@i3utm of course. I agree with ending the drug war and reforming the CJS. I do believe the Fed has a right and *obligation* to defend the borders of the US. I am one of tuose guys who think thr Government has a role, but it is strictly to defend it's people from outside forces, and the state gov. For everything else generally speaking. As a general view, I believe that we need to be a society based off more of a Voluntary and individualistic way vs what we sre now.

When ti comes to borders, I am more of a Stateless society respecting individual property rights, regarldess of where the border is.

But who defends private property rights?

@i3utm ahh. What makes you come to that agreement? Honest question. I dot ge the option to ask these questions with people often. Most people I know dont care or have real opinions.

@Grenade123 who was that question to?

I3utm

He wants a stateless society, but then who defends private property rights

@Grenade123 Private property owners. It's also built in the U.S. Constitution. The U.S. Military would be the best use of border control. Or the National Guard.

@MickeyTheGymMouse (Daniel) A lot of my fellow Libertarians do not agree with me, so I am on my own with my stance.

But, there is no us consitiution without the us

I and everyone else in society define what is your private property outside of what you are physical controlling at the time.

So, you are telling me what my property is? How violent of you! lol

And you are telling me what land I am allowed or not allowed to use, how authoritarian of you!

You You can use whatever land you want. As long as it does not hurt people or take their stuff.

so i can live in your yard?

^

That statement implies that you already have an agreement with me beforehand.

Which means i define what is your land

Because without my agreement, you don't really have private property, nor do I

Then the Goverment can decide what land they can define. It's a slippery slope.

And then they can use Eniment Domain to destroy your property to build a wall.

Who are "they"

Government is made up of people.

They == State or Federal Goverment entities.

It's people who come and take your land

The government does not exist as some faceless, nameless entity.

It's a group of people society gives power to.

Ask those pople who have no more land in some of the Border States that question.

Tell me, how does the government take your land without people?

Without an armed force, how do they have power?

They don't. And that is what I want limited. Limited Goverment power.

But this has diverged from the original point. If I don't follow our agreement, who enacts punishment?

A 3rd party voluntarily arbirter.

If you leave your house, who kicks me out if I move in?

I do as I will be defendin my property.

No, at that point you are taking my property

I have physical control over it

So, I will kick you out as I made that claim beforehand.

So you are defining my property?

Yes, as you defined mine.

Then we are in agreement, I define your property. And the reverse is true

In other words, our property is defined by those around us

But not by us

Our property is the whole world until someone stops us from claiming it.

Who defines property as "ours?"

the social contract we have in in a society that enforces that right through force

Our as in yours or mine.

The whole world is mine until you stop me. And the whole world is yours until I stop you.

This eventually means that the person who defines property is the one who is the strongest

Everyone else subject to their will. Or team up.

But what happens when people team up against you?

What makes this any different than government defining what my property is?

You can't have a stateless government and private property because the whoever ends up being the strongest becomes the new "government", or whoever teams up and gets the most support

Defending private property is one of the core reasons governments exist. Who's property depends on the government.

This is where I think you @Grenade123 are missing one point, and @i3utm is failing to put into perspective properly. I am not trying to being rude. just an observation, if I misunderstood something or potentially missed an important point. let me know. There is this concept called the Non Aggression Principle (NAP) What this means is that one person is not to violate someone else's agency via violce. The implication of a stateless society, from my understanding, is in order for this to work, society as a whole must abide by the NAP. Should there be an issue where one person is trying to claim land, that another person owns or is claiming to own, then a third party, mutually agreed upon by the arguing parties will come in and settle the dispute. But should this be a case where it is some jack-waggon coming to just steal your stuff, then a person must have the right to defend themselves and their property via some sort of weapon, which I would assume to be some sort of Gun.

The NAP if held by a society, would make the hypothetical Grenade made, a rare occurrance, in the same manner that it is today. in theory. If society holds this view, then people would not want to aggress people, by societal pressure and the culture that it allows for. At least, so the theory goes. So it wouldnt be this radical society where people are just claiming things for the sake of claiming them. So it would be true that, ownership technically lies within the bounds of the perspective of others in that, there is a mutual understanding that "Item A" is mine and "Item B" would be someone elses. That also isnt completely true either. Just think for a moment if what things you consider yours. Are you saying that the things you purchased from the fruits of your labour are only yours because some raneom guy on the street decides not to take it when he wants it?

