Libertarian advocates of minimal government, such as the late Robert Nozick (Anarchy, State, and Utopia, 1974), have feared that individuals in a stateless libertarian society would face corrupt or careless protection firms that used “risky” rights-enforcement procedures to determine guilt or liability. Innocent people might be held responsible for offenses they did not commit, while guilty individuals avoid paying restitution to their victims. Obviously, that would be undesirable.
Without a minimal monopoly state to prohibit such abuse and protect “procedural rights,” how could innocent people pursue their happiness securely? Nozick speculated that in an anarcho-capitalist society, a protection agency using reliable procedures would emerge as dominant, preempt risky competitors (while compensating them for putting them out of business), and eventually become a monopoly minimal government. All this would happen through a nonaggressive invisible-hand process. Nozick’s innovative theory drew critiques from the biggest names in the libertarian anarchist world, especially Murray Rothbard, Roy A. Childs Jr., and Randy Barnett. (See the Journal of Libertarian Studies 1, No. 1, Winter 1977).
This would happen if in this world all anarchists were poor souls needing care, just as civilians are today. If they were truly sovereign anarchists, they would hardly tolerate any kind of monopoly attempt by individuals imposing a grand plan.
After all, what would this legal process be if everyone had their own jurisdiction? Sometimes I see that these approaches don't break free from the flawed system we live in; the biases raise questions that don't even apply.
libertarians are just pussies, they love the theory but they never do the step to apply what they preach. They only want a small gov because they do not have balls to go full responsible for their own actions...
Some years ago I did the process of having my "own state", but that doesn't help too much if the vast majority of people are still dumb "libertarians" that still vote for a gov / state.
Yes I can say easily "fuck off" to any gov but that doesn't help me too much in relations with other people. Because those people still go back to the "papa" state and ask for permission to trade with me...
That's exactly what I see in the environments I've had access to since learning about Bitcoin—they're anarchists in their ideas but weak when it comes to doing what's right, libertarians.
Once I saw a meme that the difference between a libertarian and an anarchist is time, but that's not what I see. Many libertarians are closet fascists.
I think those are separate things, but Darth's basically right.
Even the ones who get the ideas right, and genuinely want to see those changes, do next to nothing to actually separate themselves from the state.
Yeah, Darth set the point.
Anarchy is the way.
But lived-anarchy, not just professed
For sure, this turning point of work on sovereignty is the challenge. Starts when individual stops complaining and excuses about a no solution world.