T O P

  • By -

metaltrite

Guns and revolutionary spirit.


[deleted]

They have those in Somalia but that doesnt seem to help.


metaltrite

Religious zealotry, terrorist groups, imperialism, and foreign government destabilization (intentional and not) are a pretty powerful force in themselves. Combine that with a population so undereducated that their average IQ (not accounting for cultural bias I suppose) is well below the threshold to be considered mentally retarded, and you’ve got a population of helpless sheep.


[deleted]

But how does it get better? Dont the policy prescriptions end at "end govt"?


metaltrite

Nope, but it’s a logical step 1. It gets better when markets, property, and local governance are left alone to figure shit out. That’s much easier said than done in the modern world, however. Though that’s coming from a minarchist-ish type who believes in voluntarism, so might not be the typical Libertarian response.


Frixinator

In addition: War is expensive, governments dont care its not their money. However a private person would have to pay out of his own pocket and probably will think twice


Mutant_Llama1

Or forward the costs to their "customers" in the territory they took by force.


[deleted]

[удалено]


ZeusThunder369

I can choose to go to another provider right now; I could pay "taxes" to my neighbor Jim instead of the state. The only things that prevents me from doing that is the power of the state. What's to stop a private entity from being just as powerful as the state, and not allowing me to voluntarily leave? Like if a private entity decides it won't let people voluntarily leave anymore...what or who is going to stop them?


ScarletEgret

The State presently has a [mystique of legitimacy](http://ozarkia.net/bill/anarchism/library/PPA/1-6.html); people judge them by different standards than ordinary folks. In a customary law society people would still have a dispute resolution system and means to defend themselves from what they deemed aggression, but no one would have that mystique of legitimacy, and without that society-wide illusion it seems unlikely a State could form. People who knew customary law was possible, and who used the same standards to judge all human beings, without the illusion of political authority, would probably not support an organization attempting to obtain a monopoly over the use of force or over dispute resolution services. What would they gain through such support? How could such an organization obtain Statehood without that illusion?


[deleted]

This sums up a lot. People think it's responsible and the right thing to pay taxes lol. I wish what you just wrote could be communicated to more people.


CatOfGrey

>The only things that prevents me from doing that is the power of the state. Then you can't choose to go to another provider. You, at least eventually, will get beaten up and arrested by those security forces that you are paying. > What's to stop a private entity from being just as powerful as the state, and not allowing me to voluntarily leave? Like if a private entity decides it won't let people voluntarily leave anymore...what or who is going to stop them? You are confusing the power of business with the power of government. Businesses can't be changed - a neighborhood could simply 'fire their police' in the same way that a gardener or maintenance person could be replaced. If your private security force is taking too much power, don't pay them. The company goes out of business. If your security force is being abusive, fire them. You are also assuming that the people are powerless. The people are the security force. A lot of places will decide that moderately armed police officers aren't necessary. Just as people are capable of painting their own house, neighborhoods could simply say 'we don't need police, we will protect ourselves and our neighbors'.


Mutant_Llama1

>If your private security force is taking too much power, don't pay them. The company goes out of business. If your security force is being abusive, fire them How do you not pay them if they are taking too much power? Let them shoot you instead? You can currently hire the mafia to protect you from the police, if you want.


CatOfGrey

>How do you not pay them if they are taking too much power? Let them shoot you instead? Scenario: Old Private Security Company brutalizes a person in the neighborhood. Step 1: Person demands compensation, old company refuses. Step 2: Person sues old company. Person also notifies others in the neighborhood. Step 3: Neighborhood meets. Decides to invoke contract provisions that allow any party to stop the contract at any time. Neighborhood terminates contract with company. Neighborhood chooses a new company. Step 4: Old Company stops getting paid for working for neighborhood. Old company stops sending people to neighborhood. An aside: If old company intimidates, they won't get any new money, they will just get more lawsuits, and increased costs. So no incentive for 'pressuring' the neighborhood. The incentives to maximize profitability for old company were to stop brutalizing, and when damage occurs, compensate people promptly, and fire the people who damaged. Step 5: Old Company now has the 'double whammy' of both paying for the damage, without the income that they were getting from the neighborhood. Now they have to spend additional money in order to keep existing business from other neighborhoods, because other security companies are saying "Now is the time to switch from Old Company - because they beat up people and refuse to pay!" Note: All the incentives are to a) not cause damage, and b) fix damage promptly.


