Attention all anarcho-capitalists, Voluntarists

that's summing it up pretty good, any problems?

 

Yes, this is a problem. There are many people in situations like this. Many of the best people can,t move because of familial attachments where they currently live. Perhaps some of these people could be convinced to convince their family to participate, or themselves participate in some way without moving. It isn't necessary, after all, to live in a place in order to start a business there, or expand their current business into the area.

 

This is true. However, you are going to have to start up in Northern California if you want my help Then, I'm all over it.

- - - Updated - - -

Nope. Just making it clear that you are a wanna-be tyrant. I think most people who want to go into politics are that way, which is why I now eschew political involvement. It's people like you who threw Christian pacifists into lunatic asylums for refusing to participate in warfare.

 

oh come on, I was just making the point, which people already knew perhaps, that this anarchist society could get beaten by anyone, even zimbabwe. Thus that it's not really a viable option to make a stateless society amidst states because they will prey upon thee.

Speaking of pacifsts, I do think one can make the case that were there conscription for all citizens and they refused they would indeed be traitors. Firstly, they get the benefits of being protected by the military without paying into it as everyone else, that's unfair. Secondly, the state should be blind for religions right? Therefore religious reasons for anything aren't valid; saying that god doesn't want you to do it is as good as saying my magic hat doesn't want it, and that doesn't qualify as an excuse. Thridly, they shouldn't enjoy the priviledges of citizenship without taking on the burdens of it.

 

Yup, you're a tyrant alright.

Nice set of preference claims and assertions, though

 

It's the mindset of a slave to be so worried that another master will come along that he submits to the rules of his current master in order to gain the protection. What state wants to invade a bunch of well armed free people who don't have a master and won't submit to a new one?

Sure, if the state is the master, and the citizen is a slave, owned in body and mind by the state.

I disagree. If you want a military, pay for it yourself.

Why should it? You say "right" as it the answer is self-evident.

What right does the state have to determine who is or is not a citizen? It can only gain that "right" if it owns your body and the land you claim as yours. You've got to think past what you've been told by your government schools and state-sponsored media mouthpieces to believe.

If the state has the right to tell you who to kill, and when to kill them, from where does it derive that right? What makes the state legitimate?

 

I am not an anarchocapitalist or a voluntaryist per se as I am actually an egoist, but I answered yes to all of them. Before doing anything, like purchasing land or anything I would hire some people to protect my turf before doing any steps mentioned above.

 

Its not slavery, its society cooperating, by using force somewhat, to achieve things that need or work better with a monopoly on violence. If you anarchist lived on completely worthless land you might be left alone, but theres often resources present. And if not you people will make stuff of value. So in any case there are wealth incentives to go afteryou. Humanity works that way, and if people are going to insist on being so special youre going to get ganged. If they can rob you they will.

Tge thing with a military is that it protects all people living in an area evwn if they part of them dont pay or want protection. So is it fair if some pay but everyone is safe? No, so the fair thing would be that no one pays and no military. The problem with that is that a foreign military will come and force you to pay anyways. Soits basically inevitable: pay for military or youll be forced to pay for it anyways. And id rather have my national army ratherthan a foreign one.

The state, as a manifestagion of society can determine who is a member.

 

Those who make complaints like these about libertarian anarchism have done very little research.

I'll let you read any introductory text on the topic and come back. For a New Liberty by Rothbard is a decent starting place.

 

In other words, the largest organized gang has the right to rob people in order to prevent other, less organized gangs from robbing people. In order to make it sound moral and righteous, we avoid referring to the largest organized gang as a "gang" and, instead, called it things like "government."

Pure sophistry. The state is not a "manifestation" of society. A group of individuals does not manifest a gang. A gang forms among some individuals in order to claim territory and subjugate other individuals who live with in it. Government is no different, it just offers, to some extent, safety from rival organizations.

 

it's not about morality or righteousness, it's what does and will happen without a military and why it's necessary. military needs to be because of other militaries and without militaries we get militaries anyways.

If the people being "subjegated" can vote for who is in charge of things, while they continue with the normal lives, i'd hardly call them subjegated in the first place.

