A minimal night watchman state is a necessary evil. That's my opinion. Humans have collectivist qualities from nature. Self ownership is not real in the common sense, obviously it is how we agree to treat ourselves, just like human rights. But it is a system in which everyone profits so it's a good one. Therefore some amount of order and societal structuring is necessary, as we can't just rip children away from their parents and make them become 100% individualist, it is simply not possible as we have natural collectivist qualities as a species. The thing is striking a balance more on the side of freedom than on the side of control. That's why I believe that a night watchman state is the most reasonable.

>>4416 >as we have natural collectivist qualities as a species, its only natural then that we should all be the property of our nightwatchman state. I wish this board was more active so I wouldn't have to ask for your physical removal.

>>4417 Ancap isn't going to work anon, nature hates vacuum. When a power vacuum forms, someone takes over, there isn't really a way from stopping that. All humans seek power over other humans by nature, and many humans do wish to be ruled over. Not everyone wishes to be free. Which means that there will be always rulers and ruled, I don't believe we can get rid of that, the only thing we can do is cripple the ruler enough that he cannot destroy our liberty. I wish that ancap was feasible, but I do not believe in it. Someone will fuck it up and take control leading back to a state. I do not see the state as good, I see it as inevitable, and so it becomes a necessary evil.

>>4418 >power vacuum This argument is based upon your ability to linguistically frame the situation as a "power vacuum". I wouldn't frame the state as a "necessary evil"--more as an evil that is simply inevitable, but with a big caveat: given the preferences of the people who exist today. We know that there's a difference in, say, crime rates between different cultures. We also know that culture can be shifted over time--for example, abolition. In the present era, we've seen it largely shifting for the worse. I think Ancapistan can only form if this issue is addressed--that is, Aancapistan can only form and be preserved by people who respect liberty and are willing to fight for its preservation.

>>4420 The problem appears that you cannot actually keep the ideals of liberty cosnistently in your populace. Because you cannot keep any ideals in populace consistently. The first generation living in Ancapistan might be living in a culture of freedom, but what about their children? And the children of their children? Political change is not pernament. A state will inevitably arise sooner or later.

>>4421 >you cannot keep any ideals in populace consistently How do you know this? >A state will inevitably arise sooner or later. And so what if it does? This is like saying "everybody dies inevitably, so you might as well just kill yourself now". No political system has been shown to last forever; by definition that will never be shown. Are Ancapistanis supposed to embrace the state because one day there will be some tyrant who reverts society to the position it was in pre-Ancapistan?

>>4421 >>4416 >>4418 You're forgetting a few key things. First, communists are physically removed. There would never be a large enough group of people in ancapistan to change its ways since the second someone suggests it they're out. If not, then we aren't talking about ancapistan but just some "libertarian" order. Second, for a state to exist you'd have to violate someones property rights, there would be no way to establish a state without violence. Its ridiculous to think that humanity would peacefully become a state. Ancapistian might change in size or be utterly and violently destroyed, but it would never "naturally" fall into being a state. So, can we please get back on topic? Can the kid sue? Do you disagree with what makes a child a person? Etc. If your answer was that we need a state because "won't someone think of the children" you could have said that without going off topic.

