel (or the home owner with a gun), do you feel a jolt of adrenaline?

See... here's the thing. I have indeed encountered a a strapped homeowner. And because I trusted said homeowner, I was glad to see that he was carrying. My ex-fiance's father had more guns than the average Branch Davidian, and was never more than a few steps from one (not due to paranoia, Just had a lot of guns) And I felt safer in his house than I ever do on the road, despite the fact that I was not high on his favorite person list.

The one time I have felt uncomfortable with a homeowner and his firearm, said homeowner was, you guessed it, a cop, and viewed his guns as toys. I did not feel particularly happy that he was allowed to have them in the same house as his two daughters, let alone me.

A county in Tennessee has fire services which are opt in. This is obviously what you want. One guy opted out and the fire department did not save his house. This raises two interesting questions:

Opt in doesn't mean this choice or nothing. It means this choice, or that, choice, or that choice, or nothing. Options... of which there were none. They also refused to provide services unless he paid back-pay, up front. That, my friend, is extortion. Done by any other group, they'd call it by it's name.

[NghtRppr]

There are enough people out there that would be willing to opt out, and then they lose their house in the event of a fire.

So I'm supposed to feel sorry for someone that had a $200,000 house and wouldn't protect it for $100 a year (or whatever the dues were)? A fool and his money...

[ascent]

For crying out loud. You totally avoided the situation where the umbrella of existing laws are removed.

[ascent]

So I'm supposed to feel sorry for someone that had a $200,000 house and wouldn't protect it for $100 a year (or whatever the dues were)? A fool and his money...

And I'm supposed to feel sorry for you for having to pay some taxes to get fire services?

[Rassah]

In AnCapistan, I suspect things like fire and burglary protection would be provided by your home owner's insurance, who would in turn outsource it to whomever they think is best. Since an insurance company's incentive is to not have to pay out any claims, they would have to make sure to hire the best security and fire teams on the market. And you get the service of having a business with lots of connections in that area doing the shopping for service and contracts for you.

Though, that MAY end up in them insisting to cover your pretty house with some not-so pretty fire-retardant coating, but it may also result in really cool security laser cannons around your roof top

[myrkul]

For crying out loud. You totally avoided the situation where the umbrella of existing laws are removed.

I assume that is to me?

I ignored the "umbrella of existing laws" because I live my life as though they do not exist. (except in risk/reward calculations)

"I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do."
Robert A. Heinlein

[ascent]

I ignored the "umbrella of existing laws" because I live my life as though they do not exist. (except in risk/reward calculations)

This is an example of why your method of discussion and debate is of no value. You have not answered the question. Whether you live as though the laws exist or not has nothing to do with the scenario. It is pathetic that I have to point this out to you. In the scenario outlined, the existence of the umbrella of laws applies to the behavior of the individual(s) you encounter, not you.

Either you're stupid for not recognizing the distinction, or you think others won't notice your obfuscation. I contend that it's about 60 percent the former, and about 40 percent the latter.

[myrkul]

This is an example of why your method of discussion and debate is of no value. You have not answered the question. Whether you live as though the laws exist or not has nothing to do with the scenario. It is pathetic that I have to point this out to you. In the scenario outlined, the existence of the umbrella of laws applies to the behavior of the individual(s) you encounter, not you.

I say again, I ignore the "umbrella of laws" because I did not take them into account in my initial calculations. In other words, I ignored them because I always have, and assume that others will, as well. I judge people by their actions, not by the society.

[ascent]

I say again, I ignore the "umbrella of laws" because I did not take them into account in my initial calculations. In other words, I ignored them because I always have, and assume that others will, as well. I judge people by their actions, not by the society.

Stupid answer. We're not talking about people you know. We're talking about security service personnel and other individuals who you've never seen until two seconds ago - like the cop in your rear-view mirror. Duh! Once again, either you're demonstrating stupidity or obfuscation in your responses.

Remember what the analogy was? Hello? The cop in the rear-view mirror? Not your friend of five years.

[vector76]

They also refused to provide services unless he paid back-pay, up front. That, my friend, is extortion. Done by any other group, they'd call it by it's name.

Refusing to provide services that haven't been paid for is extortion?

For which other group would this be called extortion?  Doctors?

[myrkul]

I say again, I ignore the "umbrella of laws" because I did not take them into account in my initial calculations. In other words, I ignored them because I always have, and assume that others will, as well. I judge people by their actions, not by the society.

Stupid answer. We're not talking about people you know. We're talking about security service personnel and other individuals who you've never seen until two seconds ago - like the cop in your rear-view mirror. Duh! Once again, either you're demonstrating stupidity or obfuscation in your responses.

