I’m wondering what a statement about “America” is doing in a thread about matters in Mexico.
That question is no more relevant than the question of how much the self-proclaimed authority in that region needs to dominate before it is unnacceptable.
What good are PDAs to anarchy if they’re not following the NAP principle? I doubt drug cartels are doing that.
If drug gangs are PDAs, then all gangs (including the mafia) are PDAs, and the government is just a monopolistic PDA. Anything can mean anything if you define it broadly enough.
Isn’t that correct?
Thank you, Matticus Rex . It’s playing fast and loose with words. Sure drug cartels are fighting the government, but calling them a PDA isn’t in line with libertarian theory per se.
If the whole world was in a state of anarchy except North Korea, you would be sitting there saying, “see, this is what happens when you adopt a State. Communism, mass starvation, and government abuse.” It’s different from area to area (there are different types of government, and constitutional republics can have radically differing laws, some protecting property and others not). Sure PDAs could, theoretically, be abusive and people like David Friedman admit that. Nobody is saying that it will automatically be libertarian. The hope is that the weight of the State collapses in on itself due to an ideological shift and this ideology will be what supports property-defending PDA ventures. There’s the meta-framework (market anarchism) and then the specific policy proposals (libertarianism). Libertarianism will be most likely achieved through market anarchism, therefore libertarians are market anarchists.