What is a “nation”? Is there a size limitation?
I like to know what I’m arguing about.
Hmm, then I am confused. You consider violence to be justified if you consider it retaliatory, but not justified if you consider it unprovoked, or it violates Libertarian moral absolutes (property, NAP, are there more than that?), regardless of the situational circumstances (law). How is this not being possessed by an idea(s)?
DD5,
I suppose that depends on your definition of society.
Jackson,
Have you read any of the arguments provided by Dr Murphy and others on the mises.org main site? There is also literature provided at FEE.org, among other various texts, articles, and essays on this specific topic. Have you read any of them? And if so what is your criticism of them?
No. Got links?
A nation is a group of people who share many things in common, one of them being their location, and that location is formalized with a state delimiting its borders, but a stateless area can be called a nation too. You can get away with calling any group a nation, but I feel there needs to be at least a few tens of thousands of people, living close by. Thats my criteria.
Well I thought you already knew about ancap, some private property theory, market law, what the state is, etc…
I chose to use it, because I think I’m better off using this one than no theory of human organization at all.
Well simply searching "Warlord on Mises.org brings up
But Wouldn’t Warlords Take Over? - Dr Murphy
But there is also
Roderick T Long - Libertarian Anarchism: Responses to Ten Objections
Triple H - The Private Production of Defense
More of Dr Murphy - Chaos Theory
There is more out there but to be honest I haven’t the energy to go look up every article for you. Your welcome to do your own research.
Are you an anarchist?
uh yes
filc,
Yeah I read “Wouldn’t warlords take over?” a while back, but it doesn’t really address my concern.
I believe this to be a false distinction. A private warlord would be equitable to a tyrant king of an extremely small kingdom.
What? How is that relevant?
I’ll get back to you on the other ones.
But you maintain that there should be over-riding organizational guidelines for tens of thousands?
LOL, you poor thing…
Each person is free to choose their own guidelines… I advocate that a society where all generally understand and respect private property can be most desirable to all who seek prosperity.
And I maintain that people everywhere should respect eachothers property and persons, yes. No shame in that.
Google Instant falls on deaf ears, I suppose?
I have a question: does rothbardian anarchy assume that everyone will want to follow rothbards philosophy on the NAP?
No. Economic incentives lead people to the NAP.
I ask simply because some cultural customs don’t adhere to the NAP for example customs centered around Christian or Islamic law would be would largely dominant in an area with a high population of said groups. It’s become somewhat of an issue in the UK.
“What would prevent Warlordism.”
a .308.
In any and all circumstances?
Best answer I’ve seen yet. Must be the name!