Sorry, I misunderstood what you were saying.
What’s difficult to comprehend about it? They’re trying to violate the rights of others, much like the state does. What’s the point of calling the attempted imposition of rulership over others “anarchic”?
I misunderstood, I took what you were saying to mean that should one try to impose their will on others the society is no longer anarchic, in which case I doubt we’ll ever see anarchy. I believe what you were saying is that a PDA who behaved in such a way would not be conducting themselves in an anarchic manner. No?
True, and they don’t have to; they’re just remaining passive in this case. I’m referring to PDAs that actively aggress on behalf of their customers. There’s nothing anarchic or libertarian about them. They’re not even economically sensible. They’ll just end up broke and be crushed as they deserve to be.
More or less.
But if I’m one of those racist, homophobic white people and I decide to break the window of the black homosexual, or if I’m the father who breaks the ribs of the guy who is leading my child somewhere my PDA/ insurance company is going to turn a blind eye.
Its not your PDA you need to worry about its the black guy`s “PDA”.
It can, and in that case its role is irrelevant. It’d only become an issue when its clients are subpoenaed or face retaliation from a PDA. But turning a blind eye wasn’t what I had in mind anyway.
More than likely the black guy won’t have a PDA, or if he does they’ll tell him too bad, he shouldn’t have moved in there in the first place.
I’m not talking about whether or not it’s acceptable. That’s besides the point, no I don’t think it’s acceptable (nor necessary) for provider of defense to do that . The point is if they would make money from it, and if they could, they would do it.
More likely than not he will run off to a PC (private court) and sue you.
Who is going to enforce this?
By “this” you mean property rights?
It isn’t but if you were to claim that those who were right would live and those who were wrong would die and that both would live - that would be.-
What’s your point?
Good thing I never claimed that then.
My point is we oppose the state because it does not uphold property rights, but instead violates them. A system that doesnt uphold property rights isnt worth having.
So who would enforce property rights of one black guy in a militantly racist neigbourhood? I dont know. But then I dont know who is going to enforce the property rights that are currently under attack by governments either, do I?
But probably they are going to be the same sort of people, no? These people called “anarchists”? The people who can`t stand injustice and violation of property rights?
I don`t know, maybe the black guy will go on national television and tell the nation of his plight and anarchist volunteers are going to flood to his house to protect him or hire some mercenaries to do it for them??
I mean, your scenario actually assumes the state has been destroyed. So if anarchists (belivers in property rights) are so strong, as to have been able to bring down the leviathan, surely they are strong enough to protect the property rights of this one black guy??
And actually it is just hit me. There are many million of blacks in the USA.That means they don`t even need charity. Break a window of a black guy for racist reasons and you are going to have to deal with Black Panther PDA (or Crisps PDA) the next day.
Isn`t it great that ethnic solidarity works both ways?
In which case you’re a utopian. No system will ensure property rights will be protected all the time. Now, what mostrefer to people around here, incorrectly, call anarchism is the only system will prevent institutionalized violation of property rights and will provide the most adequate defense of property rights due to competition on their production.
Well, I’ll give you a clue. The answer to the latter isn’t libertarians, the answer to the former is nobody because it isn’t economic to do so.
“The anarchists” as you know them will always be an extreme minority, even without the state. In any case, these anarchists haven’t done much more than post some videos on Youtube so far, so I wouldn’t count on it.
Perhaps, but not likely. In any case they’d run into an armed populace supported by their insurance company. So it’s not a problem.
Anarchists won’t bring down the state, entrepreneurs will outcompete it.
That is what I am trying to figure out, because as I understand it, you associated the two, not me.
We will have aggression in libertarian societies. It won’t be right, but it will exist. Unless one wants to contend that the reason for violent property rights disputes now is entirely due to the omnipresent state.
I agree 100%.
Which was my point. Cheers.