>>4422 >How do you know this? Because ideas and culture does not stay static, it is always changing. I have already said that. >And so what if it does? This is like saying "everybody dies inevitably, so you might as well just kill yourself now". No political system has been shown to last forever; by definition that will never be shown. Are Ancapistanis supposed to embrace the state because one day there will be some tyrant who reverts society to the position it was in pre-Ancapistan? The question is what will last longer? Will it be a crippled state, as "a state" in general has historically seemed to be a more stable form of societal organisation unfortunately than any non involuntary ones, or will it be ancapistan? I simply don't believe that ancap is worth it, if it will devolve into tyranny quicker than a night-watchman state would. If you can give some arguments for why this won't be the case, I might change my mind. I'd really want ancap to work, but I just don't see the way that it could. >>4423 >There would never be a large enough group of people in ancapistan to change its ways since the second someone suggests it they're out. If not, then we aren't talking about ancapistan but just some "libertarian" order. We're talking about a society with easy access to weaponry. You're thinking under the assumption that Commies won't be insidious and try to subvert the order of Ancapistan through manipulative tactics as well that they won't be armed when you want to physically remove them. If you have one commie that might be handled somewhat, but if he has supporters, you might have a war on your hands. How are you going to know if someone is not secretly preparing for a commie revolution without invigilation and violating privacy of the people of ancapistan? It's one thing to say that you would remove commies, but another to have commies cause collateral damage everytime you try to get rid off of them, or even violating the freedom's of individuals to get rid of commies. You could say that you'll deal with it when they show their heads, but at that time they might do some significant damage. >Second, for a state to exist you'd have to violate someones property rights, there would be no way to establish a state without violence. Its ridiculous to think that humanity would peacefully become a state. Ancapistian might change in size or be utterly and violently destroyed, but it would never "naturally" fall into being a state. Take my "natural" as "It is in nature of humans to be violent, power-hungry dickheads who will take over communities by force to force others to do what they want" >So, can we please get back on topic? Can the kid sue? Do you disagree with what makes a child a person? Etc. I have answered the question in my first post though, and the discussion was about that. Self-ownership as an idea, although I believe a correct one, is not the natural state of being. In the natural state of being, we basically start out as property of our families, not because of some greater law, but simply because we cannot defend ourselves from our parents. Therefore, without an outside force to enforce the idea of self-ownership, you basically cannot have children self-own, because... well there isn't a way from stopping parents from abusing their children without some outside force. If you are a kid, your parents can basically cripple you at a young age and make you completely helpless to them, they will then proceed to treat you like property simply because you have no actual way to defend yourself. Obviously, many people wouldn't do that, but many would and did. The sad fact is, that humans get crippled psychologically and physically by their parents and there is jack shit that anyone can do about it. So to answer the question. Should children self-own? Yes Is that realistic without a state of some kind? No Do they realistically, are naturally able to take claim to self-ownership? No There needs to be some outside force that allows for at least partial or complete self-ownership of children, if it doesn't exist, then even if we agree that the idea of self-ownership is right, realistically children become property of their parents and there is jack shit we can do about it.

>>4424 >commies will be insidious and try to subvert the order of Ancapistan >How are you going to know if someone is not secretly preparing for a commie revolution without invigilation Do communists move? Normally when you have communists its people living in an area already that don't like their conditions, but when you make ancapistan everyone who moves in is presumably into it. I suppose you could test them frequently for communism lol? Also ancapistan isn't a universal or centralized thing. Aside from the fundamental views on property there could and would be many other additional restrictions for each community. So even if a communist infiltrated one space it he would have to do that many times over under different conditions. >it will devolve into tyranny Devolve implies that its an internal problem and will implies its certainty, but I'm really struggling to see how. >owning children is bad I suppose this is the real question of the thread.

>>4424 >Because ideas and culture does not stay static, it is always changing. This is just the same thing said a different way. And even historical precedent doesn't back that up fully. There are plenty of isolated groups of people that have been able to maintain approximately the same culture for hundreds or thousands of years. >if it will devolve into tyranny quicker than a night-watchman state would. Well, now we're really getting into hypotheticals. I think both Ancapistan and the "night-watchman state" will devolve into tyranny when their population is full of people who have become complacent and compliant, but the night-watchman state provides the framework for tyranny to take place--if people accept the state as a legitimate entity, then there is room to justify any actions the state takes. The United States when it was first founded would have revolted in the face of the government intrusions we've seen since 9/11 and COVID lockdowns, but slowly our culture has been distorted while Americans blindly repeat the illusion of "we are the government".

>>4425 >Do communists move? Normally when you have communists its people living in an area already that don't like their conditions, but when you make ancapistan everyone who moves in is presumably into it. If you think of it as a community that is surrounded by different types of communities, where you are simply free to move if you don't like it or forced to if you don't respect that idea it makes more sense. But can such a community survive, knowing that outside of it a state would surely form eventually? Let's say it takes just one community to turn to a state and then try to subjugate the rest. Yeah, internally there might be less problems but what about external threats like that? One way I think of counteracting that is nukes but that might be quite an extreme option >I suppose this is the real question of the thread. Well, I am of the opinion that yes, at least from my subjective point of view, owning children is bad. >There are plenty of isolated groups of people that have been able to maintain approximately the same culture for hundreds or thousands of years. Those were usually pretty smal or authoritarian though, and most of them cracked eventually. >I think both Ancapistan and the "night-watchman state" will devolve into tyranny when their population is full of people who have become complacent and compliant, but the night-watchman state provides the framework for tyranny to take place--if people accept the state as a legitimate entity, then there is room to justify any actions the state takes. Fair point, perhaps I was wrong after all. The more we discuss this and the more I think about it, the more I lean towards the Ancap option. As for children... well, them being owned by parents is bad, but is it worse than being owned by the state? After all, most parents will be sane and want to help their children, so most children will get their independence from parents. I can't think that people who abuse their children won't be scorned by the community and hated. After all, I'm talking about how the state is necessary for the protection of children... but children are still abused in the world, and their abusers haven't been punished. So perhaps it is only a sad fact of life that children will be abused and that parents have power over their children that children have to break away from, and it is separate from the whole question of the state.