Remember what the analogy was? Hello? The cop in the rear-view mirror? Not your friend of five years.

Then why did you include homeowner? Do you think I would enter the home of someone I didn't trust?

And similarly, would I go on to the private property of a business that I didn't believe had my best interests at heart? (Or at east wanted to keep me as a customer)

I would not. Armed security guards do not frighten me in the same way a police officer frightens you. (and, admittedly, myself as well, perhaps even more so in my case, because I know they do not have my best interests at heart) Armed guards are there to stop me from fucking with whatever their guarding. Since I know I'm not going to, I don't have to worry. The Police are there to make sure I comply with the laws. Since I can do something on accident to violate a law, even if it doesn't violate my rights (such as seatbelt laws), I am understandably nervous when I see a black and white car.

[myrkul]

They also refused to provide services unless he paid back-pay, up front. That, my friend, is extortion. Done by any other group, they'd call it by it's name.

Refusing to provide services that haven't been paid for is extortion?

For which other group would this be called extortion?  Doctors?

They demanded he pay for all the time he had not been protected. That would be like a doctor demanding payment for all the time you were not insured.

[ascent]

And similarly, would I go on to the private property of a business that I didn't believe had my best interests at heart? (Or at east wanted to keep me as a customer)

Are you serious? Every time you go out in the world in your fabled land, you'll have to go onto private property. And if you want to go anywhere new, it will be some place you've never been before. Furthermore, when that road you access to get from A to B is no longer owned by XYZ company, but is now owned by ABC company, well, all the rules can change. You'll have the burden of learning the new rules, and if you don't like them, well, how is it that you can just decide not to use that road?

And before you start with your lame and predictable response that no company would change the rules, have you ever had a different cell provider buy your cell provider? Did you bank at WaMu and then experience Chase buying them? This goes on and on all the time. You're naive.

I would not. Armed security guards do not frighten me in the same way a police officer frightens you.

Again, you're being either stupid or obfuscating. Which is it? Armed security guards are acting under the umbrella of laws provided by the nation. When that umbrella is gone (the point of this discussion), then your prior experience of not being frightened ceases to have the same relevancy you are according it, something which is apparently lost on you.

[myrkul]

And similarly, would I go on to the private property of a business that I didn't believe had my best interests at heart? (Or at east wanted to keep me as a customer)

Are you serious? Every time you go out in the world in your fabled land, you'll have to go onto private property. And if you want to go anywhere new, it will be some place you've never been before. Furthermore, when that road you access to get from A to B is no longer owned by XYZ company, but is now owned by ABC company, well, all the rules can change. You'll have the burden of learning the new rules, and if you don't like them, well, how is it that you can just decide not to use that road?

And before you start with your lame and predictable response that no company would change the rules, have you ever had a different cell provider buy your cell provider? Did you bank at WaMu and then experience Chase buying them? This goes on and on all the time. You're naive.

First, I can be assured, that wherever I go as a customer, the proprietor is not going to shoot me. They value my continued business. Second, arguing that the rules of a road might change when under new ownership is similar to stating that the size of a light bulb might change because somebody bought Sylvania. Once something is standardized, there's not much reason to change. Further, If they DO change, There's nothing stopping me from taking a different route.

I would not. Armed security guards do not frighten me in the same way a police officer frightens you.

Again, you're being either stupid or obfuscating. Which is it? Armed security guards are acting under the umbrella of laws provided by the nation. When that umbrella is gone (the point of this discussion), then your prior experience of not being frightened ceases to have the same relevancy you are according it, something which is apparently lost on you.

Again, why do you assume that the only thing stopping the security guard from going on a murder rampage is the law? Do you honestly think, he's stewing away, saying to himself, "Oh, man, if it weren't illegal, I'd so shoot that guy right now!"? If so, then that tells me a great deal about your psyche that you probably didn't want to reveal. I suggest therapy to help curb those homicidal tendencies.

[ascent]

Again, why do you assume that the only thing stopping the security guard from going on a murder rampage is the law? Do you honestly think, he's stewing away, saying to himself, "Oh, man, if it weren't illegal, I'd so shoot that guy right now!"? If so, then that tells me a great deal about your psyche that you probably didn't want to reveal. I suggest therapy to help curb those homicidal tendencies.

You're now engaging in misdirection. Who is discussing murder? We were discussing adrenaline rushes. Go back and review the discussion, beginning with the premise that one gets an adrenaline rush when seeing a cop.

[myrkul]

Again, why do you assume that the only thing stopping the security guard from going on a murder rampage is the law? Do you honestly think, he's stewing away, saying to himself, "Oh, man, if it weren't illegal, I'd so shoot that guy right now!"? If so, then that tells me a great deal about your psyche that you probably didn't want to reveal. I suggest therapy to help curb those homicidal tendencies.

