>>5543 I'd go further and say that said system (at least the broader concept anyway) is naturally what would form under anarchy. Man is hierarchical by nature aftetall. It's simply a natural, voluntary hierarchy rather than an unnatural, statist one.

>>5543 >It wouldn't be a state It already is in all but name. >I see no reason why this couldn't work What happens when a warlord comes and throws a party? Libertarian ideals are nice and all, but no one ever dares to ask the question of what you do when confronted with an outside hostile force (Both those who confront you diretly and others who attempt to subvert your system "legally"). Also, if there's no taxation, how do you actually fund your government's operation?

>>5580 Read Rothbard and Hoppe. These normie questions and statements have been answered countless times over. Heck, literally just go on the Mises Institute and search for whatever subject you could ask about. It's clearly all been thought of many times before.

>>5581 >Read Rothbard and Hoppe No, answer the question. >These normie questions and statements have been answered countless times over. Then answer them again, it should be easy if they're so "common".

>>5582 Why should I have to make an essay for something that the person will likely ignore anyway? Plus I already gave basic instructions on what to look up. If the person or you actually care about finding an answer rather than arguing in bad faith, then you can do the 5 seconds of work that is typing a simply question or topic on the giving website. I will throw a bone this time by simply linking a few articles on the subject (such a hard thing to do apparently). https://mises.org/mises-daily/wouldnt-warlords-take-over https://mises.org/mises-wire/greatness-power-and-market https://mises.org/mises-daily/defense-services-free-market https://mises.org/mises-daily/security-without-state https://mises.org/mises-daily/mises-wartime As the the other person's "but who will fund the blank without taxes" non argument. If people want something, they'll pay for it. May as well be asking "who will run the farms?" or "who will make the shoes?" while implying a state is needed for anything of the sort.

>>5583 >Why should I have to make an essay for something that the person will likely ignore anyway? Because you're having a discussion. However if you're going to have that attitude, then give up and fuck off as no one is going to care about anything you have to say.

>>5584 And there's the bad faith I was talking about. Leaving out the part where I gave basic instructions on how to get the answers with ease. So I very much did give exactly as was asked. Heck, I literally brought links myself, but of course you ignored that as well. Truely Redditor behavior on your part.

>>5585 >Leaving out the part where I gave basic instructions on how to get the answers That's not how this works. YOU provide the answers YOURSELF. If you want to provide more extensive reading, you do it AFTER having already explained yourself. Otherwise it shows that you have no idea what the Hell you are even talking about.

>>5586 Nah. It's just more efficient to post already great explanations than to spend my limited time typing it all out. But nice moving the goalpost and proving my point that your kind never intended to listen to begin with while also showing that you're too lazy to literally click/tap a link that spoon feeds to you what you ask for. All you've done is prove that hours would have been wasted if I did go through with writing an essay that has already been done countless times over and in much extra detail. You just make these arbitrary requirements that have no reason to exist and attach strawmen to them if people don't do it in the ultra specific way you want or add to it. You'd find some way to arbitrarily claim it as invalid.

>>5587 >It's just more efficient to post already great explanations than to spend my limited time typing it all out You do realize that you've spent more time directing to external sources, and "demanding" that I go to those sources, than actually exlplaining how the fuck your "super special state that 'no one' has ever done before" even operates, right? Do you even understand your own ideology then?

>>5588 Ironic you say that. You've spent far more time yapping about irrelevant nonsense than you have actually looking at what was provided. In fact clearly you've spent no time doing so. Only flinging out sophistry. Also not a state, and has existed before. Just not with the more developed philosophy by the Austrian economists we have now. I'll also as this. If there's a dude who's tired of being asked the same normie questions that have been answered again and again, then says "refer to the chart" because it's simply easier and faster. Does he apparently not know what's on the chart? That's literally the argument you are making.

>>5589 >Also not a state Yes, it is.

