All the examples of modern an cap, and all of them you reject out of elitism, naivity or delusion.
when you see kowloon city, the violent drug gangs dont fit your idea of protection agencies.
when you see somalia, the bandit groups dont suit your world of PDAs.
when you see mexico, the cartel controlled free-for-all still doesnt work as an-cap for you.
its not right because it doesnt meet the rothbardian an-cap description? Talk about contradictions! When anarchy is supposed to follow your exact rules, lest it be not worthy. Surely papa Rothbard himself would be more open minded about these developments.
Its not right because the state outlaws legitimate protection services from competing with bandits? Well guess what, the states prescriptions matter little any more, when the state doesnt even have control over the area. the whole argument doesnt make any sense in this context.
Its not right because foreign state outlawed drug demand for drugs feeds money to illegitimate cartel activities/foreign states finance the bandits of nonstate areas. now we’re reaching marxism nuttery - nothing will work for you unless the whole world lives by your ideas - in the case of trotsky the global socialism, for you global ancap.
so my proposal to you is simple - embrace anarchy. when you see mexico, somalia, kowloon, admit it as your own. Either that, or stop being hypocritical bastards and claiming to support an-cap when in reality, you dont.
If you were actually interested in discussion instead of just trolling, I might turn you to some resources on why your assessment is ill-informed and misguided, but since you’re not, I’ll just provide them for anyone else who might actually be interested in intellectual reasoning and discourse.
So my proposal to you is simple, embrace statism, admit that murder, theft, child abuse and rape in families and schools, Columbine etc. shootings and massive genocides by dictators and world wars and famine is your own statism, a fantasy, that you so lovingly support.
When you admit this, I will admit, that Somalia etc. is anarchy. Well, to be honest, Somalia has anarchist features for sure. No one, who accepts anarchism, could deny this.
My point is, if I admit that Somalia is anarchy, I am STILL ON MORAL HIGH GROUND, while you are just a supporter of organized rape, murder and theft. I am better than you and that makes me feel good.
Pretty sure an-cap-ism has to be intellectually assented to, not forced upon people or happenstanced by political upheaval. But that doesn’t really help your trolling, does it?
It’s funny how when you point out the faults in the state people say “yes, and we should work to fix those” but if you try to say the same about (supposed) capitalist problems people glare at you weirdly.
Pretty sure an-cap-ism has to be intellectually assented to, not forced upon people or happenstanced by political upheaval
You can’t really force the absence of involuntary aggression on people.
But in a sense it’s true: Since we reject a violent uprising, we de-facto need to get at least 51% of the public to be favorable towards at least minarchy. At that point, I’m fairly sure things would work at least decently well.
John James, Oh ive read those resources alright. Ive even argued FOR somalia in the past. The point is, none of these resources truthfully support a rothbardian style nap/nonagressive production service model. As far as they are concerned, it is all racket style/minimal taxation by the gangs.
Wheylous, there are numerous areas in Mexico, Brazil, even France where the government has effectively zero or minimal control, compared to the violent gangs. Even more so with Kowloon city, and Somalia. That is, in those areas the govt of mexico is NOT the state, at most it is one of the groups competing for power.
And gang-rivalled areas arent An-cap? Well, what is then? There is effectively no state, and there is capitalism. It is an.cap by any reasonable non-pretentious definition. Remember, if your definition of an-cap includes all the rothbardian nap and other chapters of “ethics of liberty”, yes it IS pretentious.
MaikU, organized rape, murder and theft is exactly what the somali gangs do. Unless you are a complete denier like the guy in with the yellow avatar who in his somali thread systematically rejected all mainstream news reports of gang violence in somalia. Kind of 911 no-planer level denialism
And Jay, aah the intellectual ascent. If only people were smarter and more educated, then we would have peace and prosperity in an.cap. I forgot to write about this in the OP. You think the would be gangs that pillage the land care about your education? You think that will remove their thirst for power, glory and money? But this isnt even relevant. The fundamental problem stays, you admit an cap to not being workable with the current set of people, quite unlike the Friedman-style natural order or rothbards NAP fueled self evident system that people would surely rejoice in and fight to guard.
I’ll entertain your notion that there would be gangs to pillage the countryside. But why doesn’t government do the same, hm? Because people “vote”? Oh, yes, I’m certain that a few paper ballots are exactly what is preventing government from trampling over us. Oh, and the Constitution? Try to tell that to an alien: “Our government is kept in check by a 200-year old piece of paper.” Really, now? Who sounds more ridiculous? Give all power of aggression to a monopoly which is essentially not controlled by the public directly (no law of physics controlling the government)? Seriously? And you expect government to respect our rights. HOW IN HELL? There is no intellectual reason why it would. And yet, we do not see marauding gangs of raiders in the Mad Max sense. Why not? Culture, my friend, culture. Our belief system is centered around a general environment of peace and property rights.
Once you can defend why the hell the state would not destroy us while ancap would, then we can talk. What keeps the state in check, a?
nice try, troll, to ignore my post organized crime is what state is. Rape is what state is. Theft is what state is. War is what state is. So yeah, I would better live in uncertain danger of Somalia gangs, than in PERPETUAL VIOLENT STATE, that steals people’s money, put them in cages (with rape and abuse), kills them and forces them to go to wars. Yeah, only psychopath like you could ignore all of this and try to shift burden of proof on me, when actually it is YOU, who support violence and it is YOU who should be sorry for it and beg our understanding of your insanity.
