No.97091 [Last50 Posts]
How would a society without a state and no limits on "personal freedom" not degrade into a degenerate multiculti Globohomo society? How would it last with no restrictions on trade? There would be deficits the economy would shit itself. You cannot privatize borders anyone would be free to wonder in. Society would lose all its values and no one would create children anymore and the society would ultimately die.
____________________________
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.97092
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.97093
What a rambling, incoherent string of words. Come back when you're more sensible.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.97095
>>97093
So you're saying that
>Free trade wouldn't harm the economy and wouldn't create trade deficit
>Immigration would magically stop
>A society with no social restrictions would thrive becoming a multicultural globohomo society
>Private companies wouldn't use violence on eachother
>Private property can be enforced without a state
Anarchism and Capitalism don't make sense together. A state needs to enforce private property. I don't see it's an incoherent rambling?
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.97096
>>97091
I've got nothing better to do. Have a (you):
>degrade into a degenerate multiculti Globohomo society?
Check the catalog, we have several threads on this already. It's a lot harder to be a degenerate when you have to face the consequences in the market. Take fags for example:
It's a lot harder to be a fag if you can't get HIV tests at the free clinic, get Medicare to pay for your AIDS medicine, and none of the Christians will serve or rent to you, and there's no state to make them bake the cake, bigot. Your insurance rates will also skyrocket because you're a high time-preference degenerate and thus a yuge liability on any provider that covers you. To say nothing of the fact that any residence with children in it will probably forbid you from entering, because fags fuck kids.
>How would it last with no restrictions on trade? There would be deficits the economy would shit itself.
Look up "comparative advantage", if you find a way to refute it let me know.
>You cannot privatize borders
Picrelated, rare sighting of near-mythical "private border" in the wilderness.
>Society would lose all its values
Picrelated, artist's conception of how people might have values even without daddy gubmint telling them not to masturbate.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.97097
>>97091
>How would a society without a state and no limits on "personal freedom" not degrade into a degenerate multiculti Globohomo society?
Much of it would, and this is a good thing.
> no one would create children anymore
…however, you and I have different estimates (as in, <100%) of the rate of homosexuality in a free society, possibly because of your unresolved issues.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.97101
>>97091
BEND OVER AND GRAB YOUR ANKLES
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.97103
>>97095
>Free trade wouldn't harm the economy
It wouldn't and never has.
>would can't create trade deficit
That is a spook.
>Immigration would magically stop
It would certainly not take place on the large scale that it does today.
>A society with no social restrictions would thrive
Yes
>becoming a multicultural globohomo society
Globohomo has always been imposed from above, not from below.
>Private companies wouldn't use violence on each other
They already do this, but mediation of that violence is very inefficient in the current monopolistic code of law.
>Private property can be enforced without a state
Private law and security production predate the state.
>Anarchism and Capitalism don't make sense together.
Indeed they do not. Anarcho-capitalism is a misnomer that we can trace back to Marx calling laissez-faire "anarchy of production".
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.97105
>>97091
why dont you like multiculti?
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.97185
>>97103
>Private law and security production predate the state.
write more on this please
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.97194
>>97185
In Western Europe, prior to the rise of the state (~1300 AD), there was no "national law"; even if somebody wished to enforce something of the sort, the topography stopped them and the contemporary technology did not help. Instead, law was produced ("discovered", if you're a Thomist) in the process of settling specific interpersonal conflicts, typically by bringing your claim to a private court. This means a few things:
>No legislation
Since law only settled conflicts, producing it out of thin air on a whim wouldn't make much sense, especially by people who had no expertise on whatever they were legislating. Quite the opposite; only active participants in an activity had a hand in forming its customs and statutes (only merchants determined commerce law, only citizens determined travel/migration law, etc.).
>Only torts were prosecuted
All conflicts were treated in the specific; nobody could commit a crime against society at large. Thus, all cases had a victim and an aggressor, and some resolution had to be reached about whether and to what extent the latter owed redress to the former.
>No politics
Since there was no monopoly for cohabitant groups to fight over, law had no political character. Thus, there was no recognition of so-called "civil rights", no laws against discrimination, nothing resembling affirmative action, etc.