You're now engaging in misdirection. Who is discussing murder? We were discussing adrenaline rushes. Go back and review the discussion, beginning with the premise that one gets an adrenaline rush when seeing a cop.

I have explained why I do not get an adrenaline rush when I see an armed security guard. Do you? Do uniforms scare you?

Uniforms don't scare me. the man in the uniform, his motivations, that's what scares or does not scare me.

[ascent]

I have explained why I do not get an adrenaline rush when I see an armed security guard.

I know you think you've explained it. You explained it by referencing your past experiences, which have always been in a nation which have an umbrella of laws protecting you from, shall we say, excess thuggery by security forces. In your "fantasy-world", there is no umbrella of laws, so that road you're driving on, and its security forces in black and white cars - you know, the one you see in your rear-view mirror - will induce feelings you've never experienced before.

I absolutely know you will have a little adrenaline rush when you see him in your rear-view mirror.

[myrkul]

I have explained why I do not get an adrenaline rush when I see an armed security guard.

I know you think you've explained it. You explained it by referencing your past experiences, which have always been in a nation which have an umbrella of laws protecting you from, shall we say, excess thuggery by security forces. In your "fantasy-world", there is no umbrella of laws, so that road you're driving on, and its security forces in black and white cars - you know, the one you see in your rear-view mirror - will induce feelings you've never experienced before.

I absolutely know you will have a little adrenaline rush when you see him in your rear-view mirror.

Uhh... No. See, In the rational world, if I'm not harming anyone, there's no need to fear the security guard.

Here in government land, I can be beaten and caged for owning a plant. I'd say that's pretty fucking scary, wouldn't you?

[LastBattle]

1. Why aren't more people opting out? If they are, then where are the high quality fire services to take the place of the fire department?

The vast majority of firefighters are unpaid volunteers. Furthermore, there is no particular reason to compete with the government when it has a blank check and the power to find a reason to arrest you for attempting to compete. Look no farther than the postal service: A man by the name of Lysander Spooner once set up a competing postal company which was soon much cheaper and of higher quality than that of the federal government; the postal service then had the government shut down his operation. Thus, it was demonstrated that attempting to create alternatives to government monopolies will, if successful, result in being shut down and your profits stolen. Something similar happened to the Liberty Dollar guys, who were arrested, had all of their assets seized by the FBI, and were accused of terrorism by the prosecution. Hell, if bitcoin had a central server, the owners would probably have long since been arrested as "terrorists", too.

2. Is the opt in solution really better? There are enough people out there that would be willing to opt out, and then they lose their house in the event of a fire. And it's not clear that insurance covered it - I'm sure they had a clause which stated that the insured's property would not be covered if the insured chose to opt out of fire services.

Wow, talk about "straw men".

The fire department is already paid with taxes. Being allowed to opt out does not an ideal market anarchist society make, seeing as how you are still paying the thugs in charge, except this time you get nothing for your money.

Cops are better than security guys (paraphrased, original post was lost)

Well, lets see.

Police:

-Are given many special privileges that ordinary citizens are not (Examples below)
-Even cops who are not abusive in the slightest have to enforce laws against victimless crimes. For example, if I am not wearing a seatbelt in most of the US and other countries, they will steal my money. If I have marijuana or, worse, a "dangerous" drug in my car or on my person (even if it is a trace amount), I will be kidnapped, tossed into a small room with bars (possibly for days, weeks, months, or years) as other police ransack my house for "evidence of the crime", during which time the more unscrupulous of them will steal my more valuable possessions and will get, at worst, a stern warning if caught.
-If they have "suspicion", they may burst the door down, steal my stuff as "evidence", and shoot my dog. If they don't find anything, I will be unlikely to get any form of compensation for being raided. If they find something (and it could be something utterly inconsequential), they can use it as an excuse to, again, steal my things and kidnap me.
-If I defend myself against the police, either plainclothes or in uniform, I will be considered to be at fault. Even if they are, say, bursting through the door with weapons and no warrant, if I use a gun to protect myself and my property, I will be considered a criminal. In fact, it will be considered to be worse than had I just walked into a mall and shot a regular guy. Even if the police were blatantly violating their own laws, I would be at fault. Keep in mind, many clever and enterprising criminals actually pretend to be the police to rob people, some even bribing cops to provide uniforms for them.
-Assuming the cops are abusive, chances are very high that they will get away with far more than a regular citizen. If they murder me, they can claim I was resisting arrest (something that isn't too uncommon, and is very hard to prove to the contrary). They can excuse just about any of their own crimes and are highly unlikely to ever be prosecuted because there is no alternative to the police. You can call the police against criminals (though police don't really stop crimes, they just catch criminals after the fact unless they are robbing a bank or something), but who do you call against the police?
-This isn't even considering that if I am unfortunate to be, say, a black man in southern California, I will be pulled over for no good reason repeatedly by cops engaging in "racial profiling", and there isn't a damn thing I can do about it. Again, who do you call against the police?