Because this would be making true the "mine is inky mine because you allow it to be mine". Or would it be more true that it is yours because you decided that you would to trade it with the fruits of your labor. To further the point, lets say you make something, you put time, effort, and depending on the product blood, intobmaking said product. Does this mean it is not actually yours, even though you made it with your resources? And it is only true because someone else says "yes" this is yours.? Or is it actually yours because you made it?

So the next question becomes What would hold this to remain true for the over arching society? The NAP and the mutual want to not be aggressed and that the things we have un our posession, that we earned and/or worked for is ours, and the a mere claim of someone else saying "That is mine" doesnt make it true that it is theirs.

I should probably state that, I do agree we need to have a government, and that I believe it needs to exist as the sole source of force in terms of defending the people from outside sources, and that the NAP should be generally agreed upon. But when the NAP is violated, we do need some sort of third party to fix the situation or to mediate it, something along the concept of Police.

Again, if I misconstrued anything you guys were saying, or I misunderstood something please let me know.

Couldn't have said it better than myself, @MickeyTheGymMouse (Daniel) I think @Grenade123 is an instigator of provocation and not perspective. haha

@i3utm Maybe not. I dont want to assume that. Maybe he just has a different perspecrive on it, or maybe he couldn't articulate his point well enough? I do not agree that we should have a stateless, im not an Anarcho kind of libertarian. But I do understand the perspecrive of it. Im just trying to learn about things as well. Lol

There are at least a dozen or so different types of Libertarians. I hold a few of the views in one big messy package. 😃

Lmfao. And thatcm is what makes discussions so fun. So, I am a bit ignorant on this. What is Big L libertarian vs. Little L libertarian?

Big L is for the Libertarian Party and its ideals and platform. Little l is for principles that dictate whether or not you vote or you support the Big L or any of its candidates.

One can support Liberty without supporting the party.

Ahh. Okay. I havent heard of those terms until Tim did a month or two back on one of his hour long podcasts, and I havent heard him distinguish between the two. I never really cared to ask before either. 😂

It's an inside thing. Most people are like you and "Wha?" lol

I fully understand the position, I was in an ancap server. There is nothing here I haven't heard before. My issue with it is humans

@Grenade123 im listening.

The Libertarian Party leans right, but there are left-leaning libertarians as well.

I'm a Social Libertarian.

Was that your result on the 8values test?

First, what are the chances of getting everyone on Earth following such a principal and not get greedy? Who is stopping the warlord before he gets to powerful? If not all people are following it, then how do you defend yourself again a state. How do you stop say Russia? While it's true an armed population is one hard to conquer, when you are not facing a standing army then it's just a matter of time, conquering one community after another. When we look at the third party in arbitration, what stops corruption? What stops a kangaroo court? Sure, what we current have isn't great. But I fail to see how you stop the formattion of a state, if a group of people wish to form a state?

I'm a social liberal, according to that.

I think it did, @possumsquat93

@Grenade123 I think that is a better explanation than what was going on earlier, and I think actuslly refutes it far better. And it is more along the lines of what I agree wutb.

Ah, but it is supported by my previous idea.

A "stateless" society can only be permitted to exist by the strongest entity.

Much like any current state is allowed to exist so long as larger states don't invade.

They don't just invade willy nilly though, nor have they ever really

Willy nilly depends on your view point

There's usually a larger purpose for it, and it's weighed against cost and difficulty

I would consider religious reasons to be Willy nilly

I wouldn't, but even with that in mind, there's a reason why Afghanistan still exists

@Grenade123 that would be an improper use of Willy Nilly than.

As it falls flat in the face if what that phrade means.

You are right, they don't invade without reason

To be more specific, states don't attack states solely on the basis that the former is larger/stronger than the latter

TIME TO FREEDOM THE ALFS

No, but that doesn't refute my point

There's usually some perceived benefits

Being the wrong type of government can be a reason

Or just happened to be a good spot to attack their enemy

Well it's part of a larger question, since you seem to think conquering is a given

Look at Hawaii

We annex it, illegally by our own laws at the time, because it was a good place for a naval Base.