 

If the people are not willing to own and use the means to defend themselves against invasion, why is it just to force everyone else to pay for their protection?

Which wars can you point to were started when one state sought to invade a free state without a military and a citizenry that was well armed and prepared to defend themselves?

Well, unlike you, I don't consider a "vote" to mean much, if anything. It's a sop to allow people to think that they can actually change things while the government grows in power. Perhaps in a very small state, this can work, maybe even in a city. The US is not such a state, especially now as there are huge, unaccountable and unelected bureaucracies controlling a great deal of power at various levels of government. Your vote might have some tiny effect on which politician has the right to rule over you, but your choices will be limited to a few, well-vetted politicians will not buck the status quo.

 

Certain things work better if we cooperate, a military is a good example of that. Therefore there needs to be one military, and a centralised command structure so that things can be executed quickly and effectively. Everyone running around all by themselves with rifles isn't going to do much good against enemies who understand the value in cooperating, and and even if some people band together it's never going to be as effective if one simply brings in a little force in the equation. This stuff also cost money, and by pooling our resources we are able to afford stuff like tanks and fighters. For not many people would be maintaining tanks and aircraft in your stateless utopia i presume. And since a military is vital to prevent other militaries from comming and stealing everything, and since a military protects and area rather than specific individuals, the fairest thing is actually to make everyone pay into it.

uh, well, i don't really know of any free states to begin with. The orange free state maybe? I don't know. Maybe the native americans, living in small tribes which is probably what your anarchy would end up as, and what happened to them will suffice. They were weak, the US was strong and wanted stuff, like everyone does. The indians fought back, the US carried on.

i'm actually not the positive towards the US system, and western in general. It needs to be much more decentralised, in some areas, to allow people to actually have an impact when they vote.

 

Sure, if by "things" you mean mass murder, subjugation of the populace during periods of government failure, genocide, and dominating world politics. For that, a standing military is just perfect. What "things" were you thinking of?

Oh, I don't know about that. Warfare against a determined, armed populace is extremely difficult. And, if it's a well off populace, it becomes even more difficult. Why would anyone choose to invade, say, California, just because it does not have a military? Will the people simply roll over and give up what they have? The Chinese wouldn't do it, because while they might get some nice loot, they'd lose far more in terms of trade. Mexico might try to reclaim land, but they don't have the wealth to put toward a long term effort which may very well cost them an entire nation of wealth and a generation of young people.

I'm still wondering who you think will invade.

Do you believe that it was "fair" for US citizens who were against genocide to pay for the US military to murder hundreds of thousands of Native Americans? Was that one of the "things" that you believe a standing army is good for?

So decentralization is good when it comes to voting, but not good when it comes to militaries. So what do you do, as often happens with large standing militaries, when the decentralized government is taken over by a highly organized, centralized military which then imposes martial law?

 

Only if those voluntaryists weren't insufferable trash talkers...

 

I'm shaking in my boots!

 

I was kinda thinking about the only think capable of stopping mass murder (and only able to do it also), namely a military.

wanna know what's even more difficult than subduing an armed and determined populace? Resisting invasion without a proper army. California isn't invaded because it's got the world most powerful forces behind it. if it didn't have that, it's just a really rich and prosperous place up for grabs. Of course other countries gain by trading with it but they gain even more by just taking it over, and since it's so relatively easy in comparison to how rich it is they'll most likely try it. And how stupid do you think people are? They really do prioritise staying alive so most people wouldn't mess with the occupation because they'd get screwed over. It would be akin to the US in Iraq or afghanistan; people are killing on both sides but they wont get the US out of there. Can you name any place that has been really rich and prosperous and without and army that fared well?

anyone who want some money easily.

No, I don't support the use of militaries for that purpose actually. It should be used for defence.

No, because militaries work much more effective when they are centralised. Hence why I'm positive towards a common EU, or nordic atleast, military in some regards while disliking pretty much the rest of what the EU does. Being decentralised doesn't make it more prone to being coup'ed by the military you know. But what would I do? I'd be pissed off. What would you do?

 

When do they stop mass murder that they haven't already been the cause or indirect cause of?

I see no evidence that anyone is interested in invasion.