Security guards:

-Are equal to everyone else. This would apply in a Market Anarchist society, so don't give me the "that is because of the police" garbage.
-Have no special privileges and aren't able to rob me or kidnap me in the way police are.
-Are highly unlikely to burst the door down, unless they are regular criminals. If they attempted to do the things the police get away with, they would be in big trouble. Again, this would apply in a market anarchist society too.
-Furthermore, the only things a security guard could do would come down to "restraint/physical force" and "using a gun". Unlike a cop, he wouldn't be able to hide behind his authority and would be prosecuted if he just up and shot me.
-Also, a guard has no motivation to attack me. A policeman might gain status or other advantages by trying to arrest people since he might get lucky and get someone actually breaking the law, and he is unlikely to ever suffer if he is wrong (especially if he goes after the poor, blacks, hispanics, and others who probably aren't willing to go through the process of attempting to get the man in trouble for abusing his authority). Furthermore, he might be looking for an excuse to steal things secretly or to resell drugs he captures. A guard has no more motivation than a regular guy, except that he wouldn't be a guard for very long if he just up and mugged me.
-If the guard scared away people from, say, a store he was supposed to guard, he would be fired pretty fast. Thus, another reason to be reasonably polite and reasonable.

Yeah, it is pretty obvious which is preferable.

[NghtRppr]

So I'm supposed to feel sorry for someone that had a $200,000 house and wouldn't protect it for $100 a year (or whatever the dues were)? A fool and his money...

And I'm supposed to feel sorry for you for having to pay some taxes to get fire services?

No, but you are supposed to not be a thief.

[vector76]

They also refused to provide services unless he paid back-pay, up front. That, my friend, is extortion. Done by any other group, they'd call it by it's name.

Refusing to provide services that haven't been paid for is extortion?

For which other group would this be called extortion?  Doctors?

They demanded he pay for all the time he had not been protected. That would be like a doctor demanding payment for all the time you were not insured.

You cannot wait until your house is on fire, or wait until you are sick, or wait until you have had a car accident, and then try to buy "insurance" against it for only the interval you are needing service.

Either you pay the full cost of fire protection, or you pay the full cost of your medical procedure, or you pay the full cost of property damage, or you subscribe to an insurance plan.  I don't see how this is extortion, or how it is wrong.

[myrkul]

They also refused to provide services unless he paid back-pay, up front. That, my friend, is extortion. Done by any other group, they'd call it by it's name.

Refusing to provide services that haven't been paid for is extortion?

For which other group would this be called extortion?  Doctors?

They demanded he pay for all the time he had not been protected. That would be like a doctor demanding payment for all the time you were not insured.

You cannot wait until your house is on fire, or wait until you are sick, or wait until you have had a car accident, and then try to buy "insurance" against it for only the interval you are needing service.

Either you pay the full cost of fire protection, or you pay the full cost of your medical procedure, or you pay the full cost of property damage, or you subscribe to an insurance plan.  I don't see how this is extortion, or how it is wrong.

But did they ask for payment after rendering services? No, they asked for back insurance before rendering services.

[LokeRundt]

So, stop it with the line about a gun being placed to your head and taking money from you. I understand you don't like the tax model. I get that. But you're going to have to show me that you have experienced extreme stress and trauma in your life from life threatening actions by individuals taking money from you if you wish to continue with that line in debates with me. Do it again, and I'll just leave. If that's what you want, then fine.

I know this was not written towards me, but I do have personal experience.  My father would not file a tax-return (even though in the tax-mosel he would be getting money back from what was taken automatically out of his paycheck), I forget the reason why, and when I was 11 years old, armed police and 2 IRS agents came to our house and stole everything but the food, our mattresses, and our clothes.  If we resisted the theft, they would have shot us (or "subdued" us).

The "gun in the room" is quite real, you'd do best to not pretend that it doesn't exist

[vector76]

They also refused to provide services unless he paid back-pay, up front. That, my friend, is extortion. Done by any other group, they'd call it by it's name.

Refusing to provide services that haven't been paid for is extortion?

For which other group would this be called extortion?  Doctors?

They demanded he pay for all the time he had not been protected. That would be like a doctor demanding payment for all the time you were not insured.