Okay, so what problem is presented by ancapistan if these things happen anyway?

The fall of any given superpower is inevitable. Nobody stays on top forever

My point is that a standing army or organized and recognized government increases the effort another someone to invade. And try and tell me that a place which has a standing army isn't a state in it's own regard.

If you are just a bunch of small communities, then you better be a bunch of militant communities, or living in a place that never has strategic value.

I don't know that I'd necessarily agree. Certainly central organization can help efficiency but it also provides easy targets for victory

A certain amount of it obviously boils down to how brutal the invading force will be

Or how easy the population gives up

But guerilla warfare is crazy effective

That generally means you are already occupied

Or you are invading

Guerilla warfare works... Except you have already lost your home.... The thing ancaps are defending

Right but any invading force has to deal with the idea that occupation will be long and bloody

Yes, but what are they fighting for once an ancap loses their house?

How good did Syria and Iran seem to Americans after Iraq? Not great

Reclamation of property

What property?

A spot of land with a tank sitting on it?

The property they had that is now occupied by an invading force

Land itself has value

Idk about you,but at that point, if my home.is gone, it's easier to just leave and rebuild.

Leave to where?

Better chances of living

A state that will subjugate you?

Good question, where to go? Either somewhere the invading force does not care about yet, or a different community

Or the revial state

That doesn't make any sense

Only if death is preferable to living in the US or something

If I'm doing fine and commies up and burn my house down, I'm not gonna go "Welp, time to join the fascists because I don't have a home to go back to"

Nations are not constants

If a state like the US is so bad, why not just start fighting now? You are already occupied.

Other states exist

Or if there is only one state, the. You just keep going back to ancap places until there is none left

At which point then you fight

But I doubt there would ever be one state

Because former ancaps would team up and form a state just to defeat the Invaders and stop them

What? The fact that there is another state doesn't mean it's a good choice

Of all the countries that exist today how many would you want to live in?

Over out right dying? Most.

It's not outright death

I would at least consider living under the radar in a place that is not currently involved in the war.

You seem to be setting up a series of false dichotomies instead of addressing the core issue

Which is?

Your issue ultimately isn't specific to ancapistan and your solution is to allow tyranny to grow

Which is a strategy that provably doesn't work

The us is tyranny?

Your solution to an invading force is to keep fleeing

And again, the US is temporary, it is not a constant

Do people not do that?

It will not always be a superpower and it will not always be free

Flee war?

They do, and when everyone does it, what happens?

Tell me, how effective was isis or Al queda?

The 20th century is full of examples of what happens when you refuse or are u able to defend yourself against tyrants

Any of the Syria rebels?

Right because no other major issues were caused by Syria

It's all just localized to the middle east

Why haven't any of those groups kept control?

Because there's a bigger tyrant

And said tyrant is attacking other countries

And has done so under a prior imperial regime

So all European countries and the US are, in fact, tyrants?

Russia is

Russia is backing Assad

Russia is why ISIS has been forced out of Iraq?

Russia is why none of the rebel groups unseated Assad

So in other words, smaller states or groups of people are only allowed to exist if bigger states allow them?

In an area where the larger stare already controls and is familiar with the landscape?

As opposed to your prior example of a foreign invading force?

Methinks the goalposts have shifted somewhat. Further, before the obvious example is used, Assad didn't make Syria out of nothing. It's a long established plot of land

Getting back to my previous point: who stops the warlord and who stops the formation of a state who want to oppose the warlord?

How do you stop the greedy from playing within the rules, bending them slightly, to form power?

How do you stop history from repeating itself?

Stop the tribes from giving way to kingdoms from giving way to empires?

All of human history is basically the story of NAP. You don't hurt me, I don't hurt you. But then someone doesn't play nice.

And someone else uses that to gain power

Most of history had no equalizers

And another someone uses that to gain power in opposition.

The US has multiple instances of the citizenry overcoming components of the state by force

And then a group of people who dislike both sides gang up.

Yes, and we have a document we really behind to do that

You proposing a one world constitution?

And everyone following it when we have factions already not following it?

What? I'm saying if someone attacks you, you defend yourself. There are many historical instances of smaller defensive forces fucking over large powers

And very few of them winning without a larger force to back them.

