related posts
158 sats \ 1 reply \ @k00b 12 Sep
There are libertarian arguments to be made against anarchy, but imo the most compelling ones revolve around the network effects of violence. Roads and utilities are afaict best left to markets like everything else.
reply
43 sats \ 0 replies \ @justin_shocknet 12 Sep
Bingo and I think that's the paradox few fail to recognize is that no matter what you want to label it, there's always an apex force. You may not like the rules the apex force operates by, and regardless of the system you only have one form of recourse, establish a counter-force.
If AnCaps were logically consistent they'd find that every society that has ever existed is a defacto Anarcho-Capitalist society because it's the natural state of being: #662318
What they actually want is a world where everyone adheres to the non-aggression principle, wish in one hand...
reply
33 sats \ 0 replies \ @bitalion 12 Sep
The state may exist and in my opinion it will continue to exist, what we cannot allow is for it to overstep its boundaries. We have the right to privacy, to freedom of expression and that is not negotiable.
reply
0 sats \ 2 replies \ @didiplaywell 12 Sep
Anarchy isn't a false fantasy. That a state is the only scheme that can provide services is the false fantasy. Anarchy doesn't mean "no safety for anyone", it doesn't even mean "safety only for some", that's what statists fail to understand. Under an anarchist society safety can be provided just as any other service. It's as simple as that. The fact some people fail to see something as blatantly simple and self-evident as that is beyond my comprehension.
reply
0 sats \ 1 reply \ @plebone OP 12 Sep
The idea is people are💩..lol ... So I can have security as a service, but does that include a small militia? Can I fund such a thing, even with my neighbors chipping in? Who is managing the safety as a service? How much power would they wield? How do we prevent them from gaining control?
Safety from an individual, or even a few individuals is manageable. But I see a lot of fighting in their future in general, due to people being 💩 as stated above.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @didiplaywell 12 Sep
Those are the most solid arguments I have ever heard on why the state being in sole control of national security is the apex optimum of an ill fated strategy. It's all of what you just said but scaled to the absolute maximum possible plus having sole right to it by law. It's an extreme application of all the weaknesses you listed to such an extent it sounds surreal. It should be violently evident and stab people's logic right in the eye how bad of an idea that is, precisely due to all of what you just said, couldn't agree more.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Malachi17 12 Sep
Anarchy presupposes some kind of "archy". Otherwise, what do you "anarchy against"?
reply