>>5590 Define a state. If a state is merely "any means of enforcement of law" then anybody with a gun counts as a state. If, on the other hand, a state is a monopoly on the legitimate use of force within a region, as is the official definition of the term, then it absolutely is not a state, and you're just incredulous. Are you incapable of reading even one of the articles? Is there something preventing you from reading them? If you had any genuine retort to any of them, you'd have provided them by now, surely. You decided to come here, to a place where there are plenty of resources you can find to answer your questions, even though this board is mostly dead. Be thankful you got an answer to begin with. If you truly had any intention of genuine discourse, you would have engaged with the resources provided instead of begging for others to spoon-feed the answers to you.

>>5591 >Define a state I'm not playing these word games. >Are you incapable of reading even one of the articles? No, I'm just not going to. You need to actually explain what the fuck it is that you're talking about.

>>5592 >>Also not a state >Yes, it is. also >I'm not playing these word games. Yes, you literally are. >No, I'm just not going to. Ok, so anon was spot on when he said: >>5583 >Why should I have to make an essay for something that the person will likely ignore anyway? You're a disingenuous troll, unworthy of any kind of response. The articles explain our ideas as good as any other in a fraction of the time. whether you read our response here or there is irrelevant, as the response will be the same.

>>5593 >Yes, you literally are. If you're definition of a "state" is anything other than "a government" in the most generic of defintions, you're playing word games in order to sucker any retard into believing that a "state" is not a "state". It's like all the retards who argue that Nazism "is not" Socialism despite using the same fucking name. And such activities are a waste of my fucking time. >The articles explain our ideas Okay, then you should be capable of explaining them. Why neither of your are leads me to believe one of the following to be true: <1. You don't know what the fuck you're talking about <2. You "know" what the fuck you're talking about, and think yourself so smart that you're creating something "no one has thought or tried before", when someone in the past 6000+ years of recorded human history undoubtedly as, and said idea either failed and/or was rejected for a reason <3. You really do know what the fuck you're talking about, you know exactly what the fuck happened all the previous times it was tried and/or why it was rejected as being suitable, but you don't fucking care because you're trying to entice any ignorant sucker that comes along and doesn't know better

>>5594 >If you're definition of a "state" is anything other than "a government" By definition, a state is a monopoly on the legitimate use of force within a region. This has been standard for thousands of years. A government is an organization that claims the sole right to govern others, which is why "self-governance" doesn't disqualify an anarchist system from being stateless. Under anarcho-capitalism, you'd have the actually useful functions of the state offered by both rights enforcement agencies and individuals defending themselves and their communities. The separation of powers, competition within powers, and highly armed populace would all make monopolization impossible, and violence incredibly unprofitable, thus disincentivizing if not out right eliminating the formation of warlords or criminal gangs, often before they even start. This system has been tried, and has succeeded countless times in the past, some lasting for thousands of years. Your own personal incredulity and lack of intellectual honesty won't work as a shield. The entire reason we don't want to waste our time on you is as simple as it's always been. You are clearly not worth our time. Now if you have further questions, read the resources we point you towards, as literally everything you've said, or are likely to say has already been thoroughly refuted from hundreds of angles already. Once you've read the resources we've provided, if you have questions that our resources didn't cover, then maybe we'll have more resources for you. Otherwise, fuck off and lurk more.

>>5594 The only one playing word games is you by trying to redefine terms and just going "nuh uh" over and over. On top of pulling nonsense of "if you don't play along then you're clearly doing one of 'blank' strawmen I made up". >>5593 (Same anon who posted those articles here. Just moving between ".moe" and ".se" changes my ID on this board apparently.) I'm guessing you meant to reply to one of this dude's other responses? Because I think you confused me with him lol. Cause I'm with you on that.

>>5597 >Ok, so anon was spot on when he said: >>>5583 Probably should have put the reply on the same line. I was quoting you in agreement.