Once again, I will keep pointing your violent tendencies and beliefs as long as you will be on this forum. You are in denial, that’s for sure. But still, I like being on moral high ground.
Once again, I am not denying gang violence in Somalia. I admit it. But do YOU have the same intelectual honesty to admit that STATE CAUSES much more violence and even on a GLOBAL SCALE? Do you have honesty to admit, that the biggest wars were caused by the states? Do you have honesty to admit that state kills it’s people if they do not obey the “master”? Do you have hoensty to admit, that state puts non-violent people in prisons, where they get LEGALLY raped and beaten to death there and all of this is funded through extertion racket called “taxation”? Are you willing to admit this or are you in denial, like 9/11 truther?
Wheylous and Maiku
It can certainly be argued that state is non-aggressive, because it owns all the land in its area, hence doesnt violate the NAP. But even if you reject that, i can follow along and agree that yes state does do what you say. However it has the fundamental interest and incentive of keeping peace and welfare of its citizens to ensure prosperity for itself, whereas competing gangs who lack firm control of their area by this virtue dont have this incentive. Essentially, the state fundamentally has the incentive to work in the interest of its citizens BECAUSE it owns the land and can be secure that as a result of policy of protecting citizens it will gain more revenue in the long run, while direct confiscation and slavery would net far less revenue. It is this ownership that you consider evil that is what has allowed the world to prosper, both in government firmly owning its land, and as an extension in the private sector by people having firm property rights to their land.
This has all been discussed in depth in here( The failure of Anarcho-Capitalism ) so id prefer to not continue on this due to it not being part of the realist-current political situation concept of this thread, in fact your whole post was a blatant attempt to change the subject and avoid direct confrontation in the problematic areas of an-cap.
Dont worry man, ive gone through all this. Ive been the biggest fan of rothbard and an-cap, but you gotta see its problems if you want to be realist and not living in fantasy world. All i want to do is show you too the problems, so that you can move to the next level after an-cap - that is political realism and perhaps neo-nihilism / subjectivism that the mainstream political sphere adheres to.
In a sense, you can complete the full circle from main stream - extremist radical - enlightened main stream, if you only embrace the problems that an-cap has had in every example in history, and make the conclusions of the inevitability of the problems of such political radicalism.
“However it has the fundamental interest and incentive of keeping peace and welfare of its citizens to ensure prosperity for itself”
You are in denial. Tell these words to million of people that died in WW1 or WW2. And I am not talking about jews. Tell that to innocent japanese people, who were nuked by peaceful US goverment.
You are like any other psychopath, ignore state violence, and if you are pushed in a corner, you RATIONALIZE it that it was “for greater good” or “war would never be over if not peaceful US nukes”.
YOU’RE INSANE.
P.S. admit, that you are affraid of anarchy, because in anarchy people like you wouldn’t survive very long. Just like any other mentally unstable person, who believes, that might makes right, you would be ostracized quickly and efficiently from any anarchist city. But with the state you get the chance to leech from everybody without punishment.
Maiku, your war example is an example of anarchy, not statism. World anarchy, that is. Would truman have nuked los angeles or new york? No, because it would reduce make US citizens less productive, and state would become less wealthy and lose revenue. Again, im not denying that state policy can be interpreted as being violent like that of gangs, merely that state has the system of incentives to minimize it as for citizens be wealthy and prosperous, as opposed to the brutality of competing gangs. And yes, states have made errors even in this framework, like possibly Vietnam conscription, communist economies around the world, primitive and harsh medieval and ancient taxation systems, but they realized the negative effects and terminated the policy/ replaced it with something more reasonable that better suits the citizens. The state functions like private sector in this sense, constantly improving and learning from past mistakes, to make life better for both its citizens and itself.
bbnet, if mafia is monopolist, then it sure can be good and reasonable to citizens(similarly to state), but competing mafia is very brutal and not a good situation to live in. Same problems as the anarchist examples ive pointed out.
John James, im serioius. Where is even remotely rothbardian competing gang system in somalia been even loosely similar to the NAP-ideas that fuel rothbardian dreams of an-cap?
How odd, a statist complaining about special pleading. Let’s see:
North Korea
Syria
Somalia (according to the UN, they have a government!)
Sudan
Ivory Coast
Belarus
… we can go on and on. And these are just a few of the contemporaneous nightmare states, if you’d like to go back to the historical record, we could fill pages and pages with all the nightmare states that have existed in human history.
Bbbbut Clayton!!1 It’s all in the past now!!! Sure, state made some mistakes here and there… but it constantly improving!!! Can’t you see it? FREE HEALTH CARE, free roads!! Cheap food!!! You have to be dumb to not see the superiority of statism!!! Wars surely is not a part of statism, it’s part of ANARCHY, which is CHAOS AND RAPE!! Loook at Somalia for god’s sake.
organized crime is what state is. Rape is what state is. Theft is what state is. War is what state is. So yeah, I would better live in uncertain danger of Somalia gangs, than in PERPETUAL VIOLENT STATE, that steals people’s money, put them in cages (with rape and abuse), kills them and forces them to go to wars. Yeah, only psychopath like you could ignore all of this and try to shift burden of proof on me, when actually it is YOU, who support violence and it is YOU who should be sorry for it and beg our understanding of your insanity.