/liberty/ - Liberty

>>61856

>You do realize that there's no substantial difference between the state and a very large home owner's association that charges you various fees right?

No, not really. there is quite a substantial difference between your local home owners association and a government. I have an option of not buying from the home owners association, such liberty doesn't exist with a state.

> You do realize that it'd be impossible for the average person to pay a security guard to protect their property 24/7 like how the police do now?

They don't really have to, there's numerous ways that people can pay for private security, like pooling resources, paying a monthly fee, crowd sourcing, etc. Also, 'Free-riding' isn't really a problem when it comes to security as seen by Sandy Springs private police.

Also

>protect their property 24/7 like how the police do now?

You actually have to be in a state of illusion to believe that the police are around 24/7 to protect property. if your house gets robbed, the police won't do anything. They don't protect property or prevent attacks against, they come after the fact.

>You do realize that you would have to pitch in with your neighbors collectively for the security of a geographic location right?

Not really, I don't have to necessarily do anything. If I own the property (ie: a house) and I just don't like the idea of having to pay for my neighbor's protection then I just won't.

>You do realize that because you're all pitching in collectively that decisions about which security force etc would logically end up in a democratic decision making process right?

You do realize that asking "you do realize" questions don't actually make you anymore correct, right? Also, suppose you were to decide on a council amongst other property owners near you to make a "home owners" type of organization with a somewhat democratic function. There's nothing inherently wrong with this at all, this is completely fine in Ancap so long as you don't mess with other people's property or force them to do things they don't want to do.

Where's the incentive to not re create the state?

>>61864

You don't have to live in your current country. You could move to Antarctica. There's literally nothing stopping you.

Those who have property and money and power are going to use that against you. I think why you guys don't realize this is maybe because you're generally nice people, I'm not joking either. Maybe you don't think people will try and milk you for all you're worth in Ancapistan.

If I own property there's no reason to not maximize my profits.

>>61860

Butthat'snotreallywhathe'ssaying

He's saying that a private tenant can do the same things and has the same powers that the government has, so the revolution is silly because not much will change other than the current "monopoly on violence" will have its power dispersed to lower citizens.

>>61870

NAHHH CUZ IT'S VOLUNTARY DOE

pretending to be retarded is fun

>>61868

>You don't have to live in your current country.

>You could move to Antarctica. There's literally nothing stopping you.

Sure, but at the end of the day this sort of rebuttal is stupid for a number of reasons. The main one of course concerns the social contract (which I would guess you wouldn't agree with, considering you're an anarchist) .Where does the assumption come from that the state rightfully owns all the land? How did it get that way? It got that way through theft, through continuous promises to the population that can never be fulfilled and ultimately it got this way through force. That's not how you end up owning property. Also, there's a good number of states that don't even give you the right to leave, such as East Germany during World War 2 or even North Korea now. The state doesn't operate off of voluntarism, otherwise it wouldn't be a state.

I have no reason to leave my property, the state, on the other hand, has no business being there in the first place.

>>61869

>Those who have property and money and power are going to use that against you.

That's sort of a heavy claim, so my neighbor is going to use his money and property against me? Why? In what manner? Why would this be profitable, let alone a maintainable business model for the future?

>If I own property there's no reason to not maximize my profits.

Which effectively means to sell your products at cheap and to be as efficient as possible in regards to your property and the products you produce, which is one of the great things about capitalism. It operates off of profits, and profits are ultimately based on how valued your products are.

>>61873

My system advocates for direct democracy where we cooperate and try and work with each other and act like grown ups. Are there going to be problems? Of course! We're not utopians. You can do what you want with your property no one can take it away from you if you rightfully own it that's what you guys don't grasp about our system. It's the equivalent of saying "Why can't I say I'm a king and have peasants if they voluntarily agree to be my peasants? You want to murder me so that doesn't happen you fascists!!!" You can do that we won't stop you. Our whole point is we want to attack the major industries that basically all rely heavily on the state to support it anyways so I don't get why you don't want to overthrow those things as well. Voluntary interaction is a NECESSARY but INSUFFICIENT condition for human freedom.

>>61875

If there's no incentive to recreate the state than why is there an incentive to have the state in the first place?

Wow, a lot of things just clicked from reading this thread. Now I know how BadMouse felt. They are kind of right. Communism is still fucking stupid but these are some valid points.

>>61880

>where we cooperate and try and work with each other and act like grown ups

And that naivety is why it will always fail.

>>61884

We don't have a different definition of what "rightfully owns" means fuck knuckle. This is what you're not grasping, if you mix your labor with land or a natural resource it's yours, you can do with it whatever you want as long as the other person volunteers we have no objection to it. What you don't seem to get is that most of the property and businesses in the US (my country for example) are fruit from a poisonous tree. You're fine with getting rid of the Presidency and what not but don't seem to care about the banking cartels or auto trust which is time and time again propped up via the state apparatus when it fails. Do you not understand that we don't care about seizing Home Depot? Obviously we would like the workers to strike and run it cooperatively but if one of you "anarchists" wants to work for a wage when you have the option of joining one of our co-ops go for it.

With the rest of your post did you not read that WE WON"T STOP YOU? Did you skim over that.

>>61856

>One example is private security. You do realize that it'd be impossible for the average person to pay a security guard to protect their property 24/7 like how the police do now?

>>61880

> direct democracy

>the majority votes to use capitalism

>socialism destroyed.

>>61860

>>61870

>>61871

>>61874

I'm not sure who's on what side of this....

>>61856

Also this guy's retarded.

>thing you explicitly agree to as a condition of entry, on pain of denial of service = thing you are forced to comply with as a result of being born somewhere, on pain of punishment and death

Yeah, that's totally the same thing.

>ou do realize that it'd be impossible for the average person to pay a security guard to protect their property 24/7 like how the police do now?

I'm looking outside my house right now, and I don't see a cop assigned to my specific house.

>You do realize that you would have to pitch in with your neighbors collectively for the security of a geographic location right?

Or you could, I don't know, pay a firm of my personal choice, which has other customers as additional revenue, spreading the cost of providing said service? Seriously, do you think all private security firms usually assign a guy to a specific building? Keep your eyes peeled the next time you're at a shopping center; the businesses in the area generally split the cost of a limited number of security personnel.

>You do realize that because you're all pitching in collectively that decisions about which security force etc would logically end up in a democratic decision making process right?

Except I can individually take my business elsewhere the moment I become dissatisfied. There's no reason private security firms can't service overlapping areas. "I can stop doing paying you for your services if you fail to satisfy me personally" is a very different arrangement from "everybody who lives kinda close to me and who voted decided that you are the local security force, and so I must pay you or be physically attacked".

And that's not even mentioning insurance as a way to fund it, or volunteer mutual defense organizations, or multigenerational households with private weapons ownership, or any of a number of other private voluntary solutions.

Lay off the derp, would ya?

>>61856

>police

>protecting you 24/7

My mother once called 911 and landed in a waiting line for ten minutes. I once called them on a violent trespasser and they outright refused to come at first. You just outed yourself as another middle-class kid from a sheltered neighborhood, which doesn't surprise me in the slightest.

>>61856

>average person to pay a security guard to protect their property 24/7

You can in South Africa

>>61856

You do realize that there's no substantial difference between the state and a communal system that expects specific duties among its inhabitants.

>>61856

> You do realize that it'd be impossible for the average person to pay a security guard to protect their property 24/7 like how the police do now?

no