Security was produced on a much smaller scale (that of the community), so it was necessarily private. One would either form a militia or hire guards to keep the place safe; either way, costs were only assessed after the defense services were actually used (i.e. cops weren't paid to eat donuts).
As to the original claim that private property can only be enforced by the state, we see that this is historically false. See the attached PDF for more on the history and theory of the subject.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.97207
>>97194
Just an addition, there was a lengthy time of state made law in most of Western Europe - the Roman law of the Roman empire. Mediterranean countries still remembered the Roman law and used it, and Eastern Rome maintained and added to the codices.
Kingdom of France specifically had two zones of different law - of Droit Coutumier (Customs Right, aka Common Law) in the Frankish North, and Droit Ecrit (Written Right, aka Roman Law) in Occitania and Provence. Unlike one written Roman Law in the south, Common Law in the north was very decentralized, with dozens different codices including local customs and rulings, different or void entirely outside "their" region. This came to be from Germanic invaders-immigrants importing their tribal customs in. Early post-Roman kingdoms had two separate laws, one for Germanics and Roman law for local Romano-Gael, Hispanians, Italians or whoever, with one of them becoming dominant later.
Literally only Napoleon ended the Coutume with his Napoleonic Code in early XIX century, also forced it on most of Europe, which bore the Continental law system and direct legislation by the state. Only three European countries were not pwned by Nappy - Russia, Britain and Sweden (who just waited it all out). Dunno about Sweden, but Britain is still Common Law, if degenerate. Russia used to be Common Law, but Commies went full constitutionalism while ignoring their own freshly minted state law at random (like famously liberal Stalin's constitution with zero real rights for anyone whatsoever), so basically there still is no effective law in Russia since 1917 but what local bandits decide it to be. Anarcho-tyranny is shiet, I'd rather go back to XVI volumes of Russian Common Law or maybe even Sharia law, anything is better now than arbitrary banditism.
Also on Roman law, it started like any other, in private dealings of private individuals becoming a custom, but state appinted Consuls and Tribunes could invent new laws as part of their tenure, so they did invent all the cool sounding Lex Something by using state power.
Curiously the Roman Empire, much like the USSR, gradually abandoned jurisprudence itself and just went with arbitrary tyranny of whoever sick fuck was currently in charge of everything. Probably the reason the northern half of the Western Empire had little problem ditching obsolete Roman law for tribal customs.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.97282
>>97194
>prior to the rise of the state (~1300 AD)
so Imperium Galliarum was not a state?
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.97284
>>97282
What characteristics of the Gallic Empire do you think make it similar to a modern nation-state?
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.97329
>>97284
dont answer my question by question
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.97330
>>97329
Your question was too vague to be answered properly, so you're being asked to get more specific. No one wants or is going to sift through all of the data pertaining to the Gallics to try and figure out why you brought them up, then argue against that supposition, because no one cares enough to do so (and they have no obligation to do so either). You think Galliarum contradicts the original poster? Then support your claim, give examples, use arguments. Don't ask open-ended non-questions like a lazy faggot.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.97349
>>97329
>So, you are telling me the Gallic Empire was not a state?
<([obviously not]) Why do you think it was?
>Don't QUESTION ME!
Terrible.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.97351
>>97284
>him: ancient rome was a state
>you: what features does it have which make it a MODRN NATION-state?
just dropped it in to tell you literally kys you shit-tier nigger debater
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.97352
>>97330
if the person really thinks ancient rome was not a state he should first say so
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.97415
>>97091
Some excellent counterpoints have already been raised, but I'd just say this:
If the absence of the state would cause society to lose all of its values, then what caused society to develop the values it had in the first place? If there can be no societal values in the absence of the state, then the state itself could not have been founded based on values. Are societal values a mere accidental product emerging coincidentally from the spontaneous development of the state? I don't think it's likely that you really believe that.
>>97282
In his defense, "the rise of the state" does not necessarily mean "the invention of the first state"; just the general proliferation of the trend. It doesn't strictly exclude the possibility of earlier states.
