Anarcho-capitalism in the real world

[ToxicAssets]

@Neodoxy

Anyone else feel like they’re on the opposite side of an echo chamber which only goes one way?

I didn’t mean to be rude.

I just wanted to post all my core arguments before I started addressing any remark.
I have no interest in preaching, I’m here to have a goodtime and maybe learn new things.

I apologize anyway.

[ToxicAssets]

@Hashem

Yes, the state doesn’t exist. It’s a concept, a category. But as a concept it has manifest value: when two or more people agree on what is meant by state, then they can engage in meaningful communication about it.

And like others have pointed out, if state means geographical monopoly of violence, then anarchists aren’t opposed to statism.

As I said before, I’m not trying to make a case in meta-linguistics here.

The fact that two people agree to a certain extent on the concepts of, say, Gandalf or a machine of perpetual motion, so they can talk for hours about them, desn’t imply that any objective version of those things exist in reality.

The meaningful possibilities for imaginary beings are limitless. But if we are to accept these, anything that can be somehow be conceived in thought and articulated in words comes to exist in such a large sense. Like vampires, unicorns, dragons and koalas.

An interesting thing is that once these imaginary beings are created and known by many people, they have impact in reality.

People will buy tickets to watch a movie because they like Gandalf, for example.

And people will write treatises on the State because they believe it exists and represent something more than an imaginary entity, when in fact it doesn’t.

The State is a piece of fiction, like Bastiat said.

[ToxicAssets]

@Anenome

(OP) Reads like a parody of David Friedman somehow. Writing’s not very clear, or perhaps a bit insular.

I think David Friedman makes a lot of good points. I’ve only read the Machinery of Freedom and a few sparse things though.
But I also think he fails when he tries to take all these good points and make them all fit the utilitarian vision of society and the almighty Coase theorem. That’s BS.
Society has no goal, and cannot decide nor prioritize anything as a group. This can only happen in collectivist woo-woo fantasies.

I also think that Rothbard makes a lot of good points. Probably many more than Friedman.
But he too fails when he declares his vision of justice and ethics is some sort of exact and inescapable conclusion derived from so-called axioms of reason.
With all respect that is due to this great man and his outstanding work, this is almost pure non-sense.

Violence and aggression can take many forms in the real world.
Stuff that wasn’t even considered violence can become violences in another context.
And only customary notions and circumstantial knowledge will prevail when it comes to establish what is an act of violence and what is not, and whether they are reasonable provided the circumstantial constraints and goals sought by the decision taker.

There is no such thing as inescapable conclusion of reason in absence of assumptions and provisions.

[ToxicAssets]

@Anenome

I’m sorry, just your prose isn’t very clear, and I don’t know what to make of it.

That’s ok.

[Malachi]

@hashem

Anarchists (almost universally) advocate:

1. morals enforcement (aka law enforcement, or rules enforcement, or instert-your-prefered-euphemism-for-rationalized-violence)

2. the individual’s right to use violence in defense (often not even defensive violence, but outright preemptive violence in anticipation of violation of property rights)

These are examples of geographical monopolies of violence. At the minimalist end, the individual is the monopolist, at the collective end enforcement agencies are monopolies.

It actually seems like you are trying to bait someone into playing your definition game, since neither of these is an example of a monopoly in any conventional sense.