You cannot wait until your house is on fire, or wait until you are sick, or wait until you have had a car accident, and then try to buy "insurance" against it for only the interval you are needing service.

Either you pay the full cost of fire protection, or you pay the full cost of your medical procedure, or you pay the full cost of property damage, or you subscribe to an insurance plan.  I don't see how this is extortion, or how it is wrong.

But did they ask for payment after rendering services? No, they asked for back insurance before rendering services.

Having to pay in advance makes something extortion?

Maybe let's take a step back.  What is your definition of extortion?  My definition requires a threat of violence or some active harm.  By my definition, refusing to act cannot be extortion.

[myrkul]

They also refused to provide services unless he paid back-pay, up front. That, my friend, is extortion. Done by any other group, they'd call it by it's name.

Refusing to provide services that haven't been paid for is extortion?

For which other group would this be called extortion?  Doctors?

They demanded he pay for all the time he had not been protected. That would be like a doctor demanding payment for all the time you were not insured.

You cannot wait until your house is on fire, or wait until you are sick, or wait until you have had a car accident, and then try to buy "insurance" against it for only the interval you are needing service.

Either you pay the full cost of fire protection, or you pay the full cost of your medical procedure, or you pay the full cost of property damage, or you subscribe to an insurance plan.  I don't see how this is extortion, or how it is wrong.

But did they ask for payment after rendering services? No, they asked for back insurance before rendering services.

Having to pay in advance makes something extortion?

Maybe let's take a step back.  What is your definition of extortion?  My definition requires a threat of violence or some active harm.  By my definition, refusing to act cannot be extortion.

No, having to pay for the time he had no service makes it so. As I said originally, that's like a doctor refusing to see you until you pay for insurance for the entire time yo were healthy and didn't have any insurance.

[vector76]

They also refused to provide services unless he paid back-pay, up front. That, my friend, is extortion. Done by any other group, they'd call it by it's name.

Refusing to provide services that haven't been paid for is extortion?

For which other group would this be called extortion?  Doctors?

They demanded he pay for all the time he had not been protected. That would be like a doctor demanding payment for all the time you were not insured.

You cannot wait until your house is on fire, or wait until you are sick, or wait until you have had a car accident, and then try to buy "insurance" against it for only the interval you are needing service.

Either you pay the full cost of fire protection, or you pay the full cost of your medical procedure, or you pay the full cost of property damage, or you subscribe to an insurance plan.  I don't see how this is extortion, or how it is wrong.

But did they ask for payment after rendering services? No, they asked for back insurance before rendering services.

Having to pay in advance makes something extortion?

Maybe let's take a step back.  What is your definition of extortion?  My definition requires a threat of violence or some active harm.  By my definition, refusing to act cannot be extortion.

No, having to pay for the time he had no service makes it so. As I said originally, that's like a doctor refusing to see you until you pay for insurance for the entire time yo were healthy and didn't have any insurance.

I have two problems with your claim.  One is that it is okay for someone to buy "insurance" after they find out that they need it, and it is not okay for the provider to refuse.  The other problem is that refusing to act can somehow be extortion.

[FredericBastiat]

extortion: Force or illegal compulsion by which any thing is taken from a person.

If the fire department was using taxpayer money to provide services, they used extortion. Plunder works well here too.

If on the other hand the fire department was private and it's services were rendered to those with whom it had a contract, and it violated it's contract, that would be fraud.

Additionally, were the private fire department to ask for back payments, and they were not payed, and those payments were specifically delineated in contract covenants you signed, and you didn't pay them, you'd be committing extortion.

It depends on what the circumstances are. If you agreed to the contract, it would seem you'd be bound to the arrangement.

Lastly, assuming you'd had dealings before with said private fire dept., and you legally terminated your agreement with them, and they demanded (sans force) you make some "back" payments because you hadn't been a client of theirs for some period of time, that would not be extortion because you can just walk away (presumably to find other fire dept. businesses that will accept different terms)

[myrkul]

I have two problems with your claim.  One is that it is okay for someone to buy "insurance" after they find out that they need it, and it is not okay for the provider to refuse.  The other problem is that refusing to act can somehow be extortion.

I never said that. He didn't want 'insurance', he wanted the fire put out. They wanted him to pay for the time when he had no protection. It's one thing to simply say 'no', another one entirely to say No, unless you pay us for all the time we weren't helping you.

Again, it would be like a doctor refusing to treat a patient until they pay for all the time they weren't insured. Preposterous.

It's not a fully private department, it's county, but optional. I'm not sure if they allow competitors.

[FredericBastiat]

Having "public" services, which can just as reasonably be provided privately sans plunder, always clouds the issue.