I think it'd also be fair to interpret his commentary as referring to the nation-state, rather than merely the state, though my understanding is that the modern nation-state really came into its own some centuries later (though I fully admit I may be mistaken about this). Perhaps his point is even more subtle than this, I don't know.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.97421
>>97282
This guy: >>97415 got my gist. There's a difference between the Rothbardian definition of the state as the highest-ranking predatory agency in a jurisdiction, and there's the anthropological(?) definition of the state as a legal persona that has monopolistic powers delegated to it. So, the Gallic Empire would have just been the property of its emperors (the Latin "dominium"—ownership—did not distinguish between a man owning his house and the caesar owning the empire). Since the emperors levied taxes and waged wars, Rothbard would have called the empire a state, but since "the Gallic Empire" did not do those things, folks like Creveld would not have categorized it as a state. I went by Creveld's definition in my post. I apologize for the confusion.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.97422
>>97349
it was a state because it had monopoly on legal use of power on certain territory in certain time
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.97525
>>97091
>no one would create children anymore and the society would ultimately die.
Sounds great we need less people
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.97541
I dont mind an aristocratic republic-like state to protect the free market, but the modern /pol/ neo-nazi idea that we should have a big state and a strong leader to protect "the spirit of white race" or any other shit makes me sick
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.97563
>>97421
ok i will read about creveld's ideas
fuck i have 100 wikipedia web pages waiting to be read and this number is growing
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.97566
>>97541
There's no reason to shit all over productivity and progress if you're not safeguarding your family. If you aren't incentivizing the propagation of your genes there's no benefit to having a state. It's like saying "well I'd be cool with the Mafia if they'd just ensure that no one stole from me". They steal from you, you dense cunt. The only reason to want a Mafia is to be PART of it. To get some of that sweet loot and sweet violence. It's a net loss to have a state "protect the free market" because it cannot exist with a free market.
Also I hope you get raped to death by a pack of rabid niggers for advocating against sovereignty and freedom.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.97568
>>97566
I have no idea how is your statements about family and genes are even related.
>It's a net loss to have a state "protect the free market" because it cannot exist with a free market.
I dont get the point? Are you completely against the state? Because there is a demand for courts, laws, police, and I just want "my guys" to be in charge of it.
>Also I hope you get raped to death by a pack of rabid niggers for advocating against sovereignty and freedom.
I never advocated against sovereignty and freedom, Jesus Christ.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.97569
>>97568
>Are you completely against the state?
You must be new.
>I just want "my guys" to be in charge of it.
While he wasn't the most dispassionate about it, that's exactly what >>97566 is criticizing you for.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.97575
>>97569
State exists because there is a demand for the state to protect the "commons", as Curt Doolittle describes it.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.97579
>>97575
>Theft exists because there is a demand for stealing
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.97584
>>97575
>social contract
I don't demand this service from the state; I don't remember signing anything. What are the terms of this contract? Where can I read them? I don't think the state is upholding its end of the contract, does that entitle me to exit the contract? Is there some drawback to the state for not following these imaginary terms that no one can read anywhere? Or am I forced to continue participating through threat of violence, whether I want to or not?
Before you go around saying the state is voluntary, stop and consider what happens when someone tries to say 'no.'
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.97588
>>97579
What you call "stealing" is the defence of common property in a general sense, as for example social trust is a property of the society.
>>97584
I never said "social contract"
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.97590
>>97584
> and consider what happens when someone tries to say 'no.'
You lose your state rights and now you can be treated by the state in any nasty way
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.97592
>>97588
>What you call "stealing" is the defence of common property in a general sense
>common property in a general sense
>social trust is a property of the society
>So many empty buzzwords
>>97590
So the state is the source of rights now, statist?
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.97593
>>97588
>common property
>general sense
>social trust
>property of the society
Nice non-entities you've got there. Just call it "stealing I think is justified," you'll get more respect for the honesty.
>>97590
>the state grants rights
I think it's time for you leave.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.97594
>>97592
>>So many empty buzzwords
Social trust, or better, an average IQ, is not an empty buzzword.
>>>97590
>So the state is the source of rights now, statist?
