!agree

hello.
anarcho-capitalist here.
been following tims content since back when i sided with occupy wall street in 2012.
been drifting a lot on the political spectrum since then.

thanks
yeah i bet. things been going completely insane since at least 2015

they must exist...somewhere...

heh

it feels elitist thinking like that, but i don't know what else to think

i want to treat their views with respect

but i feel they are making it very difficult

well to be fair, nobody is interested in changing their opinion, much less their world view

unless they already arent really happy with their own opinion

so what did you tell him?

maybe thats why jeff berwick moved there

he certainly feels more free there

lol he even hosts anarchapulco there

it makes sense

seems like half the people i speak to in the us don't trink their tap water

radical centrism

tribalism in what way?

i think a certain type of tribalism is the whole point. the aim is to have a polycentric framework of law subject to free market competition, so you don't have a monopoly on law by a group of elites.

culture. politics and government or other organizations of society is downstream from culture.

yup, but ancaps disagree. ancaps has split up into two camps, voluntaryists and hoppean ancaps.

im a voluntaryist so i support the right for communists to build a commune as long as its voluntary participation.

but i dont think hoppean ancaps would support it, since they think it would destroy the culture needed to have a free society, i think. i may be getting it wrong.

well if they are fighting they are initiating aggression. the rest of us could just not get involved, or we could help with the defense of one side if they request it, i suppose.

what are they specifically invading?

in an ancap society there would only be private property basically, we wouldnt have any collectivist system or land to defend

i mean you wouldnt be pushing people away from some nation border

yeah, but for that you would need immigrants trespassing on your actual property, not just going across a border to seek housing and jobs

sorry what are we talking about?

is the problem that the attacked group doesnt have a state military to defend them, or whats the angle?

so basically a gang conflict?

it's just regular crime, you can have defense firms and private police

well do the victims need help with defense or not?

the people getting killed

from the conflict

it depends entirely on the context, if they have private policing established, if they both have defense agencies there is dispute resolution agencies and arbitration

or have they decided not be involved in those things and chosen to live out in the wasteland on their own

you could have crowdfunding, or you could have membership fees, or any funding method you could possibly think of that doesnt involve coercion

then they should have the freedom to live with that choice and deal with the consequences

it kind of reminds me of antia and far right groups come dressed ready for a fight

maybe they should be allowed to if they are all okay with the consequences

if it doesnt hurt anyone elses property or health

right

oh interesting point

i dont know if it would be more fair if someone else gets the loot

i mean like some corporation or government

well i assume the killed group would have had friends or family, perhaps they have a higher claim to the property

i havent really explored those thoughts much

yeah but the point is that there would be competitors

so you dont have a monopoly on police like you have today, where the only police force is definitely bought and paid for

i feel like you're talking about exotic edge cases, grenade. most people dont want to kill each other, they just want to be left alone to do their thing.

there are obviously millions of difficult situations that are not easy to have an answer for, but what im advocating is not that different from what we have today. i just would prefer it to not be funded with coercion and justify any particular group of having a monopoly on everything. otherwise you can solve these challenges in any way you want.

sure

>how much of the market needs to be covered to be considered a monopoly? i mean, no 1 government has a monopoly of the world

not the whole world, but some have just called dibs on an entire continent

the problem is that they dont have what is considered legitimate ownership of the land according to homesteading principles

you need to perform an act of original appropriation, like putting it to use or joining it to acquired property, or marking it as owned

you cant just plant a flag, write a constitution and pretend everyone agrees

i'm not sure, it's something we've been discussing in ancap discords

what would we be waiting for?

i think you would have that in mind if you go homesteading a house with dead people in it. you could take a chance and just go for it, but someone might come later and reassert their claim

yeah

the ones who finds it valuable to do so

it can be paid for by anyone in any way except taxation

i want the same systems we have today, but without the taxes and state monopoly bs

both parties need to agree on a judge. if the judge always sides with the rich, there would be no point for the poor to consult that judge.

everyone has a track record

we have a giant arbitration industry right now that a lot of people prefer to go to rather than the state. this seems like a basic old problem that the arbitration industry has solved long time ago.

worst case scenario the partisan judges would just have to choose an arbitrator they both agree on

so we need an even more corruptible monopoly that settles it with an iron fist?

well i agree in one sense

i believe that if there is a challenge or an impasse, people will always strive to solve the issues in one way or another

but i dont believe that people will just run into an impasse, and there will be a giant hole in the system, and people will just sit on their hands and do nothing

it reminds me of the who would build the roads argument

i believe that there are peaceful solutions to impasses

i don't know

am i supposed to know this?

hmm

maybe ownership is objective, but "rightful ownership" is subjective

reality is hard, thats why we consult professionals

yeah, no system is perfect. good enough is usually good enough

lol whats that? anarcho primitivism?

yeah i believe i rightfully have ownership to it because i acquired it peacefully

well if someone else had a morally higher claim and you fended them off through force, it wasnt very peaceful

its subjective but the question is if its consistent with a certain set of principles or not

a private court could rule something which is inconsistent to the philosophy, and it would have ruled "wrong". it would be settled but you could still make the case that the ownership is not legitimate

the courts does not determine reality, they're just supposed to rule according to reality

well not quite

if a criminal comes in and takes the property by force, he is de facto owning it, objectively, since he has exclusive control over it

subjectively illegitimate ownership, but actual ownership nonetheless

i define ownership as the exclusive use and control over something

sure ok

in that case the entire idea of ownership is a social construct

i don't disagree with those definitions

what do you mean by it means nothing?

what is it supposed to mean?

yeah it does. one of us could have a more philosophically consistent argument than the other. one could be in the right and the other could be in the wrong, depending on what standards you apply

it could practically not make a difference to the consequences if one person is stronger than the other

if thats what you mean

but it could "mean" a lot about factual reality