Coercion

it's about helping people defend themselves who couldn't

Coercion

How is that defense funded in a statist society? By aggression

Monopoly of Law Making and Coercion

@ayy lmao And you need to coerce people to do that, how exactly?

no??

Yeah

by voulentary funding

Then it's a firm

not a state

Sure

you're an anarchist then

i'm down for voluntarily funding this

congrats

Then you're advocating a fucking panarchist society, not an absolute statist position

Which is the only way a Minarchist's positions could hold

and also not violate the NAP

can I please explain my views without 5 people snapping in vetween I can't even answer ;_;

there is so many points I wanna make

protip: use shift+enter for a line break. makes structuring your messages here easier.

panarchist would come quite close man

actually

@ayy lmao my bad m8

yeah I'm a mobile pleb my dude

Please do so then, I wasn't snapping at you, I don't think any of us are, we were criticising your analogies and your arguments, but please go ahead and explain

no shifts here

nonono not snapping in a negative way

sorry man

go on

just because so many messages came I couldn't read and answer all of them

👍

so like, the "state" or firm, don't care how you define it, defends you, in case of a violation of the NAP, and you pay them for it. If you do not pay them for it, you can retaliate kn your own, but there should be some central power who is even capable of helping weak people aginst let's say an entire community agressing against them

without that people wouldn't have anyone to go to if they don't have a lot of big muscular friends

I guess panarchist sounds a lot like what I have in mind

Will competing arbitration/security services be allowed?

I guess as long as they respect the NAP

Then you are a panarchist

^

Then we agree

could very well be