That's also because we're generally talking about poor countries. Even with the backing they're still significantly outnumbered and outgunned

I've been reading this debate happening, I actually think @Grenade123 is factually and historically correct in his arguments, here. Any stateless society concept, be it Ancapistan or Commugrad, innately depends on the altruism - and participation of it's participants. Communism, in order to take root, historically requires a culling of dissenters and shit-stirrers, often the change-makers that bring about the regime in the first place. It's theoretical success depends on a complaint, productive society. Normally, the party involved in carrying out the culling has no reason to give up power, and even if they did, someone else would take that power away. This is why the promise of a Stateless Communist utopia ends in dictatorship.

In the creation of a stateless Capitalist society, it strikes me that a similar culling would be required to physically remove the dissenters from the equation, presumably by helicopter. From there, as Grenade points out, the power would reside, effectively, in the most powerful property owner. The existence of ANY 'stateless' society depends on nobody setting up a structure, or order of doing things. After all, the AnCap philosophy does not only depend on a commitment to the NAP but to anarchist principles as well. (1/3)

It is well worth acknowledging the levels of structure that govern daily life. Our Federal Government is the overarching 'state', with various alliances and accords potentially dictating to the state. Below that, in the United States, anyway, we have our State government that gives us rules and laws. Below that, we have the county government. One step lower, we have city government. And one step even lower than that, some of us have bylaws of homeowners associations that we're beholden to.

Let's say a community exists around a lake. In the common interest of preserving that lake, and the property value around it - they make an arrangement. They all agree to an accord that regulates what they're allowed to do near the lake. This accord may say that nobody is allowed to channel the lake off to another area, as theoretically they could do if they so chose. They are not allowed to dump trash in the lake. They are mutually allowed to cross into other member's portions of the lake. Guess what. They've just created a low form government. Breaking a stateless society is as easy as SOMEONE forming a state. (2/3)

Perhaps, given that the plan inherently calls for arbiters to be chosen to settle matters, and security firms to handle breaches of the NAP... Rather than creating a power vacuum that will inevitably be filled at random by what amounts to the highest bidder, it might be best to reclaim the State that exists, peacefully, for our own again. The United States is broken. It was originally supposed to be 50 individual states that operated under a common code addressing fundamental human rights - Life, Liberty, and ~~the pursuit of happiness~~ Property. Perhaps it's worth considering that a return to those principles, from where we are, so far from those cores, where government is actually a lot closer and a LOT more accountable, and the Federal government exists solely to defend borders, settle inter-state disputes, protect the constitutional rights of the individual from the State's tyranny, and properly organize the defense efforts of the states. We've strayed quite far from the original path, but even so it's worked remarkably well so far, here. (End)

- A Novel by Rye North

~~7/10 too many words~~

i generally agree with all of that, although i have concerns about decentralizing the US govt too much

I find arguments like this equivalent to "You're already a feminist, you just dont know it yet". When you're talking about voluntarism and ancaps, you arent talking about people who want there to be no rules between people, you're talking about people who want every level of that to be voluntary interaction between parties, with the threat of force acting as a deterrent for breaking the NAP. If you want to call that low-form government that's fine, but it doesnt break the concept of Ancapistan. You're just shifting the goalposts away. Ultimately the lake is still controlled through land ownership and concensus between land owners. There isnt a third party that demands the lake be used in a different manner, despite not living on or near the lake, and not actually being in ownership of it. Further, the "most powerful property owner" argument isnt really absolute. If you own 2 guns and everyone else owns 1, you're not going to take over the country all of a sudden, despite being the person with the largest arsenal. There's definitely a threshold, over which someone could start fucking things up for those around them, and I think this does bring us to the point where Ancaps will complain to minarchists/classical liberals/etc about upkeep despite that being a function of their system (and all other systems) as well.