Other people are the source of your rights, if they decide not to enforce them, you lose them
>>97593
So you believe there is *literally* no such thing as a social trust
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.97595
>>97593
>>the state grants rights
People grand rights, and the state is just a bunch of powerful people at the end of the day
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.97598
Actually it's restraints on personal freedom that turns it into fullfemshitglobohomo degeneracy, as (((they))) intended. For centuries in the West or any other self-respecting culture strong men would break the skulls of flaming sodomites, and women were properly kept under restraint by men, as any wayward child would be by a town.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.97607
>>97594
>Social trust, or better, an average IQ
>An average IQ is granted to nobody by a man with a gun
>People grand rights, and the state is just a bunch of powerful people at the end of the day
So your whole point is that you're surrendering yourself to people because they've got a bigger gun and totally happy with that?
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.97608
>>97594
>Other people are the source of your rights
Sure thing, boyo.
>Social trust, or better, an average IQ, is not an empty buzzword.
>So you believe there is *literally* no such thing as a social trust
Certainly not when you bother to define it, and just use it as a nebulous justification for unspecified state actions.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.97609
>>97608
> Sure thing, boyo.
Ok, where is it coming from then
>>97607
>>An average IQ is granted to nobody by a man with a gun
Ok, great, tell me exactly who will stop africans to immigrate in your state? Or who will stop this low-iq family from having 10 kids?
At the end of the day, you need people to
> define rules
> protect them with guys
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.97610
>>97609
>Ok, great, tell me exactly who will stop africans to immigrate in your state?
Yourself? Didn't you ever think of relying on yourself and cooperating with people instead of relying on asslicking the man with a bigger gun while actively supporting him and his hurtful practices like theft, control, brainwashing, murder and suppression of defiants?
>Or who will stop this low-iq family from having 10 kids?
Lack of food has been proven to be the most reliable way to do it.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.97611
>>97609
>Ok, where is it coming from then
God, or your own sense of agency. Rights are not "granted" by anyone, they simply are. That's the core idea behind property rights theory, if you can't accept that then go play with the relativists.
>Ok, great, tell me exactly who will stop africans to immigrate in your state?
I've attached a very complex and intricate diagram to this post. If you look at it real closely you might start to understand the beginnings of how such a mystical process might happen.
>Or who will stop this low-iq family from having 10 kids?
Without gibs to pay for the 10 kids she can't have them at all.
I swear, we've had this exact conversation with another poster about two weeks ago. Can't you /pol/acks at least communicate with each other before sending another drone through the revolving door?
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.97612
>>97610
>>97611
>I-if we privatize everything that means illegal immigration is solved
>i-if there's no gibs immigration is solved
In 1800s america mexicans always found someone to sell them property, someone to give them a job etc. There wasn't even fucking welfare. Also not everyone comes for welfare and healthcare people come because their countries are shit and they are willing to get jobs. But a nation like ancapistan can't handle that many immigrants. A poll says that 70% of Indians would move to America if there were no borders. I'm sure all of them would get jobs. The nation would become India before you know it.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.97614
>>97630
> Didn't you ever think of relying on yourself and cooperating with people instead of relying on asslicking the man with a bigger gun
When I cooperate with people, I need someone to make sure that people with whom I cooperate will hold their part of the deal & won't scam me. It does not justify the state, it just states that I need other people to enforce my rights, it can be the state, or it can be a private court&police, the problem is, private court and police won't protect "common" property like various metrics of nation, iq, crime rate, another may be ecology, another may be the honesty of people.
> while actively supporting him and his hurtful practices like theft, control, brainwashing, murder and suppression of defiants?
That's why I say that we need good guys to run the state so this shit doesn't happen.
>>97611
> God,
Cringe
>>97610
> Yourself?
>>97611
> or your own sense of agency.
You realise that under this individualistic approach you will quickly lose your rights to any group which will decide to take them
> Rights are not "granted" by anyone, they simply are.
Have you even been robbed or attacked in any way? Because "rights simply are" statement is obviously retarded to anyone who got his rights infringed on.
>>97610
> Lack of food has been proven to be the most reliable way to do it.
>>97611
> Without gibs to pay for the 10 kids she can't have them at all.
Low IQs can still have many kids without welfare. Do you think there is lots of welfare in Africa, where they pop 5 kids? There are many collective "properties" which can be damaged by various ways, having low iq kids is just one of them.