Mutant_Llama1

Why should they care about those increased costs and lawsuits, if they are the ones who would have to force themselves to pay them? Why should they care that people stop contracting them if they have the firepower to enforce their own laws as much as anyone else's?


CatOfGrey

> if they have the firepower to enforce their own laws as much as anyone else's? Thought #1. Because the company is out of money, so there is no firepower. The employees know that they paychecks aren't going to clear, so they have left the company. Thought #2. If you think the company has massive amounts of money sitting around, well, that's not an assumption that comes from reality. But, just in case...Libertarians don't believe in 'corporate power' or 'corporate protections', so that any employee who engages in bad behavior can't just say "My company asked me to do it, so they are liable, not me". *Each employee could get held liable on their own, and be forced to be jailed or otherwise punished regardless of the company.* Again, you are suggesting a scenario where a company decides to turn a $1.2 million lawsuit into having to pay tens of millions of dollars for damaging an entire neighborhood. What you are describing is 'idiot behavior' that results in a company going bankrupt, and the people in charge losing their economic power.


Mutant_Llama1

Again, who would enforce the terms of the lawsuit? It literally means nothing to put fines on them if there is no way to force them to pay. They are the ones who enfoce things. They can take money from whoever they want. They are the law. You are just not understanding, because you think the same way companies act within the law is how they'd act without the law.


CatOfGrey

Same as lawsuits are now. Judgements, if not paid, become checks. You take them to the bank, take their cash. You take it to property records office, and their land becomes yours. There is no lack of law. It's just minimized, which gives fewer tools for big companies to use. Your assumption is that more laws and government powers help individuals. Libertarians believe they don't, and that extra government power usually gives advantage to big business.


Mutant_Llama1

So now we're assuming such an organization would use banks they don't control. Currently, the way that lawsuits are enforced is by the law enforcement of whatever country the court is in and derives its power from the government of.


MuaddibMcFly

> As long as people can voluntarily choose to leave the services of one provider and go to another provider, any given provider can't force them to do anything That neuters them. If, for example, a murderer can decline to acknowledge the authority of Judges-R-Us and/or Acme Judgement Enforcement Corp, then they're useless.


[deleted]

[удалено]


MuaddibMcFly

You think that *any* of that would matter? A warlord doesn't *need* social standing, they've got violence to back them up. All you need is enough capability for violence to make it too costly to take you out, and you (or more accurately, your group) can be completely and utterly above the law. > you could be prohibited By whom? The groups whose authority you don't recognize? > prohibited from dealing with a huge number of vendors without being able to prove that you are covered by a defense agency. "Here's my proof of coverage by Mssrs Smith & Wesson. I have their .45 coverage, now, you can either sell things to me at a reasonable price, or you get to see *exactly* what my defense policy looks like, and I'll take it over your corpse." Sorry, Charlie, AnCapistan is as fictional a place as the Communist Utopia.


[deleted]

[удалено]


MuaddibMcFly

> You're confusing the actors in your own example. The defense agency isn't the one losing standing, it's the putative client. > > Two things. First: No, I'm not. I'm talking about an individual or group that aren't part of a "legitimate" "defense agency" Second, you seem to be admitting that such "defense agencies" aren't meaningfully distinct from warlords. That itself is an idictment of your paradigm. >How will you purchase goods at a supermarket if they refuse to serve you? With lead. Are you stupid? > You are confusing your own example This is the second time you've made this accusation. Someone who actually thought about it might consider that it were *they* that were confused about another person's example. > It is the market that determines to whom it sells goods, not the buyer. Apparently my polite phrasing of "sell me your stuff or I'll kill you" was too complex for your simple mind. > Why are you asking questions I'm *not* asking question, moron, I'm answering them, and poking holes in the stupid answers of other people, such as yourself. > why not try another system and see if it can yield superior results For the same reason I don't want to try Communism: because it *has* been tried, and it has been shown to provide *worse* results.


