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?

Considering I go to a state university pretty often

Everyday, they kewp the school running, hospitals etc

Private companies run all of that better

@EmEm (no offense, but I'm going to keep this one on one lol)

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.

@M4Gunner they cant kewp up with my arguments so better hush me down

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.

@Shurik I'd agree with borders only.

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?

If the benefit is worth the risk

On mobile so quoting is hard

A lot of this is still hypothetical and based upon future-tech though, so it's neither here nor there.

Thing is, it *is* an interesting concept to mull over, and think about when it comes to shrinking the size of govt

Have you read Snow Crash? @Fitzydog

Yes, I have. It's a little bit hyperbolic in the way ancap is presented, but not far off

The reality is more constrained

I mean that's the point of the book.