So, whoever has the most force gets to decide who the dissenters are.

simple force may not be enough

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

If you end up in a community where 90% of the people want to take the property of the other 10%

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

Poor response. You're still conceding that your property can be entirely lost due to a change in principle.

And that your defense of your own property would violate the NAP according to the claimants.

What grounds would the 10% have to stop them from taking their stuff, aside from violence

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

It's not your property.

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

Something akin to a governing force for your area?

Some sort of agreements, accords in place

You need an army in other words

or a defense agency or militia yeah

Holy shit, sounds like a state to me.

or just a group of losely organized people with guns

And literally everyone will need these armies to keep their stuff

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

Our Constitution already allows for that.

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

So ancaps change definitions to suit their purposes...

*sigh*

But you do have a monopoloy on force over a certain geographical area

everyone fights over definitions tbh

Otherwise how would you control your property

When in doubt I resort to a dictionary...

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

```Definition of state
a : a politically organized body of people usually occupying a definite territory; especially : one that is sovereign```

So you arent against states

you just want more smaller ones as opposed to larger ones

With the US constitution, we came SO DAMNED CLOSE to getting something right.

What we have presently goes entirely against the constitution it's based on

That's why I'm a reformist. I want to see it enforced as it was meant to be.

could we try to avoid semantics a bit

We *could* but that would just be a point for you.

I do understand that you are against the monopoly on force

See, my principles call for a solid set of definitions before conversation can really happen.

lol ok im not your boss