>>5595 >Under anarcho-capitalism, you'd have the actually useful functions of the state offered by both rights enforcement agencies and individuals defending themselves and their communities Except that never happens. Unless you think John Waynes films accurately represented the Wild West. >This system has been tried, and has succeeded countless times in the past, some lasting for thousands of years Where?

>>5595 >>5599 Also, you do realize that, in the process of your "dream state", you're legitmizing PMCs, right?

>>5598 Ah, fair. Knew something got confused in there. >>5599 It's a basic law of economics. Monopolies bad because no competition and no way to calculate profit/loss. Ancaps are simply consistent on being against monopolies as the state is the biggest and worst one. These laws of economics are why socialism is a dumpster fire. Not "because it failed a lot", but because it's utterly incoherent and self contradicting in theory and therefore WILL always fail.

>>5601 You can just filter him at this point. You already provided all the resources he'll need, and he's demonstrated more than enough that he is unwilling or incapable of engaging in honest discourse. That said, I'm happy to see someone else active on this board. You'd think there would be enough disagreements between libertarians to keep these kinds of conversations going without external subversives, yet this is the most amount of engagement here in quite a while.

>>5601 >Ancaps are simply consistent on being against monopolies as the state is the biggest and worst one And the result is that, without a government (Or ANY organization for the matter) who doesn't take up the cause to protect people, you're ancap society is not going to exist. It's going to be overrun with warlords who don't care about the rights of anyone. Because the overwhelming majority of people are cowards or selfish. Not blaming them for it or treating it as "bad", we all are in some capacity as a survival mechanism, but that's the reality of it.

>>5602 Yeah. I mean he seriously thinks ancaps would have no form of defense because he's either dishonest, or thinks defense = state. He even seemed randomly pearl clutchy at the idea of PMCs... as if it were somehow a bad thing? I mean it's literally just the military but ethically funded and inherently more efficient. I wouldn't say I'm necessarily active here either but I do check here occasionally. I do agree it's rather strange how inactive this board is, even if for just the reason you gave for why it's weird. I guess most use other places than here since I do see quite a lot of active Ancap discords and I'd guess other places as well.

>>5604 >I mean he seriously thinks ancaps would have no form of defense Not a very effective one, since anarchy is the name of the game. >He even seemed randomly pearl clutchy at the idea of PMCs... as if it were somehow a bad thing? Because majority of people don't like PMCs, and turn arund and talk about how they're creating a society that effectively requires a PMC. >I mean it's literally just the military but ethically funded No, it's not. Killing people is a business. If there's no wars locally, you're being shipped off elsewhere as a mercenary because you still have to make that bread.

>>5604 I wonder what happened to the anons that used to be here. I can't imagine they'd abandon 8chan for some dicksword or plebbit thread, but there aren't many other image boards that have more activity than here and halfchan. Hopefully they come back at some point, if only out of curiosity.

>>5605 Lol. Cool story bro. You'd make a great breadtuber based on all the distopian strawmen you make up about the free market that has literally never happened and that no one actually advocates for.

>>5607 >that has literally never happened Yes, because Africa is such a wonderful place with it's Anarcho-capitalist society.

Excuse the double replay. >>5607 >and that no one actually advocates for. Except that's exactly what you're doing

>>5606 Unsure why either exactly. Maybe most just decided discord or other alternatives were just more convenient as well as maybe helps spread the message to more people? Still strange that there wouldn't be ingroup discussion here since you don't have to worry about some "hate speech" TOS possibly nuking the board.

>>5610 Plenty of people have already heard the message, and the ones that need to hear it won't be found on discord or reddit. Even then, they'd be better off coordinating it here before they left. My guess is that the place died, they went somewhere else while they were waiting, and then something happened that prevented them from coming back here. Maybe they thought it was dead for good and then just dissipated into nothing.

>>5611 Probably something like that. I'm guessing most likely moved elsewhere and stayed elsewhere because they maybe just forgot this place even existed.