On a semi-related note, what would be the age of majority in an ancap society? The age of adulthood right now already depends on which country you live in. Some may say that it's when the parents decide that they're adults, but that could mean that parents can still hold authorities over their 30 year old children.

>>4438 >what would be the age of majority in an ancap society? >children being parents property until they "have property of their own" or "leave home",etc. There wouldn't be an "age of majority" or "age of" anything. Being an adult would be decided by individual action. The question then is what action.

No, this is a terrible idea! Just think of the children of Jews or LGBT people. They'll be forced to get circumcision or sex change operations at an age where they don't have the intellectual capacity to be making life changing decisions like this. Children are their own people and have their own individual rights. The job of a parent is to protect them and guide them. >>4438 I think two conditions need to be met. They need to have gone through puberty, and they need to be able to sustain themselves economically.

>>4440 >I think two conditions need to be met. They need to have gone through puberty, and they need to be able to sustain themselves economically. Having gone through puberty isn't biological adulthood. The brain is still developing even after that and there are still people in their 30s who can't sustain themselves economically for whatever reason. If we are going to determine it purely by facts and logic, then I think it should be 21 which is the average age when the human brain is fully developed.

>>4440 >think of the children Where would that end, just because you haven't explicitly taken any money from anyone doesn't mean its not welfare. Brains are a physical and inherited thing. By protecting stupid people from ruining themselves or their property especially at the expense of others, How would you plan to enforce your child protection? you'd only perpetuate the stupid. This includes their children. >>4442 >the brain hasn't finished "developing" The point of a libertarian society is that everyone is a sovereign. Having any laws would be possible, no matter the subject. For example: there are people too poor to buy an expensive house and some people who can afford such a house. We should make a law so all houses should have a starting or ending price in between what could be afforded by both groups. Thats practically socialist right? Lol ... But why? Is it because its about houses and not guns, or weed, or something else you like.

>>4467 Not the same anon with whom you were discussing this earlier. >We should make a law so all houses should have a starting or ending price in between what could be afforded by both groups. Except if you do that, how can you efficiently do it such that the sellers are able to fully recoup their costs and make a worthwhile profit? You can't just throw homeowners under the bus because you're more concerned about everyone else, as that would be an arbitrary (and therefore, illogical) position. Additionally, in implementing your idea, you would fall facefirst into the calculation problem: you could not possibly find a universal means of setting price thresholds such that homeowners would always and invariably be able to sell their home at a profit. Again, you would be forced to arbitrarily restrain price thresholds on a case-by-case basis, which, as I'm sure you can see, would likely lead to enormous corruption and nepotism. Besides, it's their property; if someone else has the authority to dictate the price at which you sell it, they are the ones who actually own it, not you. This is similar to how mutualists argue property is based on use: why should this be so? Why does it follow logically that one should magically have to give up one's hard-earned property as soon as one ceases to occupy it in some way? I realize that isn't the point you're making, but the reason I mention it, is because you're making a similar argument: that property should be conditional based on your subjective sense of justice, as opposed to the simple, versatile, autonomy-respecting concept of contract and reciprocity. Furthermore, in saying that someone has the right to dictate how you use or sell your property, you negate the very principle of private property. Going further still, you could take this to its logical extreme and say that your argument is tantamount to a negation of self-ownership, since, if you cannot own property, how can you state that you are your own property? Contrariwise, how can you non-arbitrarily decide that a person can only own themselves unconditionally, but that everything else must be owned conditionally?