Governments, wherever they exist, tend to muddy the waters when their outward appearance gives the air of legitimacy, but their inward modus operandi is corrupt.

Might I make a suggestion? How about we make a "law" that says that tax collectors must be either your closest friends, family, or long-time neighbor? Oh, and one more thing, they have to be armed to the teeth, wear a uniform with a badge, and must not take no for an answer.

Maybe we'd get the hint that what we're doing isn't very nice.

[vector76]

I have two problems with your claim.  One is that it is okay for someone to buy "insurance" after they find out that they need it, and it is not okay for the provider to refuse.  The other problem is that refusing to act can somehow be extortion.

I never said that. He didn't want 'insurance', he wanted the fire put out. They wanted him to pay for the time when he had no protection. It's one thing to simply say 'no', another one entirely to say No, unless you pay us for all the time we weren't helping you.

Again, it would be like a doctor refusing to treat a patient until they pay for all the time they weren't insured. Preposterous.

It's not a fully private department, it's county, but optional. I'm not sure if they allow competitors.

First, it's irrelevant what they say they want payments for.  If they refuse to help unless you pay for their hookers and coke, it's the same: an offer which you are completely free to accept or decline.

Second, speaking of the time they "weren't helping you" thoroughly misunderstands the nature of fire protection.  But whatever, arguing this is a waste of energy.

But at least you are not still calling it extortion, so I guess that's an improvement.

[lemonginger]

See above for resources. Also, customers vote with their dollars. If you're an ass and are legally untrustworthy, those involved with you from a business sense, those being both the end-customers buying your products products and your suppliers selling you materials, will both start to dump you.

Oh yes, this always works. Except how are people even going to know what evil shit these companies are up to when a different division of the same company owns the newspapers and never prints anything bad about them? You don't even need your little AnCapistan to see the results of this right now. Coca-cola has outright murdered union organizers in Latin America and their products still fly off the shelves. Hershey's and other chocolate companies use cocoa grown by modern-day slaves on the Ivory Coast, and most people don't even learn about that, let alone have a chance to get angry about it. With the kind of corporate consolidation we see these days, you also run into the problem of trying to boycott companies that make thousands of products of every different description, and you know most people aren't going to bother with that.

This I very much agree with. Capitalism encourages externalizing costs as much as possible and obscuring those costs. (Now yes, I realize government generally increases this, rather than decreases). And it very much incentivizes anti-social behavior (in terms of putting it out of your mind the conditions the product you are about to buy were made under - which is easy in a large and faceless and highly complex market where maybe even the ingredients for your sandwich came from 20 different countries)

Now the one good argument that I've heard from AnCaps about this is that eliminating limited liability will take care of a lot of this. But then they don't explain how that doesn't keep the market from losing a lot of its dynamism. If I have to be worried that the shares I own in chemical company Y are going to make me criminally liable for an accident, I'm going to be a hell of a lot less likely to invest my money in companies that I don't know a ton about and aren't engaging in any risky practices.

But, it would certainly make it more interesting for CEOs if they could spend the rest of their life in a cage, be shunned from a community, stripped of all their wwealth, or shot in the head (or whatever forms of restitution are used in the jurisdiction they are operating in) for, say, spilling a bunch of toxic sludge in a town and causing a bunch of kids to die.

[of course, this does not deal with the short term gains/long term problems whereby actions can be taken and hands can be washed long before negative effects come to light]

[myrkul]

I have two problems with your claim.  One is that it is okay for someone to buy "insurance" after they find out that they need it, and it is not okay for the provider to refuse.  The other problem is that refusing to act can somehow be extortion.

I never said that. He didn't want 'insurance', he wanted the fire put out. They wanted him to pay for the time when he had no protection. It's one thing to simply say 'no', another one entirely to say No, unless you pay us for all the time we weren't helping you.

Again, it would be like a doctor refusing to treat a patient until they pay for all the time they weren't insured. Preposterous.

It's not a fully private department, it's county, but optional. I'm not sure if they allow competitors.

First, it's irrelevant what they say they want payments for.  If they refuse to help unless you pay for their hookers and coke, it's the same: an offer which you are completely free to accept or decline.

Agreed, except that charging (even full cost) for current services is one number, and charging for years and years of 'owed money' is another, much larger one. IIRC, they even refused to put him on a payment plan. Cash on the barrelhead.

[rainingbitcoins]

1. Why aren't more people opting out? If they are, then where are the high quality fire services to take the place of the fire department?

The vast majority of firefighters are unpaid volunteers. Furthermore, there is no particular reason to compete with the government when it has a blank check and the power to find a reason to arrest you for attempting to compete. Look no farther than the postal service: A man by the name of Lysander Spooner once set up a competing postal company which was soon much cheaper and of higher quality than that of the federal government; the postal service then had the government shut down his operation. Thus, it was demonstrated that attempting to create alternatives to government monopolies will, if successful, result in being shut down and your profits stolen.