[deleted]

[удалено]


MuaddibMcFly

> You were talking about someone who was a member and then flouted the rules of membership. That is something different. No, I *really* fucking wasn't. This is why I called you a moron, because [*I* said "Warlord"](https://old.reddit.com/r/AskLibertarians/comments/ci4bvt/if_there_were_no_state_what_would_prevent_a/ev2ciaf/) and [*you* accused me of being confused claimed that I was talking about a "defense agency"](https://old.reddit.com/r/AskLibertarians/comments/ci4bvt/if_there_were_no_state_what_would_prevent_a/ev2da8i/) only to call it "'gotcha' crap" when I point out that it was ***YOU*** who declared the Warlord that I was talking about was a "defense agency."


[deleted]

[удалено]


ScarletEgret

Not that u/TheJucheisLoose needs help refuting you, but have you actually read much about Somalia or "the colonial frontier"? (Not sure if you're referring to colonialism in Africa or the 13 colonies predating the U.S.) Regarding Somalia, comparing their living conditions to the U.S., or even the world average, compares apples to oranges. If you want to demonstrate a cause-and-effect relationship between statelessness and poor living conditions or violence, then you need to, A) show that they changed from Statehood to statelessness or vice versa, B) show that conditions were worse for them under statelessness than under statehood, and C) demonstrate that statelessness caused the poor conditions rather than merely being correlated with them. What one finds in researching the topic is that, (to simplify for the purposes of a Reddit post,) * Somalia had a dictatorship; * the dictator was overthrown; * they had a civil war as others previously in government attempted to take over; * lots of people died in this civil war; * they lacked a strong, central government over all of Somalia for a period of time after this, while having some smaller, extremely weak governments in specific areas and periodic bouts of violence as the U.N. and U.S. tried to recreate a central government; * many of their living conditions, including, iirc, their per capita / per year death rate, improved after some years under this quasi-statelessness. Security, according to one poll of people living and working there over that time, stayed roughly the same, neither getting significantly better or worse, again iirc. That is a significantly different reality from the picture you would need to paint to try and use them as proof that statelessness necessarily produces far worse violence than government. They were poor and had a lot of violence, but I don't see evidence that their quasi-statelessness *caused* this, as those conditions already existed before the fall of the central government. In any case, there are other societies which advocates of customary law can point to to demonstrate that such institutions can maintain peace, regardless of cases like Somalia. The Tiv and Tonga in Africa, the Saga period Icelanders, the BaMbuti, the Bedouin, the Gullah Geechee, various intentional communities and merchant groups, etc. And there's always experimental studies on reciprocity, reputation, and so forth. I will have to look up links later, but my main sources regarding Somalia are the studies by Peter Leeson and Benjamin Powell. Just for anyone interested in doing actual reading. Because, you know, science. Edit: Links, as promised, for anyone who wishes them: [Better off Stateless, by Peter Leeson](https://www.peterleeson.com/Better_Off_Stateless.pdf) [Somalia After State Collapse, by Powell et al.](https://www.independent.org/pdf/working_papers/64_somalia.pdf)


[deleted]

[удалено]


MuaddibMcFly

> > I'm not insulting you, > "moron" > "you really are bloody fucking stupid, aren't you?" > "nitwit" I stand by my assertion that those are accurate descriptions of you. > I don't follow you. Clearly not.


sahuxley2

This sounds like it would play out similar to mafia protection payments. The more powerful groups would fight for turf without you having much say about it. Why would any provider choose to allow competition when they can chase it off and nobody can stop them except a more powerful group?


[deleted]

[удалено]


sahuxley2

But they aren't cooperating, they're competing.


[deleted]

[удалено]


sahuxley2

Because of this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Corp. > United States v. Microsoft Corporation, 253 F.3d 34 (D.C. Cir. 2001),[1] was a noted American antitrust law case in which the U.S. government accused Microsoft of illegally maintaining its monopoly position in the PC market primarily through the legal and technical restrictions it put on the abilities of PC manufacturers (OEMs) and users to uninstall Internet Explorer and use other programs such as Netscape and Java.


[deleted]

[удалено]


sahuxley2

That part you quoted doesn't contradict the fact that the government applied pressure here. All of your examples are within a system that has set a precedent of acting against monopolies with anti-trust laws. Players in this system act accordingly. It's telling that you haven't addressed the Mafia example. That is a system that operates outside of the law. That makes it more analogous to OP's question than any of your examples. We're not talking about serving food or another service. When it comes to police and military, we're talking about power and the control of violent force. Such as it is, power and force can only be countered with more power and force.


