Defending private property is one of the core reasons governments exist. Who's property depends on the government.
This is where I think you @Grenade123 are missing one point, and @i3utm is failing to put into perspective properly. I am not trying to being rude. just an observation, if I misunderstood something or potentially missed an important point. let me know. There is this concept called the Non Aggression Principle (NAP) What this means is that one person is not to violate someone else's agency via violce. The implication of a stateless society, from my understanding, is in order for this to work, society as a whole must abide by the NAP. Should there be an issue where one person is trying to claim land, that another person owns or is claiming to own, then a third party, mutually agreed upon by the arguing parties will come in and settle the dispute. But should this be a case where it is some jack-waggon coming to just steal your stuff, then a person must have the right to defend themselves and their property via some sort of weapon, which I would assume to be some sort of Gun.
The NAP if held by a society, would make the hypothetical Grenade made, a rare occurrance, in the same manner that it is today. in theory. If society holds this view, then people would not want to aggress people, by societal pressure and the culture that it allows for. At least, so the theory goes. So it wouldnt be this radical society where people are just claiming things for the sake of claiming them. So it would be true that, ownership technically lies within the bounds of the perspective of others in that, there is a mutual understanding that "Item A" is mine and "Item B" would be someone elses. That also isnt completely true either. Just think for a moment if what things you consider yours. Are you saying that the things you purchased from the fruits of your labour are only yours because some raneom guy on the street decides not to take it when he wants it?
Because this would be making true the "mine is inky mine because you allow it to be mine". Or would it be more true that it is yours because you decided that you would to trade it with the fruits of your labor. To further the point, lets say you make something, you put time, effort, and depending on the product blood, intobmaking said product. Does this mean it is not actually yours, even though you made it with your resources? And it is only true because someone else says "yes" this is yours.? Or is it actually yours because you made it?
So the next question becomes What would hold this to remain true for the over arching society? The NAP and the mutual want to not be aggressed and that the things we have un our posession, that we earned and/or worked for is ours, and the a mere claim of someone else saying "That is mine" doesnt make it true that it is theirs.
I should probably state that, I do agree we need to have a government, and that I believe it needs to exist as the sole source of force in terms of defending the people from outside sources, and that the NAP should be generally agreed upon. But when the NAP is violated, we do need some sort of third party to fix the situation or to mediate it, something along the concept of Police.
Again, if I misconstrued anything you guys were saying, or I misunderstood something please let me know.
@i3utm Maybe not. I dont want to assume that. Maybe he just has a different perspecrive on it, or maybe he couldn't articulate his point well enough? I do not agree that we should have a stateless, im not an Anarcho kind of libertarian. But I do understand the perspecrive of it. Im just trying to learn about things as well. Lol
There are at least a dozen or so different types of Libertarians. I hold a few of the views in one big messy package. 😃
Lmfao. And thatcm is what makes discussions so fun. So, I am a bit ignorant on this. What is Big L libertarian vs. Little L libertarian?
Big L is for the Libertarian Party and its ideals and platform. Little l is for principles that dictate whether or not you vote or you support the Big L or any of its candidates.
One can support Liberty without supporting the party.
Ahh. Okay. I havent heard of those terms until Tim did a month or two back on one of his hour long podcasts, and I havent heard him distinguish between the two. I never really cared to ask before either. 😂
It's an inside thing. Most people are like you and "Wha?" lol
I fully understand the position, I was in an ancap server. There is nothing here I haven't heard before. My issue with it is humans
The Libertarian Party leans right, but there are left-leaning libertarians as well.
I'm a Social Libertarian.
Was that your result on the 8values test?
First, what are the chances of getting everyone on Earth following such a principal and not get greedy? Who is stopping the warlord before he gets to powerful? If not all people are following it, then how do you defend yourself again a state. How do you stop say Russia? While it's true an armed population is one hard to conquer, when you are not facing a standing army then it's just a matter of time, conquering one community after another. When we look at the third party in arbitration, what stops corruption? What stops a kangaroo court? Sure, what we current have isn't great. But I fail to see how you stop the formattion of a state, if a group of people wish to form a state?
I'm a social liberal, according to that.
@Grenade123 I think that is a better explanation than what was going on earlier, and I think actuslly refutes it far better. And it is more along the lines of what I agree wutb.
Ah, but it is supported by my previous idea.
A "stateless" society can only be permitted to exist by the strongest entity.
Much like any current state is allowed to exist so long as larger states don't invade.
They don't just invade willy nilly though, nor have they ever really
Willy nilly depends on your view point
There's usually a larger purpose for it, and it's weighed against cost and difficulty
I would consider religious reasons to be Willy nilly
I wouldn't, but even with that in mind, there's a reason why Afghanistan still exists
@Grenade123 that would be an improper use of Willy Nilly than.
As it falls flat in the face if what that phrade means.
You are right, they don't invade without reason
To be more specific, states don't attack states solely on the basis that the former is larger/stronger than the latter
TIME TO FREEDOM THE ALFS
No, but that doesn't refute my point
There's usually some perceived benefits
Being the wrong type of government can be a reason
Or just happened to be a good spot to attack their enemy
Well it's part of a larger question, since you seem to think conquering is a given
Look at Hawaii