They wouldn't exist

If you think about the government as an insurance agency that protects your rights, then the difference between a libertarian society and a state would be that the libertarian society would not have a compulsory monopoly provider that uses violence to prevent competition.

But the nap agreement tho

I was gonna say that, @halfthink , that a government, if any, were to exist, it wouldn't be compulsory but rather voluntary

the nap is not an agreement, thougjh

NAP is a legal theory.

Yeah, ethics and so forth

So, would a libertarian society have any way of defending against foreign nations?

And even as a legal framework, in a lot of adjudication processes, jurisprudence would be conditioned by culture and local customs

Unironically recreational nukes

Libertarianism is a ridiculous fantasy. The stupidity of ancapistan violates my nap.

Even Hoppeans are just proxy monarchists who are scared of being called nazis.

Now that's a strawman if I've ever seen one

to be clear, i'm not advocating for anything. i'm just wondering how it would work in the real world

Of course

Well I can show you using modern economic theory why capitalism always results in plutocracy

regardless whether you start with no state or with

What "modern economic theory" are you referring to?

please no MMT

i cringe

pareto principle applies to all systems of trade without necessary constraints, so basically within any system of trade within a pareto optimization game there will be consistent winners who hoard capital, and through this capital can actually determine supply and demand in an oligopolistic or monopolistic sense

in so doing, the "freedom" of the market is ultimately undermined by its lack of constraints within the get go

pareto principle = 80/20 distribution of any thing trade in "free" system of competition

the idea behind it though, is that those with money are the ones that would have the most to lose if anything went wrong, no?

(thinking from the human wealth angle)

convergence to this proportion ensures plutocracy in long run, as winners bribe or create govts to then enforce their oligopolistic (close to monopoly) control

no, because risk diminishes with higher capital

whereas risk is highest with startups, who then just get bought out by consistent winners

risk never fully goes away even if you diversify properly, but just because you have a lot, doesn't mean you're safe (look at venezuela, lol)

The solution to the pareto principle destroying social cohesion via plutocracy is creating strict constraints and limits on wealth and trade initially, regulated by a powerful authoritarian state with a volkish principle at its leading goal.

venezuela is literally in shambles due to plutocrats using the cia like a mercenary group by couping them from within and causing chaos

It wasn't a random market thing

alright, so cia conspiracy theory is where you fall... sorry, agree to disagree with that one.

>conspiracy theories

back to the issue at hand

read the books of prominent ex council on foreign relations people, they openly talk about this shit, they don't deny it

preventing a plutocracy without hard redistribution and essentially punishing high earners is what i'm interested in

Jack Attalie (prob spelled it wrong) but he works with royal society and cfr in the US, and has intelligence ties. He wrote a book highlighting the power block of many nations competing in game theoretic scenario and fighting via proxy warfare in the 70's

and lo and behold we see middle east proxy dictator conflicts just a few years later

@Aero fair enough

well wealth constraints are a thing, also we can employ the Federist economic model to lower money demand