right, the consequences depend on if property principles are respected by others or not

alright

the rightfulness doesnt depend on if you opponent agrees or not, it depends on what standards you apply as a spectator

just a person disagreeing with your ownership doesnt make it illegitimate

yeah if you choose to apply the other persons standards

but as we concluded, rightful is subjective

how do you figure?

if the standards are that the house should go to the next of kin, then someone who isnt next of kin claiming the property would be wrongful according to the standards

okay so a deeper gray zone

then it could mean that they can't figure out who is actually in the right. that the truth is unknown.

a judge may not rule in your favor. it's a harsh life.

well yeah but it depends on the context

officially it has been ruled a certain way, and it's widely accepted. unofficially the truth might be different.

i guess it depends on how we define legitimate as well

no, it's just complicated

yeah basing your idea of objective truth on what the majority believes is not a good idea

thankfully morals are subjective so i dont have to worry about that

if we were discussing black slavery, and you pointed out how unrealistic it would be to pick the cotton without them, and pointing out this or that logistical problem, and you made me see the light that the cotton manufacturing would just have to shut down or be left in chaos, and leave tons of people in poverty, it wouldn't do anything to change my abolitionist stance.

if we really cant figure out how to fund things voluntarily or organize things with a monopoly boss, then heck it, maybe chaos is the price we have to pay to live in a civilized society which isn't fundamentally based on things i consider human rights violations

it depends, i guess

i kind of associate order with orderly performed executions of dissidents

order could be moral chaos

so maybe order and chaos are too vague terms

ironically you can lose your passport if you engage in tax evasion

yeah i respect your points, and i agree property rights are subjective, but i morally disagree with them, and most if not all countries have the same anti-freedom culture, but everything is relative of course

you do have some choices, i cant deny that

i actually agree, i dont think simply removing government is a good idea. there needs to be a slow gradual careful replacement of public services with private ones, but only after the culture has shifted into emphasizing property and freedom principles

i dont think thats likely to happen for a couple of hundred years, maybe thousands

i would like to point out though, that the argument that you can flee the country if you dont want your rights violated isnt really a good positive defense of the status quo. but i dont think thats the argument you were making.

just saying

well theres nothing vague about the irs calling you and threatening to send the police for not paying for the police.

i agree that the government is a mind concept, but the problem is you have specific people with titles doing engaging in physical force due to their beliefs.

right yes, i agree

or the military and police can decide not to fight, it doesnt absolutely have to be a violent change

a violent overthrow wouldnt last anyways

but if you have a government that eliminates people, the united states would bomb it and kill everyone

such nihilism

it's so wasteful when you could recycle people

think of the environment

we're kind of holding the same principles about direct slavery

politics is downstream from culture, the culture changes and the government adjusts

yeah the trends are not looking good

i can just account for my own principles

theres no point in me abandoning my principles just because other people are retarded

this is true, physically it's getting more peaceful, but ideologically i don't know what's happening

i can just act according to my principles, i don't know what you mean by reconcile

are you asking how i find peace with the fact that i have to pay taxes?

sorry i dont get the question

"handle dissenters"? well if they attack me i hope i have enough numbers on my side for defending against their aggressions to be realistic

you dont really need a hive mind, just some respect for the principles

simple force may not be enough

didnt darwin say that the most adaptable wins, not necessarily the strongest

if you pay attention you'll notice that war has been decreasing because the warzone has changed, the war is about opinions and beliefs and propaganda now

defending property would violate nap? no you can kill them in self defense

i mean i agree that you need enough friends to be a formidable force to defend your rights and principles

i just dont know what you're trying to conclude

or a defense agency or militia yeah

or just a group of losely organized people with guns

yeah its not too different from a state, it's just not a monopoly on coercion over a geographical zone and subject to market competition, but yeah other than that it's basically a government

a lot of ancaps make a strong distinction between a state and a government, they say they actually want a government, but not a state

but i kind of end up using the terms interchangeably

everyone fights over definitions tbh

yeah thats fair, but statists have an easier time calling dibs on a continent than private actors

could we try to avoid semantics a bit

lol ok im not your boss

im not even sure you could have a solid set of definitions if a language itself is inherently ambiguous

yeah and i think market competition breaks up monopolies, while traditional governments causes them to form

corporations seems to inherit the monopoly aspect of the state through lobbying and regulatory capture and so on

even government contracting

i believe this is absolutely inevitable as long as people have a belief that the state is necessary

well good luck

well the harder i would push my beliefs on people, the bloodier it would be i suppose

how bloody was the industrial revolution?

maybe you cant think of the bloodless revolutions because they were silent and not really emphasized

the crypto-anarchists believes that technology will drive the anarchist change and that it's inevitable that the state will lose governing control over the masses

and some ancaps believes that agorism is the path to change, to just make it very easy for people to evade trading laws

well if you read the crypto anarchist manifesto, they do have some interesting points, but yeah i have doubts too

which means they cause more significant change

political revolutions just seem to replace bad guys with other bad guys and everything goes back to the same after a couple of months

nah, maybe ancom

ancaps are pro hierarchy, ironically

thats why ancoms dont think we are real anarchists

first step: dont believe in the legitimacy of the tyranny

second step: dont participate in the tyranny

well organize voluntarily to defend against them if they attack you physically

the state is a tyranny i dunno what you mean

then its a numbers game

as per usual

i feel like that question isnt for me

yeah it exists, basically

i believe states are illegitimate because they don't have legitimate ownership of their land according to certain principles

go on

i don't believe there is such a thing as the natural order when it comes to people

people are formed by culture, which is formed by people

we went from sacrificing people to the gods, to dictatorships, to monarchy, to democracy, it seems to me that the trend is towards more emphasis on the individual

not necessarily, more like how you were raised determines what you expect society to be like

if you went to a public school you grow up and take it for granted without questioning its existence

you're like a fish born in water with no understanding of what air is

nah i was just trying to explain culture determining society

and how people are born into culture and it determines their perspective on society

we take the status quo for granted