Don’t hold your breath =P
Keep dodging the issue…
I have an additional question, is there a danger that PDAs that gain a large market share could reform states, or join with other PDAs to form a cartel that forms states?
Also, to SpideyNW, you came up with one word responses to my questions; could you explain how you came to your conclusions?
Oh Goodness, did you just ask what’ll happen with anarchy?
Why, the oceans will turn to lemonade, and man will no longer have to search for food, rather, roasted chickens will fly into the mouths of men. Not ordinary men, however, but the New AnarchoCapitalist Man. The New AnarchoCapitalist Man will be a a Goethe, an Aristotle and a Rothbard all rolled into one. Incapable of permitting perfomative contradictions and with the dignity to die for good of humanity. Indeed, the New AnarchoCapitalist Man will have the fire of his intellectual between his fingers and proudly proclaim that A really does, equal A.
This shit was great, hahhahaha!!!
That it is not in anarchy.
Sure, you can keep living in your fantasyland.
And I did not say anything different. It is going strong, because, well duh, not enough people have stopped complying. My point is, once there is enough people to stop complying, the government will fall.
Because I’m not indulging your strange curiosity as to my personal beliefs. If you can induce what I believe so be it, but I do not answer yes, or no questions as to my beliefs. Furthermore, the point is not rendered moot if I would answer yes to the question for the simple fact that it is still a metaphysical judgment of value.
Anarchy is nothing but a stateless society; a society where people desire to comply with the state, but there is no state to comply with is, by definition, still in a state of anarchy.
Somalia has competing governments. It is not stateless. So no, it is not in a state of anarchy.
Is not anarcho-capitalist all about competing governments, oh I’m sorry: I mean competing PDAs, but what’s the difference?
The voluntary part of it maybe?
No. Because anarchy can only come about when people stop complying. If people do not comply, then states cannot be reformed.
Yes. Actually, the question is loaded, imo. I do not believe in the whole idea of PDA’s. I think there will be private investigators, private security, and arbitration courts. But I see no reason for another nation to attack a group of individuals.
No. People operate just fine in the market-place without knowing a thing about economics. People can figure out how to make contracts, without knowing anything about economics. People understand property rights without knowing anything about economics. The only thing that is needed is for people to quit complying with others that do not have their consent.
First of all, I do not buy into the whole hypothesis about PDAs. Regardless, the difference is consent. Somalia has competing governments that did not obtain consent of the governed.
That PDAs should stick to the non-aggression principle.
Yes and no.
Parts like Puntland and Somaliland have states, albeit weakend, and parts of southern Somalia are under the control of warlords. But much of southern Somalia consists of clans which are voluntary.
Of course not if the PDAs proceed to use their superior firepower to their advantage. Men are not angels that obey lofty ideals like the non-aggression principle by their very nature.
And why should they do that? Why does not government only govern with the consent of the governed?
I disagree with the groups would run rampant:
As for being mostly or completely free, the Wild West in the USA really was not that wild. I think the official number of people killed in gunfights was less than 1000 despite the legends. Also people on the Frontier tended to band together and protect themselves.
As for desperation causing chaos; during the Depression when people were particularly desperate, crime and most other negative social statistics tended to get better. Besides the desperation was entirely caused by govenrment which is the opposite of anarchy.
You asked a question and got the correct answer. By the way, your question strongly suggests that you don’t know what anarcho-capitalism is.
What are you asking now ?
No, it is you who do not understand the implications of anarcho-capitalism: the entire premise that PDAs will come to respect the non-aggression principle in their dealings is completely unwarranted (it is something that cannot be discovered through a priori reasoning), and it thus undermines the very foundations of the theory.
I’m just giving you something to ponder over.
No, it is you who don’t know and/or understand basic definitions. Classical liberalism, as presented by Gustave de Molinari in 1849, includes the idea that monopolistic government is obsolete. Government is always a net loss.
What if you bother to think just a bit ? Let’s start with your amazing discovery that “men are not angels”.
Given that premise, what’s a better political solution ? Monopolistic government ? Or PDAs ?
Given that men are not angels, how’s a government composed of men going to make men behave ? Something for you to ponder over…