It's mutually beneficial to respect property

everything is hinges on the person next to you not killing you, and there real is no reason not to because humans are the biggest threat to you that you can deal with

if you don't agree with the definition of someones property in an ancap system, you get shot

If you invade their property, yes

it all hinges on people getting along, and humans hate one another

@Beemann what is their property? what they say it is or what i say it is?

Their property is what they've acquired through trade or force

i think they were onto something

i also think nothing lasts forever

Property still exists within communism, it's just that you, personally, aren't allowed to own it

so then if they declare my land is their land, i am now invading their property by nature of having been there

and they take it by force

Well then you have people contesting property

i dont get it, you say that if you violate property in ancap you get shot, but you also say it hinges on people getting along, i interpret it as a contradiction
does it matter if you get shot by the property owner or a statist cop?

so everything is their land until someone stops it

It's not theirs until they take it

But conversely if someone is taking everyone's land, why would you not shoot them?

@NativeInterface the difference is an individual doing it vs the state. A state can see little to no repercussions for abuses of force, whereas an individual can easily be held accountable

The crux of the ancap argument is finding a method for ensuring consistent decentralization

Which only contextually requires cooperation, and some level of cooperation must be assumed for a market to function regardless

@NativeInterface i am saying its amazing anything is functioning. as dysfunctional as things are, you are less risk of getting shot than ever before in human history. Why? humans are the top of the food chain and want you dead. Contracts rely on everyone not violating it, and the strongest person has every reason to violate it

it amazing we have not kept ourselves in the dark ages, despite our best efforts and doing a pretty good job at least once before.

They do violate it, in ways that won't obviously harm them

at this rate, its only a matter of time before a nuclear war causes the dark ages mkII: now with more radioactive snow

if that many humans really wanted you dead, you would be dead
people generally just want to do their thing
criminals use crime as the means to and end, the crime is not the end itself, unless they're specifically insane

Nuclear war is obvious self harm

it doesn't take many humans, it only takes 1.

Nukes were a good thing so long as they don't fall into the hands of the suicidal, change my mind

and it only takes them being hungry, and not yet weak

@Beemann its not the intentional use that is to worry about nukes tbh

its the unintentional

a fault in a system during high times of stress saying "you are under attack"

a broken down old firing system that malfunctions

equipment failure, human error, nefarious intentions, so many chances for things to go wrong

and you can't not have a nuke because then someone with a nuke could use it without worry

thats why people double triple and quadrouple check

we've had cases like that already. The system's been stress tested

only takes 1 bad roll of the die and we keep adding more dice

if you double down on cynicism you could just theorize that the nukes and the systems doesn't even work to begin with

maybe people have accidentally launched them several time but it malfunctioned

that has been a theory actually