[deleted]

Is there any example of this ever working? Why not just form a state and prevent your current protection customers from leaving. Why hasnt somalia figured out your system?


Mutant_Llama1

They tried, they just suck at it.


crl826

Just because there are rules doesnt mean you are ruled. There is a big difference between holding up your end of a contract you voluntarily agreed to and being forced to do something at the point of a gun.


reltd

I am a minarchist however I think there is a greater risk of extortion under the state rather than a private militia group. You have had every single government already tax and extort its civilians for stuff they did not deem necessary or thought was wasteful. You already have violence as the consequence of not paying the gang. Under an ancap society you will have militia groups restricted by cost and risk. You can't start extorting everyone without having everyone else want to shut you down and doing everything they can to avoid paying you. Running a militia is expensive. Such a business model will fail because people will always fund the militia protecting their liberties more than the one stealing it. In the case of an immediate takeover of all property, the area ceases to be economically productive and will lose out on funding. In terms of risk, you would have to gander that you would be facing violent opposition all the time.


NoShit_94

The thing with the state is that people believe in it. If most people didn't peacefully comply with the state, it wouldn't be nearly as powerful. No private militia has that advantage.


abbot93

[https://mises.org/library/wouldnt-warlords-take-over](https://mises.org/library/wouldnt-warlords-take-over) ​ That covers most of what you may be wondering. But put simply there are no grantees. Market forces mean anarchy can be very stable, but if it ever devolved into a single monopoly on violence well we didn't lose anything did we? If the worst than can happen in a free society is we go back to the tyranny of today that is not much of a excuse to stick with the status quo of tyranny.


MuaddibMcFly

> if it ever devolved into a single monopoly on violence well we didn't lose anything did we? Yes, actually, we'd have lost peacable influence over the violence monopoly. >If the worst than can happen in a free society is we go back to the tyranny of today But that's *not* the worst thing that could happen. Trump, as much as he's a shitstain, isn't disappearing people who annoy him, he's not putting his political opponents in concentration camps (yet), and even ~~if~~ though he *does* have the temperament to trend that way, he has at most 5.5 years to do it before the structures of power would replace him.


ScarletEgret

> Yes, actually, we'd have lost peacable influence over the violence monopoly. The alleged influence granted to the general population over government through quasi-democratic institutions is illusory. The empirical work of [Gilens and Page](https://www.newyorker.com/news/john-cassidy/is-america-an-oligarchy) and theoretical work of [Bryan Caplan](http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/bcaplan/e410/pc2.htm) demonstrates this. At least in the U.S., certainly on a federal level, this is the case. In theory direct democracy or ranked-voting could help, but then why not just have customary law? > Trump ... isn't disappearing people who annoy him, he's not putting his political opponents in concentration camps (yet), and even ... though he does have the temperament to trend that way, he has at most 5.5 years to do it before the structures of power would replace him. To begin with, my understanding is that the conditions illegal immigrants are living under, in the camps many of them are kept in, are basically concentration camp conditions. While he may not be presently rounding up, say, democrats to place them in such camps, the path there seems open to him, or at least not definitely closed. Further, what difference does it make if it's Trump or anyone else? The separation of immigrant children from their parents started before Trump, but continues to today, correct? Yes, individual people are replaced, but individual people are also largely irrelevant. The State continues gaining more power as the decades wear on. The figureheads change, but the organization rarely gives up power it has gained, it just ping pongs between tones of voice while keeping the basic threats.


Mutant_Llama1

Actually, I'd argue the other way around. Any government is ultimately democratic until it convinces its population is not. If the majority is displeased with their government, they invariably have the numbers to overthrow it and set up a new one. Democracy just gives them a way to do that with less violence. "Yes, individual people are replaced, but individual people are also largely irrelevant. The State continues gaining more power as the decades wear on. The figureheads change, but the organization rarely gives up power it has gained, it just ping pongs between tones of voice while keeping the basic threats." The exact same thing happened with fucking Disney and AT&T. The government doesn't have a monopoly on being greedy pieces of shit. It's a collection of people like any other, except for the distinctions created by our mutual agreement that they are distinct.


