Just where do we live?

[myrkul]

Somalia started out a shithole. It's still a shithole. But it's a better shithole than it was.

It's easy for things to improve when you're in a shithole. Improving things when you're in a highly complex, functional and wealthy society... not so easy.

Well, there is some truth to this. But should we shirk from seeking to improve because it is hard?

You are conflating country and society. A society is not geographical. A society is the people. You can leave the society without leaving the land you live on.

So any member of a NAP society can leave that society at any time? Therefore he is no longer bound by its rules or his prior contracts.  You're ignoring the fact that any significant NAP society must have some geographic extent. Otherwise it is meaningless - by what authority would a non-NAPster be subject to arbitration with a NAPster?

None whatsoever. Of course, it should be pointed out that by exiting the society, you're also exiting the protections of that society. Just as the non society member could not be subject to arbitration with a member, neither would a member be subject to arbitration with a non-member. The original definition of "outlaw" meant simply outside the law, neither bound nor protected by it. A person who has left the society would be an "outlaw" in that original sense.

Wealth does not automatically lead to power over other people. Any power over other people due to your wealth is voluntary, usually because they would like to have some of that wealth.

Or perhaps the need to have some of that wealth, therefore not voluntary.

You mean aside from the fact that other people have as much, if not more wealth, and if given freedom to choose, people will pick a better work environment over a higher wage?

Will there be prisoners in NAPland so? If so, are you suggesting they will be free to leave at any time?

Very rarely, and no. But there are restrictions on that, as my example will show. Only in instances of flight risk, or where there was sufficient harm done to warrant it. A good example of what such a case might look like is here. The incident which the arbitration is about starts here.

[1714800828]

1714800828

[1714800828]

1714800828

[FirstAscent]

None whatsoever. Of course, it should be pointed out that by exiting the society, you're also exiting the protections of that society. Just as the non society member could not be subject to arbitration with a member, neither would a member be subject to arbitration with a non-member. The original definition of "outlaw" meant simply outside the law, neither bound nor protected by it. A person who has left the society would be an "outlaw" in that original sense.

Not true. A wealthy individual can still have protection. Individuals can organize and devise a government. They are not outlaws, especially since NAP does not rule out the above examples. No doubt there are more examples as well.

[myrkul]

None whatsoever. Of course, it should be pointed out that by exiting the society, you're also exiting the protections of that society. Just as the non society member could not be subject to arbitration with a member, neither would a member be subject to arbitration with a non-member. The original definition of "outlaw" meant simply outside the law, neither bound nor protected by it. A person who has left the society would be an "outlaw" in that original sense.

Not true. A wealthy individual can still have protection. Individuals can organize and devise a government. They are not outlaws, especially since NAP does not rule out the above examples. No doubt there are more examples as well.

Then that would be their society. And as long as it didn't attack the other society, there would be no conflict. I think you're beginning to grasp the concept.