Further, the implication that Ancapistan has to be brought about by revolution is false. There are already a multitude of nonviolent attempts to create libertarian sectors (seasteading was a big one that didnt seem to go anywhere, but AFAIK Free State is still trucking), and really Ancapistan is just a couple steps further than that (I just dont prefer it, as I would rather choose what the state looks like and do upkeep from there. I'm also not opposed to some very limited state functions beyond the usual "monopoly on force")

I mean, the fact that the concept of the state exists in every great civilization seems to be a testament to the fact that hierarchal states will always develop, and that the lack of that hierarchal structure is a vacuum and a condition of non-development. Feudalism developed in both Europe and in Asia. Democracy developed in various forms in Ancient Athens and again in Ancient Rome. Hell, even tribes historically have Chiefs or Elders. None of these things were formed from the eternal abyss of pre-history. Concepts of property, and punishment for theft of said property can be rather safely assumed to have been the root of the development of civilization.

My argument is less of a 'You're already a Statist, you just don't know it yet', and more of a means of pointing out that the development of -a- state is the natural order of things. That first phase towards more liberal societies does not begin with a liberal first step. Generally it takes the form of a monarchy, or a dictatorship. At some point, it becomes bloody revolution, as it has historically. No state dies peacefully. Given these points, it strikes me as a rather gory path to push for a reset to the evolution of civilization that Anarchy explicitly demands.

[For Citation, see Code of Ur-Nammu]

How does it work for anarchy to exist is there is no longer any common sense... like anything goes?

it's going to be either idiocracy or the orville: majority rule

For anarchy to work on a world scale, everyone would need to be part of the same cult

Which is also one reason why socialism and communism doesn’t work.

that, and the fact that socialism and communism are inherently flawed, stupid and evil.

in theory they sound nice, in practice they don't work

This is why those ideologies thrive in an environment where it doesn't matter if it doesn't work (academics etc)

they don't even sound nice in theory.

what's nice about "it does not matter how hard you work you will never get rewarded for it"?

and "it does not matter what you *want* to do, because you have a responsibility to do whatever will most help our society"

one could go on for hours with all the things that do not even sound good in theory.

then again... once we have replicators and phasers i'm fine with it 😄

well it sounds nice when you put it "Everyone who works will be able to afford everything they need, and not live in poverty

sugarcoat it

Yeah, it looks really good on first glance, you realize it's unfeasible with just a little bit of thought, and then you're thankful it's so unfeasible after thinking more about the implications of living under communism.

But I'd argue that the whole 'stateless society' concept is why communism 1. is deceptively attractive to people who think it's not ultimately authoritarian, and 2. the main reason it ends in dictatorship. It's why Social Democracy, admittedly, works a fair bit better than communism-minded socialism.

Social Democracy is generally the same as communism minded socialism

You just exchanged the means of production,
With the means of sustainance,


Basically,
Instead of redistributing resources,
You redistribute money to pay for those resources.

It's an enhanced form of statism, as opposed to a freefall of anarchy that leads to harsh totalitarian statism

Basically it cuts out the middleman. I'm not saying it's good, I'm just saying it's slightly more stable.

~~STATISM, MORE LIKE SATANISM~~

~~My brain's too non-focused to weigh in, just making a funny, carry on~~

It's pretty stable as far as systems go.
Most people (Especially younger people) who say they're communist have in mind the stateless, or at least kind of libertarian concept of it. Not Stalinism.
There are a few stalinists out there though. They vary from stupid to malicious. Seem to be in the minority from what i can tell, as least in north america.

I think i can safely call people who want political prisoners and gulags to be a thing 'malicious'

I dunno

Just call them political tenants and political residents and it sounds a lot better

The holocaust did happen but Israel is really milking it for international support

The African Slave Trade existed in Africa before American the AA's are milking it in America.

Inconvenient facts.

a bigger inconvenient fact is that the term slave comes from enslaved white people,

the "Slavs" from eastern europe

so they literally appropriated white terms! 😮

If the N word was invented by white people, are black people who use it culturally appropriating it?

yes

You were damn fast on that, herr doctor.

every time they wear beads and use a mirror they're appropraiting white culture

We sold those "shinies" to tribes so they'd capture our slaves! 😛

@RyeNorth thats what she said 😦

Oh. :(

so i reported her to ICE and she's now back in Mexico! 😉

Zing!

@Ryecast, @Dr.Wol about your thing from yesterday.

Ryecast is right. The reality is that hierarchies always form. A lot of it is just that not all people are equal in ability and ambition and there are people who tend to want to follow and people who want to lead. You put any significant number of people in a group and someone emerges as a de facto leader. When that person gains the ability to force conformity (an inevitability in a group of people with any shared identity and collective problems) you are left with the beginnings of a tyranny.

