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.

Couldn't have said it better than myself, @MickeyTheGymMouse (Daniel) I think @Grenade123 is an instigator of provocation and not perspective. haha

@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

@Grenade123 im listening.

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.

I think it did, @possumsquat93

@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

We annex it, illegally by our own laws at the time, because it was a good place for a naval Base.

Okay, so what problem is presented by ancapistan if these things happen anyway?

The fall of any given superpower is inevitable. Nobody stays on top forever

My point is that a standing army or organized and recognized government increases the effort another someone to invade. And try and tell me that a place which has a standing army isn't a state in it's own regard.