> I've attached a very complex and intricate diagram to this post
And who will stop him to break you rules? Or if an employer decides to import lots of shitty people to work on his factory, and the quality of life(common property) by every metric decreases for everyone except said employer, then employer and his low iq employees basically steal from the society.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.97618
>>97614
> the problem is, private court and police won't protect "common" property like various metrics of nation, iq, crime rate, another may be ecology, another may be the honesty of people
So it won't protect statistical information by actively preventing these issues on personal level?
>That's why I say that we need good guys to run the state so this shit doesn't happen.
Sure worked out great.
>Do you think there is lots of welfare in Africa, where they pop 5 kids?
There are plenty of supplies, though niggers just breed more. They then die more as well,
>There are many collective "properties" which can be damaged by various ways, having low iq kids is just one of them.
>Niggers breeding somewhere in the forest lowers my kids' IQ
Though i guess it can't go lower in your case
>And who will stop him to break you rules?
Gun
>the quality of life(common property)
No it's not. If they try to actually damage property, harm people or steal shit they get shot, if not, they either die from hunger or are fed by the employer, not affecting some magical "quality of life", or actual qualities of life like cheap and quality goods, services, crime and environment. Taht's because you empower a group to be above these rights that they allow them to roam free and decrease these things, therefore impacting statistics that you try to treat like a fixed variable.
>basically steal from the society
And this creature cringes during mentions of God.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.97619
>>97611
>Without gibs to pay for the 10 kids she can't have them at all.
Among mammals, as opposed to your kind, she comes with babyfood strapped to her chest.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.97620
>>97614
>When I cooperate with people, I need someone to make sure that people with whom I cooperate will hold their part of the deal & won't scam me.
It's called arbitration, it existed long before the state, and even in contemporary times most people settle their disputes out of court using private arbitration.
>You realise that under this individualistic approach you will quickly lose your rights to any group which will decide to take them
Wow, I guess it's just literally impossible for people to form groups without the state forcing them to. I'll go tell all the churches, book clubs, and football teams that they way they're collectivizing without a state is literally impossible. Everyone point at the retard and laugh.
> Because "rights simply are" statement is obviously retarded to anyone who got his rights infringed on.
If you acknowledge rights can be infringed on you acknowledge rights can exist.
>Do you think there is lots of welfare in Africa, where they pop 5 kids?
>he doesn't know what foreign aid is
Everyone point at the retard and laugh.
>And who will stop him to break you rules?
I shoot him for trespassing and dump his corpse in the trash to be picked up in the morning.
>Or if an employer decides to import lots of shitty people to work on his factory, and the quality of life(common property) by every metric decreases for everyone except said employer
Why "except said employer?" Who has to pay to bring the niggers over here? Who has to pay to house the niggers? Who has to pay for security to make sure his nigger labor doesn't cause property damage? What you call "common property" can and is priced on the market, and the employer will end up paying if he ends up imposing costs on people.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.97623
>>97618
>> And who will stop him to break you rules?
> Gun
> mom, mom, I can stop anyone from breaking any rule, I just need a *gun*
I guess you forgot that he can have guns as well
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.97624
>>97618
> Sure worked out great.
I mean, stateless societies worked our even worse.
> by actively preventing these issues on personal level?
What do you mean?
> They then die more as well,
That's not the point
> Niggers breeding somewhere in the forest lowers my kids' IQ
Wow, you are truly retard, I am referring to the average IQ of people with whom you live near.
> If they try to actually damage property, harm people or steal shit they get shot
So are you proposing to shoot anyone for any crime? What if they try to riot then? But this is not even my point.
> not affecting some magical "quality of life"
So do you think that average intelligence or average level of crime is "magic"? Because it is real with more than real effect on your life. If people around you are more violent, you are constantly risking your life and are constantly required to spend more on law enforcement. This is a real cost of this magic quality. Or when people around you are stupid, you constantly get low-quality services simply because someone at some point it making a low-IQ mistake, and people around you are simply harder to interact with when they are stupid. Again, this is a real cost.
> . Taht's because you empower a group to be above these rights that they allow them to roam free
No, that because the current state is run by bad people.
>>97620
> he doesn't know what foreign aid is
And in a libertarian society, how would you stop some overseas government form just giving a shit to your low-iq people to breed.
> I shoot him for trespassing and dump his corpse in the trash to be picked up in the morning.
