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

unfortunately, life is subjective

no, it's just complicated

the closes thing you have to finding objective truth is what the most people agree on

even then, sometimes they are wrong

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

onto the majority no, but on a few people little by little, you stand a chance of changing the truth

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

what's the difference between chaos and freedom?

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

i posit that things are voluntary, mostly. That if there is nothing stopping you emigrating outside a lack of places to go you like, there is nothing keeping you here. That you were born here and opted not to move once you felt old enough to, and just because you do not like where you were borne, that does not make it illegitimate. Because private property is subjective, it is only your subjective belief that countries have no legitimate claim to land, because the society you were born in was just lazy, and rather than keeping infinite records of laws for each square inch of land, they made up a unified set of rules, long ago, that people liked, and that other people didn't disagree with enough to move. and as such, the rightful owners of different piece of land lend their land to a group of people that fall under the term state. And they agree that they need funding because they are providing various services and stuff.

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

that doesn't stop you emigrating

no one is obligated to allow you entry, but that doesn't mean you are not allowed to leave.

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

oh, i agree things can be fixed

you do have some choices, i cant deny that

and that perhaps we can move towards a more decentralized society

however, i don't think the state can be removed. at least not without it just returning, and nothing meaningful having changed

humans got here somehow, and i don't think we have evolved all that much to get rid of it

so perhaps just figure out smaller ways to do things better

like space flight is doing

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

its not defending the status quote, but refuting the idea you have to be here

see, the problem i have with an-cap is the an part. because i don't see "the state" as anything really. outside a vague definition for authority. And that a parent commanding around a child is not really much different in than the state at the end of the day. its just a matter of scale

like the monopoly comment earlier.

if one person owns a small island, they have a monopoly of that island, and any person born there might dislike that

but just because the only surround area is water doesn't mean the current owner no longer has any rights to the land on the island

What I've been reading here seems like a good argument against anarchy.

Shall I count the ways?

1. The whole damn thing falls apart if the people involved are unprincipled.

2. Having your property to be determined by those around you seems like it would lend itself to cliques