ok this is epic

although, that brings in statutory discussion and such.

It will not be war since that requires some sort of institutions (is a form of institution really), more like ooga-booga raids. Also the "war" part isn't the most problematic. How would people living in a geographical area where a protection company that uses illegal methods like extortion, kidnaping, etc. deal with this problem? Go to the police? Oh right, we abolished those and replaced them with the people causing the strife

Water stop defending ancap, you're making yourself look worse

Assuming this protection company is the only organized group in the entire area, individuals have the right to defend themselves from that type of action.

It's not in their interest to resist

Sure it is, why wouldn’t it be?

if someone is stealing from you, you stop em’.

Because death is the maximum bad trade for an individual

would you not shoot a home invader?

Not when they outnumber you and have you surrounded

*One man exits with shotgun, then the company comes with armoured cars and machine guns* so the only thing that protects them is the good-will of the dominant company? That will surely work

Congratulations, you’ve figured out how gangs work.

Do you want a medal?

So ancap is mafia city

And what will prevent protection companys becoming gangs?

Where do the protection companies get their funding?

I never said that they weren't gangs answer the question my scenario poses instead of coming with iq89 one-liners

They print money with their private banks <:ancap:521375203893182472>

What makes that money valuable?

That all the last 5 cities dominated already use it

What will prevent them form posing as good and then start extorting when they have manpower and hardware?

They don't even need money after a certain point ffs

First of all, it’d be very difficult to find willing ‘soldiers’ to carry out violence against innocents.

But what prevents this situation from happening under a state?

Surely not, they are individuals, AND contractually obliged

By contractually obliged I’m sure you mean that they’ll be fired if they don’t, right?

They'll die for theft

that’s not how it works

Uneducated, read a history book. Still, it is only the (supposed) good-will of these individuals that is the protection from gang-like protection companies. In a state we have checks and balances. One institution doesn't have all the power

That is if they do so after being paid that month

Paying an employee is a voluntary transaction, something that cannot be undone.

You can choose not to make future payments, but that doesn’t undo past ones.

Their equipment and training are maintained by you, having them revolt makes them thieves of both

if i choose to stop working for the company, but steal my equipment on the way out, how am i any better than them?

This discussion is retarded, I'm stopping it before we reach on the age of consent

like i said, statuary arguments come in at that point.

Water, you are a reactionary to the powers that control the state. You must however acknowledge groups and not be an individualist, especially since you're religious.

i just don’t think it’s okay to use violence to enforce my ideas on others, how is that an incompatible idea?

tfw still haven't got an answer to my legimate question abot the protection companies turning gang ;_;

Water, why is individualism good