By whom? Rich, prosperous people aren't easily subjugated and wealth doesn't come agriculture and mining as it did in Roman times, but from high tech industry and manufacturing. We aren't living in Roman times. Well, at least, I'm not.

 

And we're telling you that it's not coercive to remain in a coercive society. The state has no right to my property regardless of how much it says "you can leave if you want". It remains my property. I bought it from people who, if you went far enough back, homesteaded the land. I have an absolute and exclusive right to such property, as well as the fruits of my labor.

I would gladly start a voluntaryist community right here and now on my own property if I were permitted to. I would start a larger one somewhere else if I had the resources.

The state is more than welcome to create its tyranny, but it can only do so on land it owns, not mine. In the society I envision anyone of any political views would be able to put them to test so long as it were on their own property. Communists would be welcome to start a commune with their own rules. It's their land. We're only disputing that the state ever had ownership of the land, and their "right" to rule over ours.

All men are created equal. The method for gaining sovereignty over land must be the same for all persons. The process NAP libertarians generally advocate is homesteading: the radical idea that if you go to unsettled land and work it that you gain ownership of the fruits of your labor and by extension the land itself. In state systems the government has a monopoly on these sorts of processes. That's wrong. That's true inequality.

In summary, we reject your premise that it's contrary to libertarian ideals to remain in a Statist society. The response would be no different if all the states on Earth were fascist dictatorships and the state implied your consent because you don't go and live in the desert.

 

it's a bit unfair to say "they" as there simply is no "they", just like not all humans are to be accountable for what some do. And when do they stop? I have no idea, it's politics.

That no one is interested in invading california? Really now, don't you? I sure wonder why. *coughUSarmedforcesCough*

Yes you are comparatively easily subjegated if you insist on not having an efficient and capable military, which requires some coercion. Do you think great britian, a very rich country, would have fared better against the nazis if they didn't have a military?

I'm not saying that it's beneficial for the US to be in Iraq and afghanistan, au contraire actually. But yeah, that's my point: after then years and with only a helf arsed attempt of the US, they're still there and the population can't get them out. Now imagine if there were some thougher guys than the US, like say nazis, and if they actually gained anything by occupying. Do you think they would leave? Do you think the population could do anything else than be pwned again and again by people who understand the value of cooperating?

in a way yes, that's what people want. Let's not be naïve here; do you think that if there was a rich county without a single soldier, and a poor with a million, that they would leave the rich alone? What's preventing that in the world is that everyone's got militaries and alliances. And yes, it's sadly so that it tends to be an arms race but since both sides erally don't want to spend much money on defence htey have an incentive to try and use diplomacy and be friends instead. This is how the world works, it's not how I want it to work. Armies are neede ultimately because of other armies. How would you solve it?

 

That is not a premise I need or suppose. I want to build a stateless society. A whole society, where many people live, own contiguous properties, and interact, all without any state claiming sovereignty over the people or their land. I want to do this because I want to live in such a society, and I want to prove that such a society is possible and preferable to that of a state. Many people, scattered throughout a state, realizing, or declaring, or whatever their own sovereignty will not give me what I want. In order to get what I want, any arbitrary claims to sovereignty over the land in question must be dealt with up front. Nothing about any belief of yours follows from any of that.

The method for gaining sovereignty must be legitimate. It doesn't need to be the same for everyone. Your claim to sovereignty over your land is just as legitimate as that of the guy who homesteaded it.

You want to build a stateless society on your land? That's promising.

 

You know, I can't be sure of who you're talking about. I probably don't want to know.

 

I never said it was, I said I would if I were able to.

I am not, of course - as I'd be promptly arrested by the state.

 

I'm wondering why I would need to "buy a committment" to buy land (instead of just buying land), and at risk of losing my upfront money. If no land is ever purchased, where did that money go?

 

Because, by one plan of doing this, enough people to populate a small town must be willing and ready to move on it at the time that the land is acquired. The money from the commitments would be held in escrow until it is put toward the final purchase. The hardest part of this is gathering enough people who want to live in such a society and have the means and the resolve to do it. We need to know that the people who commit can be counted on to actually participate when the time comes.