Message from @Monstrous Moonshine
Discord ID: 614356690912935966
@Drywa11 The Wikipedia article is mostly about Minarchism. What I'm referencing is different.
I myself am not particularly sure how it really differs from the hoppean model.
If you could explain that, it would be appreciated.
It basically expands the NAP to include more immoral acts
And relies on reciprocity
It is significantly different from Hoppeanism
which immoral acts?
Although I think it is a step in the right direction, it is still not complete. Nevertheless, it is much better than the current mainstream theories.
also, why can't those just be supplemented to the NAP via contract?
Yeah, i was just going back up to look at that
most of those are either already violations of the NAP, or something which could easily be covered via contract law
I also recently came across this system, so still learning about it
Religion specifically is kind of a sticky point. I think I know what it's getting at, but there's a lot of ambiguity. And I'm not sure what it means by "privitization"
since people often use it different ways in different contexts
Most of these things should be discouraged, even if they're not argued to be covered by the NAP.
Free-riding, for instance.
I came across this here for the first time
But then, it's been explained before how free riding can be discouraged without arguing for specific enforcement to occur against it. For instance, the Lighthouse example. A ship benefits from the lighthouse being operational, even if it doesn't pay for it, and they can't risk shutting it down, because another ship might be in proximity that has paid their dues. However, there's no absolute guarantee that there will *never* be a situation in which there isn't at least on ship in proximity which has paid these dues. And that's the risk that any free riders take. And that risk increases the more free riders their are.
Vaccination is actually an interesting example, because I've heard some libertarians actually argue in favor of mandatory vaccination due to externalities. But many of those externalities are really created because of other, already extant violations of property rights, such as mandatory schooling, public commons, and anti-discrimination laws.
It goes till 57:02
If a person has the right to not vaccinate their children, but another person has the right to not allow them in their establishment because of this, this is generally moot.
Then there also comes the problem of asymmetric knowledge
Yes.
But then, even with symmetric knowledge, there's asymmetric priorities.
Yeah. But then, even with a wall, illegals overstay their visas
That's why you don't let them in to begin with.
Until you have the reasonable ability to actually remove illegals in a timely fashion should they overstay their visas, you just shouldn't let them in, as a general rule.
I agree with that, I was making an analogy
The only reason why this is tolerated, is because the people trusted with managing this system benefit more from its violation, and those who should be holding them accountable are not.
In other words, even if a second problem exists, doesn't mean we shouldn't attempt to address the first problem
I made that statement before reading the graphic you linked.
This is also a great debate
I'm somewhat familiar with Radical Capitalist
He argues for a standard Rothbardian ancap in this debate, just with pragmatic leanings in the current era
In other words, he would argue for closed borders etc. until sufficient conditions for full privatization are reached