I looked this up, and it appears to have happened in freaking 1840.

In 2011, the USPS is way faster than UPS and cheaper than FedEx. I never really got how people could send a letter from NY to CA in 2 days for 50 cents and then claim the post office as model of horrible government inefficiency. 

Now the one good argument that I've heard from AnCaps about this is that eliminating limited liability will take care of a lot of this. But then they don't explain how that doesn't keep the market from losing a lot of its dynamism. If I have to be worried that the shares I own in chemical company Y are going to make me criminally liable for an accident, I'm going to be a hell of a lot less likely to invest my money in companies that I don't know a ton about and aren't engaging in any risky practices.

But, it would certainly make it more interesting for CEOs if they could spend the rest of their life in a cage, be shunned from a community, stripped of all their wwealth, or shot in the head (or whatever forms of restitution are used in the jurisdiction they are operating in) for, say, spilling a bunch of toxic sludge in a town and causing a bunch of kids to die.

[of course, this does not deal with the short term gains/long term problems whereby actions can be taken and hands can be washed long before negative effects come to light]

What it also doesn't consider is the "who's going to stop me?" mentality that, with the power and wealth of modern corporations, makes in hard for even strong governments to hold anyone accountable. Now imagine what would happen if arresting that criminal CEO involved a completely toothless government (or a private company with no real incentive to do so) mounting a full-scale military assault on the offending company's army of thousands of mercenaries. How long before every corporate headquarters looks more like a military base than an office building? Imagine a world where surviving occasional sieges was part of your IT job. And then when you get off work you have to drive twice as far to get home because the only direct highway is owned by a guy who charges $20 to drive it, and you definitely can't afford that on the $4 an hour you make in a country without minimum wage laws. Maybe you'll get lucky and your company will buy the road and let you drive it if you agree to work for $3 an hour. Or maybe other companies will see the profit potential and set up 16 or 17 parallel roads for differing costs. Then everyone can drive on the cheapest road - problem solved, and it only took littering your town with 15 wasted, empty highways to get there. That's the efficiency of the free market!

[myrkul]

problem solved, and it only took littering your town with 15 wasted, empty highways to get there. That's the efficiency of the free market!

Seriously... You should write a book. You can spin a yarn like nobody's business.

[rainingbitcoins]

problem solved, and it only took littering your town with 15 wasted, empty highways to get there. That's the efficiency of the free market!

Seriously... You should write a book. You can spin a yarn like nobody's business.

Well, I have such great source material - the treatment of American workers at the turn of the 20th century in a largely unregulated corporate free-for-all was a terrific inspiration. Say, I'll trade you three dollars in company scrip (only redeemable at my company's store where bread costs $12) for that swell Ayn Rand book you got there.

[myrkul]

problem solved, and it only took littering your town with 15 wasted, empty highways to get there. That's the efficiency of the free market!

Seriously... You should write a book. You can spin a yarn like nobody's business.

Well, I have such great source material - the treatment of American workers at the turn of the 20th century in a largely unregulated corporate free-for-all was a terrific inspiration. Say, I'll trade you three dollars in company scrip (only redeemable at my company's store where bread costs $12) for that swell Ayn Rand book you got there.

Sorry, I only trade in bitcoins or PMs. No paper money. Thanks!

[godseyeview]

Libertopia sounds like a joke for AnCapistan rejects from what i can tell by the posts made on this thread.

I copy paste my reply from a youtube video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-hsKmqXy55E

Let me tell u Ancap morons a parable .  The TALE of TWO Paradoxes.  There once was two societies.  One was called Ancapistan; the other was the ole Republic.

Ancapistan was a people completely and utter consumed by the cult of SCIENTISM.  They didnt believe anything had any meaning.  They had no explanation how anything came into existence just that they believed the entire universe was created by random chance. They didnt believe in the mind or creation or a creator.  They believed in only in materialism.  The mind to them and consciousness was just a side effect of chemical reactions because if you ingest  chemicals it effected the brain.  They thought they were so smart.   They were nothing but NIHILIST.  Everything is ugly.  There is no meaning.  Everything is entropy.
 
