Exactly my point.

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

might i point out, that we have been slowly getting less violent for a while now

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

But if those other people who are retarded also have their own set of principles that puts yours beneath theirs, how do you reconcile that?

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

I mean, they want your shit. By your principles they can't have it, but by their principles, in much the same way as the debate earlier, they think they can.

In much the same way that a politician doesn't have power without a military and police

your principles don't really have power beyond the force behind them

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

I'm a reformist, I'll remind you.

sorry i dont get the question

it seems hes asking how you ensure that your principles stay as the dominant principles

AnCap and AnCom require what practically amounts to a hive mind to function without war. How do you handle dissenters?

Basically what Blackhawk said.

"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

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...