Message from @Shurik
Discord ID: 470081661745233940
There are plenty of imoral actors in the system
Absolute power dosen't corrupt absolutely, absolute power attracts the absolutely corruptable
Big government will just be replaced by big corporations that are accountable to noone.
@Shurik The only difference between a gov't that's not really accountable to the people, and a corporation that's accountable to profit, is that I can choose to not even associate with the latter.
I agree with that but I'm a fan of the government having a monopoly on force.
I think without property rights and free speech capitalism falls appart
And someone needs to enforce that and mob rule never protects the rights of the minority
Well, I guess it just comes down to a moral attitude about the whole situation.
Who's better at protecting your property rights right now? You and your insurance provider, or the police and the govt?
AnCaps aren't advocating for there to never be gov't ever, and for it to be outlawed, only to have the freedom to not associate with one
I don't think the global political climate is ready for something like that. It's as far feched and utopian as Communism.
people running around gunning eachother down and just taking houses sounds great tho
Life Battle royale
Fuck that shit fam
That's not ancaps lol
Tell me what your anarcho capatalism is?
If you got rid of gov'ts right now, would you even notice?
I've always viewed it as something along the lines of Snow Crash
Yes I would.
In your day to day life, how often do you interact with the govt?
Everyday, they kewp the school running, hospitals etc
Private companies run all of that better
Allright, il take a step back
I'm a classical liberal vergining on libertarian
lol OTHER than a state university, in the AVERAGE persons life, how often do they interact with the gov't?
Maybe their water company and the roads?
I agree with 95% of your platform.
My personal opinion and view on the matter is that you need a single body to have a monopoly on force in order to protect rule of law, and borders
After than the government can go fuck itself.
I don't think a private entity could do rule of law. I think a private entity can do borders thou
The floor was wiped with Cetronius. Never forget.
Why not? We already have private arbitration, and most issues between people are nothing more than a complex contract dispute
If a private entity starts doing rule of law it efficiently becomes the government because it gets a monopoly on force.
"doing rule of law"
Can you explain?
We need a few laws to be enforced in order to keep society running which more or less line up with the 10 commandments. Those laws need to be enforced equally on all parties for society to function for a prolonged period of time. Equally is a hard term to apply because all situations of breaking said law are different. Like manslaughter, vs 1st degree murder, vs 2nd degree, etc.
Making sure the equal enforcement of the law even accounting for differences in situation. @Fitzydog
Think of the social contract as a literal contract, and the "rule of law" as the rules of said contract.
In an AnCap scenario, there's no 'social contract', just the contracts made with other people based in business, or social circle, or location. The 'rule of law' would be different for each situation, just how any contract would be.
I understand where you're coming from, and it IS difficult to extrapolate realities from the abstract.
Can't the punishment for murder be agreed upon contractually? It (might) be different for separate groups, or an agreed upon standard may be set, who knows?
Look, who's going to associate with anyone who is unable to be accountable?