/liberty/ - Liberty

Daily reminder that Anarcho-Capitalism is a paradox and non-functional as without the state to guard abstract private property rights anyone (other people / socialists etc) can just form a posse Kill you then assume control over your private property

>>94979

You forgot muh roads, brainlet.

>>94979

>HURR DURR PPL R VIOLENT XDDDDD

https://mises.org/library/wouldnt-warlords-take-over

>>94979

>Because a gang of criminals doesn't control the system of law, there would be no law!

>>94979

They can already do that. Hell, they don't even need to kill you to do it. All they have to do is say "Eminent Domain".

If you didn't know, there are loads of systems of structure that do not rely on the government. The etymology of anarchy is "no government"/"no ruler". It is NOT "no laws". The system of natural law is antithetical to government, and is the law that we all fundamentally hold true, and exists in practise in reverse proportion to the degree of government. Natural law is not chaos.

>>94980

>>95002

>Completely missing the point

Just because you think the Goverments criminal and stealing from you Dosent bar others from stealing from you

If anything the removal of the goverment would allow others greater ability to steal from you without repercussions

>>94990

>Wouldn't warlords take over

Yes. See the Republic of China (1920s-1940s)

>>95019

>no refutation of the article

Guess how I know you have no argument?

>>95019

Nobody will want to talk to you if you don't listen to what they have to say. Read the article >>94990 posted, it's short and sweet.

Also

>>94979

>the government is necessary to enforce the law when it pertains to private property rights

>the government isn't necessary to enforce the law when it pertains to personal property rights

Your argument is incoherent.

>>94973

>brown shirts created anarchy

im not sure about it

Rothbard said that there was nothing surprising about libertarians being with conservatives of the old right and with the anti-war left. I think what mattered to him was not where someone is between peace and war, but where he is heading; he seemed to think it important that he become more liberal throughout his life.

An unspoken implication, in the video and elsewhere, is that if everyone unanimously voted for something, it should be done. No such implication exists and laws are good and bad irrespective of voting or lack thereof.

>most casual conservatives consider the spectrum in terms of "more government" (left) and "less government" (right).

<absolute monarchism is the total absence of government, guys!

I mean, there's a reason y'all get taken as nothing but an undesireable plague of morons…

>>94973

>the spectrum in terms of "more government" (left) and "less government" (right)

These terms treat "government" and "state" as synonymous. If you were to translate the "big government/small government" terms into somewhat more accurate political terminology, it'd be "more state" and "less state" (and of course there's plenty of room for improvement on those, but I'm not interested in laboring that point here; I trust you get the idea). The "government" = structured social coordination definition isn't what is being used in the left/right = more/less government spectrum, so switching over to it distorts the discussion a bit.

This means that the lack of a state (anarchy) is not synonymous with the lack of social organization (I've heard the term "anomie" used). It's entirely possible to have structured social coordination, and institutions that provide it, without said institutions having a territorial monopoly (which is a state). Polycentric legal orders have a long history of success across every inhabited part of the world.

>>94979

>private law doesn't exist

>what is history

We've grown accustomed to a higher caliber of bad argument than this. This is seriously even weaker than "muh roads". Step it up, would you?

>>95019

>If anything the removal of the goverment would allow others greater ability to steal from you without repercussions

It would allow a greater ability to hire whoever I want or organize how I want to defend myself and my neighbors. If I wanted to start a neighborhood defensive firearms club, the state would have some very violent things to say about it, and that's AFTER restricting the kinds of firearms we legally have access to. Without them, the neighborhood watch could arm itself with whatever we want, or go in for a discounted group rate with an insurance company who'd need to hire security forces to limit their liabilities by protecting our shit.

>See the Republic of China (1920s-1940s)

Ah yes, the anarchist days of 1920s-1940s China. I remember them well.

>>95019

Oh, I don't see any ancaps that claim an abolition of government would lead to stealing being impossible. I don't think your claim that theft would rise in anarchy is true, but even if it were to do that, so what? That society considers government theft as legitimate is both inconsistent and continually harms. Stealing should be illegal, and, as government always grows when accepted, any form of "necessary evil"-argument is void. Statism lead to the point at which the decision of one criminal could eliminate most of humanity (if not all), anarchy led to uber.