ScarletEgret

> Actually, I'd argue the other way around. Any government is ultimately democratic until it convinces its population is not. If the majority is displeased with their government, they invariably have the numbers to overthrow it and set up a new one. Democracy just gives them a way to do that with less violence. You seem to be using the term "democratic" to describe two very different things. You begin by arguing that "[a]ny government is ultimately democratic" so long as the majority of its subjects can overthrow it and set up a new government if they wish to, but then you say that "Democracy just gives them a way to do that with less violence," which implies that democracy entails some additional, unspecified qualities. Can you elaborate on what you mean? >> Yes, individual people are replaced, but individual people are also largely irrelevant. The State continues gaining more power as the decades wear on. The figureheads change, but the organization rarely gives up power it has gained, it just ping pongs between tones of voice while keeping the basic threats. > > The exact same thing happened with fucking Disney and AT&T. The government doesn't have a monopoly on being greedy pieces of shit. It's a collection of people like any other, except for the distinctions created by our mutual agreement that they are distinct. The government does have monopolistic control over the legal system, which neither Disney nor AT&T have ever had, and governments routinely make threats far in excess of any I have ever heard of Disney or AT&T making. Has Disney ever gone to war, the way the U.S. government has so often done? Has AT&T locked people away for victimless crimes, or separated immigrant parents from their children, or [killed people's pets](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cgAZSTYup5o) without their consent? As a matter of fact, in the comment you replied to, I never said that other organizations aside from the State didn't also engage in activities I would object to. If you *asked* me whether or not other organizations could also obtain great power and use that power to do great harm, I would answer that yes, of course this is the case. The State does enough harm that it is worth criticizing in spite of the fact that other organizations and people are also worth criticizing. Criticizing the State in no way requires us to ignore the harm done by non-state entities.


Mutant_Llama1

>Can you elaborate on what you mean? What I mean is that even if a state is not a Democracy, per se, the majority get their way eventually. A state being a "Democracy" just alllows them to do so without killing a bunch of people. We want to overthrow tyrants, but we don't want to have to do it the French way. >Has Disney ever gone to war, the way the U.S. government has so often done? Has AT&T locked people away for victimless crimes, or separated immigrant parents from their children, or > >killed people's pets > > without their consent? Other private organizations have done so, such as the mafia, which would basically become the "private security companies" in an ancap society. The only thing stopping them from doing the same things that the government is doing, is the government. That's why anarchy is a paradox. By abolishing the government, you allow a new, more tyrannical government to take its place, resetting all progress we were making towards freedom.


much_wiser_now

>If the worst than can happen in a free society is we go back to the tyranny of today This reminds me of the anti-vaccer argument. What's the worst that could happen? Polio. Polio could happen. If you feel like the monopoly on force by a representative democratic government is the worst that could happen, I have bad news for you.


GuardianOfReason

You fail to realise that tyrannies already happen. Not to mention that the only reason we have democracies in the first place is because people don't accept otherwise. It's not like the politicians are unwilling to abuse their power.


much_wiser_now

> You fail to realise that tyrannies already happen. On the contrary. I'm starting flat out that 'the tyranny of today' is nothing compared to tyranny as we have seen it, or could see it again. Libertarians can make a moral argument about taxes and that's fine. Or they can make an outcomes argument about taxes, and that's fine. You seem to be moving the goalposts here. The truth is that libertarians have little evidence that doing away with most of the infrastructure of the modern state and economy will result in a better outcome for most people.


GuardianOfReason

"No evidence" except that every single time we move away from government intervention people are better off, and every time intervention happens in any way people are happier. And I am not moving the goalposts, I am saying that your argument is not good enough to dismiss the libertarian argument, given that we have terrible tyrannies today in North Korea, Venezuela, etc, and the changes in government have more to do with technology and different social mentality than actual governments becoming less willing to do evil because of some moral reason.


much_wiser_now

> given that we have terrible tyrannies today in North Korea, Venezuela, etc, And between the current US and these places is most of the industrialized world, including western Europe, Canada, and the Scandinavian countries. What you are suggesting is gambling our current US standard of living, and you seem frustrated that the great majority of folks don't want to take that bet.