→ >>97623
I am particularly interested, btw, why are bad neighbourhoods bad, even tho almost everyone has guns.
> Wow, I guess it's just literally impossible for people to form groups
Ok, now you at least agree that you need to form a group to protect the rights of the group members
> It's called arbitration, it existed long before the state,
I even acknowledged it, but arbitration is relevant only as long as *other* people are respecting it
> you acknowledge rights can exist.
Yes, as long as someone stronger comes and takes them away
> Why "except said employer?"
Because everyone except him only loses but he ends up making some profit. But even if he ends up in a net loss as well, everyone around him is in a net loss simply because he imported nigs
> Who has to pay to bring the niggers over here? Who has to pay to house the niggers?
That's irrelevant questions
> Who has to pay for security to make sure his nigger labor doesn't cause property damage?
Everyone, not just the employer, as bad people don't just work 24/7
> What you call "common property" can and is priced on the market, and the employer will end up paying if he ends up imposing costs on people.
How much does 1 IQ point in your nation's average IQ costs *on the free market*?
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.97636
>>97624
>btw, why are bad neighbourhoods bad, even tho almost everyone has guns.
...because the people who have those guns are criminals and niggers? If you go by legal gun ownership there's a very clear negative correlation between guns per capita and the rate of intentional homicide.
>But even if he ends up in a net loss as well, everyone around him is in a net loss simply because he imported nigs
You're not seeing the point, dumbass. If he's at a net loss at well he won't import nigs in the first place.
>That's irrelevant questions
No they aren't, you don't get to weasel out of this, you half-literate socialist nigger. There's no Section 8 housing, there's no Civil Rights Act, there are no Israeli-funded vans to bring people in from Honduras. There's no way to spend other people's money, and there's no way to keep people from acting in their own interest. Who will rent to the imported niggers, knowing that renting to them will immensely lower their property value as the niggers vandalize everything, knowing they will probably lose money as they're always late on rent, knowing they'll lose even more money as the niggers scare all the other tenants away? So now in addition to paying the bus or air fare to bring the niggers to him, he now has to construct housing for the niggers because no one in the community will rent to them. And he has to pay for security and police forces for the housing he builds too, because he needs to stop his nigger workforce from wiping itself out in petty squabbles.. There's no government welfare programs to cover these costs for him, so he has to pay them himself. And they simply aren't worth it, because low-quality labor costs you more money than it saves.
>Everyone, not just the employer, as bad people don't just work 24/7
...I can't even understand what you're trying to say here, so I have to assume you don't actually understand how liability works.
Since I'm assuming you'll ignore all of the above and can't appreciate arguments from concept, I'll give you a little thought experiment using an example: our own past. The United States has been full of niggers since the 1600s. Those niggers were non-slaves for the past 150 years. Yet they only started causing major problems in the 1960s. Why? Because until the 1970s, the market and freedom of dissociation was dealing with niggers just fine. In the late 60s and early 70s, when freedom of dissociation became illegal through the Civil Rights Act, and the niggers started getting gibs and free housing through Section 8, the government artificially removed the market forces used to deal with niggers, and made the niggers themselves more dysfunctional by breaking up the nigger family and subsidizing single motherhood.
If you want more information, we've had this exact same thread multiple times in the past, and two of them are still in the catalog:
>>96039
>>96081
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.97640
>>97636
> You're not seeing the point, dumbass. If he's at a net loss at well he won't import nigs in the first place.
Assume there is a factory or plantation owner. He thinks that he can bring a thousand of nigs to replace local workers. He pays for their housing, and the crime rates in the area where he house them increases, especially then nigs start to have kids. What is the libertarian solution at this point? Just pay for the police to stand at every corner? Try to segregate? Well, not only you are going to face some losses like the cost of relocation, the same nigs may riot if they won't be allowed in, as they did in real life. Then it is guns vs guns and that's just unnecessary risk you just were not supposed to be facing from the beginning. Or if instead of nigs the factory owner import communist chinks who at some point decide to nationalise everything in your area? What are you going to do? Kill them? Or they may kill you, again, it is unnecessary risk. If there was a state which cares about the people, it wouldn't allow importation of bad people as a labour force to begin with.
