in combination with the un probably

there's certainly more available space in the islamic countries of the world than there is in europe

it did

but I find it disingenuous that they are all against war, but then totally for it for "human rights". But even when they are for it, they use the consequences for socialism and blame the right

like, i think following bush into the middle east was a dumb idea

but the idea that the US is responsible for Europe's immigration policy is ridiculous

true

if europe said no, they'd just go somewhere else

unless the u.s. controls the e.u.

it's not like the entirety of the middle east and north africa is some hellish landscape

hell, my parents went to morocco a couple months ago

not the entirety, but most of it

subsaharan africa definitely is.

*1933 intensifies*

Eh, Botswana & Namibia is doing Okay.

so they are pro gun?

I mean, you cant regulate guns (or nukes for that matter) if you have anarchy, can you?

in order for anarchy to exist, you must enforce it

Thats where the NAP comes into play

in order to enforce anything, you have to have laws and law enforcement

i guess they believe in some kind of community enforcement?

i wouldnt be so confused if they were more open to talk to people about it

they won't talk about it because the logic just doesn't pan out

in order for anarchy to exist, anarchy must not exist

anarchy just means against archy, it doesnt mean no rules

ancaps believe in private law and private enforcement of property rights

but i dunno what ancoms believe in

It doesnt mean against archy, it means without archy (or ruleRs in english)

Like i am.

whats the significant difference though?

it's the absence of government

Well, if you agree to play chess, you agree with your opponent on the rules. It doesnt require a ruler

sure it works nice in a two person scenario

now scale it to millions and let's see how anarchy works out

Im not saying it works, just describing what it means

you're right about the linguistics, but it seems like a nitpick

unless im missing a big point

if there is no government, laws cannot be properly enforced, because you can't count on people to enforce laws themselves

and all it takes is 1 person with a bigger stick to turn any anarchist system into a monarchy

@NativeInterface well, you dont need anyone to rule - to enforce anything - in order to agree on rules. Of course, you cant just not play society with someone who doesnt agree on the rules with you, soooo...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hY5OYdGevAQ
if anyone has time or interest, he runs through the common criticisms to private law