The ole Republic was a society who believed in intelligent design and the Creator.  They believed Mind comes before Manifestation.  Matter had to be imagined first.  The mythos was the Original Creator Mind imagined Numbers and made a distinction between Zero and Infinity.  The numbers created the geometry of numbers which is a topological vector space.  Some geometries create a somewhat permanent standing wave and particles where born.  The distinct dynamics of systems is symbolized with what are called Words.  And some geometries create a Fractal Closure which is a Singularity with its own universe within it.  These singularities being Vortexes have an Eye at the center which is the basis of Perception, Consciousness, and Sentience.  These singularities are Creators themselves designed in the image of the Original Creator Mind.  Beauty is the dynamics of a design which creates over-unity.  Which can be found in life and all sacred geometrical systems.  Nothing would exist if there wasn't over-unity. Everything that exist is paid for by having a reason to exist because it is self generating because of fractal recursive architecture.

It is a big game between some sentient beings to make others forget their sovereignty and make others their slave.  This can be done by keeping knowledge away from sentient beings by distraction and giving them false stupid ideas.  By perverting the words which are the symbols of classifications of the hyper-reality to have no meaning.  A technology developed by some predators known as legalese is to have double meaning depending on which context society is being talked to.
The Creation of the ole Republic was infact the fair and intelligent beings declaring a society with A LAW that Universally all Sentient Beings are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain Unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.   Unalienable Rights being the operating phrase here.  MEANING the rights they can NOT be “given up” even by contract.

THE TWO PARADOXES
The ANACAPTARDS being they have not one creative individual amongst them.  Saw what a brilliant idea the NAP was and claimed they came up with it. What a joke.  But since they have no experience with any kind of creative design whatsoever and they dont actually understand what liberty is and that liberty is actually very valuable and Liberty has a price to pay. They are parasites in disguise wanting everything for free including the most valuable rare liberty. Free liberty and free sex.  more like no liberty and u need to get laid; get some common sense.  ANCAPTARDS in general are just irrational argumentative types trying to act like they are smart by coming up with dumb, like the following: TAXES are FORCE.  NO TAXES no Government.  They said random organization will occur in the free market.   Unbeknownst to them without law no contracts are upheld so there no free market arose.  Unable to protect manufacturing and shipping.  Only theft was the optimal strategy of survival here.  Anacapistan was unable or unwilling to resist attacks upon private contracts and public credit. Land speculators expected no rise in values when no government could not defend its borders nor protect its population.  Soon they were contractually sold into slavery since no court order was upheld because of massive rebellion.  An unable to resist an invading army Ancapistan became the worst slavery hellhole in the world.
^
PARADOX 1:  no initiation of force (taxation) lead to VIOLENCE and INITIATION OF FORCE everywhere.  Massive poverty and oligarchy.
DIEHARD ANCAPS please reference
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Articles_of_Confederation
for historical reference based on facts and stfu

Because the founders of the ole Republic were the brightest in the field of game theory, celluar automata, system dynamics, and history.  They can easily navigate the paradox of taxation.  NAP applies in a context and has its limits like Jan clearly explains and ANCAPTARDS have difficulty understanding, that is breaks down in duress.  Without LAW and a Society which will uphold NAP the individual is immediately under duress attacked by predation with no sizable defense from all sides by Chaos.  Predation from outside armies and from within rebellions against the courts.  The taxes were "the price of liberty, the peace, and the safety of yourselves and posterity".  So the answer to the paradox of force in taxes is: For membership within the ole Republic society taxation ( initiation of force ) is required to secure the society which will protect the individual from much greater violence.  With a minimal government bound to only uphold NAP and nothing else the ole Republic became a standard bearer for freedom in the world .  P.S. until ANCAPTARDS moved in with no education and demanded a democracy of getting free crap.
^
PARADOX 2:: taxation only to secure the republic leads to ultimate freedom and free markets because contracts are upheld and there is a common defense

PS
In the ole Republic:
The original constitution although separated out many powers and religion from state is proper design it failed because it didnt explicitly separate the creating of currency from state.  Allowing the force of taxation to be anesthetized.  Hence no pubilc resistance to big government.  We dont have a republic anymore .  We have a democracy collapsing into anarchy which is a prelude to despotism totalitarianism.
The new Republic will separate out the power of money from the state.  bitcoin, gold, rothamon trading cards whatever.  Finally No where is roads fire dept, all the other public crap part of the LAW of NAP and is not in the jurisdiction of the government of the Republic

[5flags]

I'm always impressed when someone resurrects a 3 year old thread. Especially when they make an ass of themselves while doing it.

[Kluge]

Must be the Glenn Beck endorsement...

[godseyeview]

I'm always impressed when someone resurrects a 3 year old thread. Especially when they make an ass of themselves while doing it.

The Good AnCapitan AnCapitard reporting for duty i see.  Top of the morning to ya

[Rassah]

What in the actual fuck?!

I miss Myrkul, but I'm glad he's not around for this pathetic turd salad...