Now I hope you see that it is irrelevant if the factory owner makes profit or not. Maybe he does somehow manage to force his nigs to work and makes profit out of them. Maybe he miscalculated and now makes losses, anyway, people who now have to live near bad people suffer unnecessary losses, or you can say that their common property was stolen.
> …because the people who have those guns are criminals and niggers?
Wow, almost like I was right and your rights come from other people, either it is the police who enforce them, or just civilians who respect and don't try to violate them, and the presence of some groups, like criminals and nigs, will lead you to lose your rights.
I dont disagree that the state with its bad actions made nig problem worse, but the whole civil rights happened because nigs are a huge liability to begin with & that they were constantly rioting, nagging whites into submission, same in South Africa/Zimbabwe, yet what I see as libertarian solution is to act when the problem is already there, like to segregate or to kill criminal ones, libertarian solution is unable to be targeted at preventing the problem, only at mitigating it.
Similar question - what are you going to do if a foreign country will decide to send your low iq people foreign aid so that they can have lots of kids.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.97657
>>97594
>Social trust s not an empty buzzword.
There is no consensus on trust by individuals hence "social trust" cannot exist. Even if it exists, the state cannot even provide it because it has its own incentives that conflict with the majority of individuals.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.97658
>>97595
>People grand rights
If they are granted, then they must be privileges or as Thomas Sowell calls them: "legal entitlements."
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.97660
>>97624
>stateless societies worked our even worse.
lol this nigga hasn't heard of polycentric law societies
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.97661
>>97624
>bad neighbourhoods bad, even tho almost everyone has guns.
bad neighborhoods usually do not have guns and such cities have strict gun laws
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.97663
>>97640
>He thinks that he can bring a thousand of nigs to replace local workers
In order to work, one must have work ethic which entails other characteristics that make even low-iq people productive people. You see this in every migrant population prior to the welfare state.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.97664
>>97640
>what are you going to do if a foreign country will decide to send your low iq people foreign aid so that they can have lots of kids.
Not sell to them and not rent to them, like has already been said. The remainder of your post indicates you either didn't read what has already been posted or didn't comprehend it, so I leave your autism to be someone else's problem.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.97667
>>97660
I do know about them, but where are they now, all conquered
>>97658
Thats semantics
>>97661
They have illegal guns, which apparently should magically give them rights
>>97664
>Not sell to them and not rent to them, like has already been said.
Ok, now they have a choice - take your stuff or die from hunger, what are you going to do now? Fight them with guns? They have guns too, but it all would've been prevented by a small state to care about the wellbeing and common property of society.
>your autism
Ironic
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.97668
>>97667
but PLS's have lasted longer than states
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.97669
>>97667
>but it all would've been prevented
There's nothing to prevent, there's no feasible way these people could have entered the community in the first place short of being teleported there. You just keep glossing over this fact (that's irrelevant questions lel), because your retarded scenario doesn't make sense when you look at all the facts. Ancap solves this problem before it occurs, because without retards such as yourself having the power to spend other people's money there's no way mechanism through which it occurs.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.97737
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.97742
>>97737
polycentric law systems
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.97743
>>97091
don't get sucked into commie propaganda anon.
it's good to exercise yourself with a thought, but it's all commie trash.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.97815
>>97612
If they're not sucking up your money through welfare, or changing the political landscape through voting (neither exists in AnCapistan), then what are you worried about? Crime? Everybody can have a gun in AnCapistan. Criminals get quickly ventilated in such a scenario. Shitting up public spaces? Everything in AnCapistan is privately owned, and they can be kicked out. Degeneracy? Kick them out of your community. Disease? Don't let them in in the first place.
Cultures naturally self-segregate. The state interferes with this by taking away the private person's right to defend is property, and forcing places of commerce to be unnaturally inclusive.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.98332
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.98382
>>98332
you havent taken the red pill yet fren
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.98387
>>98332
You are clearly much too smart for this board. Only reddit has the capacity to withstand your massive brain.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.100205
>>97091
>ultra-capitalism
>39.2% statist
Man, who ever makes the political tests/compasses are retarded as fuck.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.100228
>>97612
>tfw India is more pro-American government than America
Can we just ship all of our politicians to Pooville?
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.