Message from @phadreus
Discord ID: 683536372082016258
```whose state's only functions are to act as an enforcer of the non-aggression principle by providing its citizens with the military, the police and courts, thereby protecting them from aggression, theft, breach of contract, fraud and enforcing property laws. 19th-century Britain has been described by historian Charles Townshend as a standard-bearer of this form of government among Western countries.```
The globalists
central power has *nothing* to do with minarchism
You cannot have both a minarchist government and an oligarchy
nothing *at all*
yes you can
I suppose the founders couldn;t have accounted for that one
That's Just not a thing
what is more efficent? having each state gov a dept for each function? or centralizing all those functions on the federal level?
you're retarded
the more you hyper-focus on efficency, the more the authority becomes centralized
you can have a minarchist dictatorship
because the decision-making arm is not *at all* defined under minarchism
That's as ridiculous as something like "anarcho-socialism" lol
It barely even makes sense
anarcho-socialism is the same as anarcho-capitalism
they are both just anarchy
words don't matter as much as concepts
If the dictatorship doesn't do anything than technically yes
and there is no difference between different anarchy
I agree
you are placing form over function
you're literally arguing against commonly-held definitions
please use facts instead of feelings, kthx
No
I'm not
ok then
ladies....
dont use facts then
have fun
definitionally correct unrealistic and won't happen
>uses appeal to definition argument
>"please use facts over feelings"
Holy Shit
amazing
The irony
lol ancoms and ancaps disagree on a lot my guy.
I link the definition
namely the NAP
and you ignore it like a retard
The problem with nationalism