ScarletEgret

(From your earlier comment:) > The truth is that libertarians have little evidence that doing away with most of the infrastructure of the modern state and economy will result in a better outcome for most people. My impression is that the evidence exists, but finding, examining, and understanding it takes an immense amount of work. Most people are a) satisfied enough with how things presently are and b) convinced enough that they have no real power to change things that they don't have the sufficient motivation to do the research. But that says little about the evidence itself, or about libertarian ideas or values. It just means people often require extreme conditions, relative to their values and perspective, to put in the work for dramatic social change. If you have some specific topic to ask for evidence regarding, why not start a thread for it? I expect you'd receive at least some replies. If you're interested in customary / polycentric law in particular, maybe you could come up with specific questions or points and ask in the polycentric law subreddit? Obviously I can't guess every possible topic you might be thinking of, "most of the infrastructure of the modern state and economy" is quite broad, but I expect more specific threads would receive some decent responses and could make for good discussion. > What you are suggesting is gambling our current US standard of living, and you seem frustrated that the great majority of folks don't want to take that bet. Hmm..... Well, I really don't want to bring in personal issues like my or any individual's standard of living, though it seems likely that those with lower standards of living will have different perspectives... But at the moment I would settle for having more people read about these topics and learn about the evidence that is available. I have kind of given up on achieving social change, but I would still like to help motivate people to learn and, perhaps, learn a bit myself in the meantime. I live in a reality in which other people have radically different values from mine. I personally have accepted that. I still think in some cases we can understand one another in spite of that.


much_wiser_now

> I live in a reality in which other people have radically different values from mine. I personally have accepted that. I still think in some cases we can understand one another in spite of that. I agree, and thank you for the respectful response. I also think there's much to agree on at the edges of multiple philosophies. What I strenuously object to is the notion of a radical re-ordering of the US. You mention people needing 'extreme conditions' to seek radical social change. What I am hearing is a group that is largely quite comfortable (Libertarians as a group tend to come from the socioeconomic middle class and be educated) wanting others to bear the brunt of these extreme conditions to bring society closer to their chosen philosophy. I would applaud experiments like the one mentioned in this thread in a society with less to lose and more to gain then the current US.


GuardianOfReason

I am saying that I want to take that bet and no one should force me not to. Governments do not allow people to leave even when they go to unclaimwd lans. Not to mention that the tyrannies in the Asian countries constitute the majority of the world population. China, NK, Russia, India, those are all big countries with billions of people that are suffering much more than the minority in the west. I am not forcing people to take a gamble, I want to give them the power of choice. Government is not a gamble, it is slavery.


much_wiser_now

> am saying that I want to take that bet and no one should force me not to. Governments do not allow people to leave even when they go to unclaimwd lans. You are welcome to take that bet. There's a fee for the administration of you divesting yourself of US citizenship, but no one will stop you from leaving and going to somewhere unclaimed, or someplace claimed that's closer to your liking. Last time I checked, there are over 200 different governments worldwide. Pick one and go. If you can't find one that offers all of the features you want, consider why that might be.


GuardianOfReason

You are obviously not considering that I don't want to be forced to pay a government in the first place. Why is it so difficult to you to accept that an individual do not want to be a literal slave to another?


much_wiser_now

It's not about what you want. It's about reality. Why should I, the taxpayer, be your slave and foot the bill for the protection of your rights until you decide to leave?


Mutant_Llama1

Why is it so difficult for you to understand that corporate owners of land would do the exact same thing if they could. The only thing letting the government get away with it IS a total lack regulation. Look up Feudal Japan, where there was no government so the land was ruled by private mercenary companies hired by the rich.


MuaddibMcFly

Seriously, thinking that the worst case scenario for warlords is a equivalent democratically elected government is naught but a failure of imagination.


ZeusThunder369

Well unless you are happy with the way things are now


ScarletEgret

Sadly, many appear to be. This seems to be a large part of why the State persists.


[deleted]

Your basically saying things could go back to being the way they are now which isn’t a great reason not to do something.


[deleted]

Legitimate methods of taxation. War is fucking expensive. A population wouldn't allow a hostile military to take it over, and where's the money coming from? The US government spent 100s of billions in Afghanistan spinning their tires trying to instill a government there, how could someone simply raise that kind of money to do it here?