This is fundamental human nature. It is also is the case that as power concentrates, power corrupts and the formed institutions become vulnerable to subversion and abuse.

Ultimately, we must ask though, when it comes to stateless communism and democratic socialism, what is the difference between production and consumption and how is it allocated. In a capitalist system this is decided with money and ownership of property. If we abolish money and property but instead use 'abstract points' to allocate resources, is that not equivalent to money? What if we use cultural influence? Would the fact that Tim Pool has more influence and a bigger platform for any of use indicate he should have a better say in the distribution of resources? Would these things not form a hierarchy and something akin to money (you could, after all, count something like twitter followers and derive some kind of index of influence)?

"fairly distributed society" is like true stateless society, it's a myth. Democratic socialism falls from the same issues of socialism except that it admits the reality of a state and of money. But conceptually, you run into alot of the same issues when it comes to the allocation of resources (namely, it's very easy to game).

As it is, we should also remember that not all "democracies" are democratic. China has freedom of speech enshrined in it's constitution (and some Chinese will insist they are more free to speak than we are) but I don't think there are any illusions about how effective that guarantee actually is. North Korea is a "Democratic People's Republic" (with elections!) but it's rather totalitarian in practice. Simply creating a democratic superstructure is insufficient to actually guarantee democracy.

a faction that calls itself "Democratic" can be as democratic as the leftists are for freedom, or be actually democratic (aka, true to what they call themselves)

That said

Capitalism solved the issue of how money should be allocated, and its a heirarchy made by the people themselves.

You get compensated for how many resources deliver,
And society determines the value of these resources.

Look at athletes,
They don't exactly contribute to the success of a society, but they get paid millions.
Because they are of high value to the company that pays them.
That company gains millions by having them attract the public.

If the public decides an athlete isn't interesting, they wont attend, the company that pays them has no use for having them around, so the athlete doesn't get anything

Its like that for all things, you can pay Tim Pool because you value the information and opinions he gives.
His work is as valuable as the consumers make it.

Thats the glory of private property, YOU get to decide what you do, not someone else. So if you agree, you can support it with your resources, if you don't, you don't have to and no one will take it from you

the issue with social democracy is saying "We get to decide what you do with your money" and they get to do it under any pretense, "the good of society", "help the poor"

Which means your money isn't even your money to begin with anymore. as with socialism and the lack of private property

All you have is by the grace of the state at that point

and as you said yourself, the state is corruptable too

I'm with JP on this one. When you look around at the stuff that does work, even if it's barely limping along, I have to wonder how it functions at all

Like, why does the US not be even more like China?

Why does a piece of paper have any power?

All these people who complain about the state having all this power and act like the state is the enemy, yet can't tell me how they have this power. Why does anyone in the police force bother enforcing the law? Why does the military do as it's told? They talk about fait currency? I say governments have fait power.

That's the danger. It doesn't. That's why I'm concerned of the present political moment. There are forces, especially cultural forces, that believe it doesn't and it shouldn't.

This is most pertinent and obvious if you see the free speech debates at Universities.

The government does have a great deal of power. But it's power confined by convention and popular edict. If the government does too much too fast, there's the threat of rebellion.

The police and military have power because they hold a monopoly on violence and no one wants to get in a shooting war with either. The government leadership hold power as long as they hold the support of key institutions.

The state isn't the enemy, the state is Order,

And if everything is ordened, then nothing can change, nothing improves,
The state should maintain the order of the people,
And let go of how the people manage things,

This way society will have chaos to break loose the weakness,
And have order to rebuild it.

And in the end, through a mixture of chaos and order, you evolve stronger.
Weak perish, strong survive.

But **why**

it is a cycle

Like, if the military turned around and said "fuck off leadership".... What would they do?

Dr. Wol gets it. The state is order. It can be a good force or a bad force.

They would have no power

It depends. What if the CIA said "fuck off Trump" but the US Army responded "no you don't"

That's why it's a balance of power between institutions which hold their own influence and power.

I mean, the CIA really has no physical power

They just have dirt on people

They hold *alot* of pseudo-miiltary power. Particularly if the revolution is localized.