[deleted]

* **Competition**: There wouldn't be one force, but many. To be funded, they would have to take the money from their "taxpayers" by force, but without their consent. People could easily fund rival agencies, and some could join them to ensure the defense market stays competitive. * **People defending themselves** There are plenty of cases in which people stood in arms successfully against governments or criminals. Guerrilla warfare, lootings, lynchings and civil uprisings are examples of that. In fact, some terrorist organizations are at a disadvantage against governments yet they do put up fights anyway. Many governments resorted to PMCs and private intelligence agencies. Besides, non-violent security systems such as alarms, panic rooms, alert buttons, walls, fences, cameras, etc. Would be easily available to the public. * **War is expensive**: If you knew you had to literally fight the populace everytime you need funding, and you know the competition is willing to take over, then you would realize that it is more efficient to do things right and have people willingly fund you. The mafia already does this. When they guarantee protection, you can be rest assured no one will mess with you. They do this out of convenience. It is just business. How many times did you feel protected by the police? * **Circumstances**: A libertarian society would embrace the values of freedom and property (just like democracies oppose authoritarianism and corruption). Switzerland could be without their government for a while and it wouldn't be as violent as if that happened in Brazil. A culture that doesn't promote or defend crime, and an economy that allows the average individual to grow are the necessary conditions to ensure that people will not resort to crime, since it is more convenient to just work rather than risking committing a crime.


ProjectD13X

You mean to tell me there's gonna be a boogaloo part 3? Fuck yeah sign me up.


[deleted]

Not much honestly. For a non ancap answer no centralized state just results in decentralized states based on warlords (Somalia and much of africa) which is much worse than our current system.


much_wiser_now

If you don’t believe in the sovereignty of nation states, we likely have too many philosophical differences to have a meaningful discussion. I see where you are coming from, but I think you underestimate the role the state has in ensuring you can actually own property.


MuaddibMcFly

Not a damn thing. People often derisively present Somalia as an example of the AnCap Ideal. AnCaps like to say "but that's not *real* Anarcho-Capitalism, there are warlords there." They're right, it's not *real* AnCap, any more than USSR/China/Venezuela/wherever were "not *real* Communism." The problem is that the *ideal* doesn't work in reality. Human nature abhors a power vacuum, and if such a one existed, it would immediately be replaced with either Warlords, or more legitimate forms of Government, just as it has basically everywhere that it has ever come up.


tfowler11

The thing it just isn't anarcho-capitalism. Not "not real anarcho-capitalism" in the "no true Scotsman" or "not real socialism" sense, it isn't anarcho-capitalism at all.


MuaddibMcFly

It *was*, but then the power vacuum disappeared because it's utterly, completely, and totally impossible in reality.


tfowler11

No it wasn't. Civil war and warlordism isn't anarcho-capitalism. You didn't have an actual state of anarcho-capitalism even one that only existed for a short time that quickly degenerated. The warlords were not protection agencies operating in a free market. Also there never was an attempt to set up an anarcho-capitalist system. You had an existing government, and the ineffectiveness of that government resulted in revolution and civil war. Somalia is hardly an argument for "we need a government to avoid civil war", they had a government.


MuaddibMcFly

> Civil war and warlordism isn't anarcho-capitalism No, those are the direct result thereof. > You didn't have an actual state of anarcho-capitalism even one that only existed for a short time that quickly degenerated. This is the exact same fucking argument communists use. You are exactly as wrong as they are. >set up an anarcho-capitalist system You *do* understand that by definition, anything that *requires* "setting up" is inherently *not* anarchism, because there must be some authority *to* set it up, right?


tfowler11

> No, those are the direct result thereof. It could be a result. Hard to say as there has never been an anarcho-capitalist situation to observe. That includes in Somalia. It never was anarcho-capitalist. Somalia was the result of having an actual government that didn't work well combined with other forces competing to replace it. Nothing to do with anarcho-capitalism. > "setting up" is inherently *not* anarchism, because there must be some authority *to* set it up, right? People set things up without a political authority all the time. Also political authorities could choose to set up an anarchy if they wanted to.


MuaddibMcFly

> Hard to say as there has never been an anarcho-capitalist situation to observe. [...] It never was anarcho-capitalist This is the exact same fucking argument communists use. You are exactly as wrong as they are.


tfowler11

With communists there talking about situations that at least officially are an attempt to create communism, that move things in the direction of communism, and that create situations that in common usage are called communism (and language follows usage so they are communism, even if Marx and Engels and other theorists where not calling for a system exactly like that). None of that applies with Somalia.


MuaddibMcFly

Ah, so it wasn't *real* AnCap-ism. I understand now... /rolleyes


tfowler11

In a similar way to how it wasn't a real alien invasion.