25 votes

Does Anarcho-Capitalism Allow People To Form Governments?

I'm creating a new thread for this topic that has come up in another thread.

The Merriam-Webster Definition of "government":

: the group of people who control and make decisions for a country, state, etc.

: a particular system used for controlling a country, state, etc.

: the process or manner of controlling a country, state, etc.

Oxford Dictionary definition:

"[TREATED AS SINGULAR OR PLURAL] The governing body of a nation, state, or community:
an agency of the federal government

Are people allowed to form governments in an anarcho-capitalist society?

If so, how can we continue to call a world where such is a possibility "anarchy"?

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

It only presumes opposition

It only presumes opposition in the context of the mad dash to adopt anarchism because some people have trouble reconciling necessary evil, regardless of economics and history.

Ventura 2012

History

History.

See Bmore, now you're making me play devil's advocate the other way ;)

Doesn't history prove that people change, society changes, our social structures change, our technology changes.....literally, EVERYTHING changes?

http://lionsofliberty.com/
*Advancing the Ideas of Liberty Daily*

Yes...

Yes...

Ventura 2012

consistent with history?

That could mean anything. Which era of history?

“Although it was the middle of winter, I finally realized that, within me, summer was inextinguishable.” — Albert Camus

Literally all of it

Literally all of it

Ventura 2012

your mama

.

Aka statism that you support

Aka statism that you support because you have no consistent philosophy! LOL, too funny.

"In reality, the Constitution itself is incapable of achieving what we would like in limiting government power, no matter how well written."

~ Ron Paul, End the Fed

hmmm.

Not really, at least not in any stable or lasting fashion.

The first time they tried to force anyone to pay a tax that they didn't wish too, they would be charged with a crime. No one has a right to force anyone to pay taxes as this would be a violation of property rights.

Technically people could sign a contract to be in the system, but they would have to do so voluntarily and the contract would have to be maintained by both ends. That's not something governments are particularly good at honoring.

Also, people born into the system would be free of it until and unless they "choose" as rational adults to sign the contract. Trouble is, it would be illegal for the government to force them to leave their homes that they owned if they decided to opt out of paying taxes anymore. There is a potential work-around if the government does not allow property ownership, ill cover this later.

Those who decided not to pay the taxes would be benefiting from the meager fruits of the taxation other people have to pay. This would make the tax-cows extremely angry. Because the number of people who didn't want to pay taxes would grow each year, you'd wind up with the old socialist paradigm where a dwindling number of tax cows were being asked to pay for more and more free-loaders until they got fed-up and were tempted to use their government to level force against these people; either throwing them out of their homes and forcing them out of the government's jurisdiction, fine them, imprison them, etc. Trouble is, this kind of force would not be tolerated in a NAP society and the "government" would have no fangs to force people to conform. Thus, the end result would be collapse and financial ruin for those heavily invested in the system, and probably criminal charges against those who attempted to violate rights to keep their gang functioning.

I suppose one person with a large plot of privately owned land could form his own government and invite people to come live there. But in the end, it would be his house, his rules, and the legal system would not permit him to deprive others of their right to life, liberty and property when push comes to shove. So he could throw people off his land if they weren't following his rules. Even though he might make his rules like like communism or whatever, in the end the legal system when it came to arbitration would be based on the NAP even if all the commies there wanted to pretend they had Marxism. They could even contract a rule system very similar. They would all be bound to whatever contracts they signed, and technically there's no reason they couldn't willingly forfeit their own rights in order to be subservient to their supreme leader. They key is, they'd have to sign up voluntarily, and that contract would NOT hold to their offspring.

"not really" or "no"?

Its' an important distinction, because not really leaves room for people to form one, whereas as "no" means you would advocate the use of force to stop a government from being formed.

"The first time they tried to force anyone to pay a tax that they didn't wish too, they would be charged with a crime. No one has a right to force anyone to pay taxes as this would be a violation of property rights."

Zero disagreement there.

"Technically people could sign a contract to be in the system, but they would have to do so voluntarily and the contract would have to be maintained by both ends. That's not something governments are particularly good at honoring."

A government cannot be "good" or "not good" at anything - it is the individuals which create, support and fund it that matter. But yes, a contract of any kind including one which forms a government must be honored by all parties, or the party being dishonored can leave the contract.

"Also, people born into the system would be free of it until and unless they "choose" as rational adults to sign the contract."

Possibly, but at what point can they be "free" of it? The issue of when a human becomes autonomous is a sticky one. We all agree it's not at Day 1, but where does it begin? Year 8? Year 16? I have no idea, do you?

"Trouble is, it would be illegal for the government to force them to leave. So they would be benefiting from the meager fruits of the taxation other people have to pay"

It depends on the nature of the contract. If a community is created and your property lies within that community, and the rules the community lays down do not change, it might very well be the property owner who must sell his property and "leave" the government, if the other property owners that voluntarily created it have not attempted to change any terms while the property owner has.

"Those who decided they didn't want to pay taxes would still benefit and this would make the tax-cows extremely angry. Because the number of people who didn't want to pay taxes would grow each year, you'd wind up with the old socialist paradigm where a dwindling number of tax cows were being asked to pay for more and more free-loaders until they got fed-up and decided to use their government to level force against innocent people; either throwing them out of their homes and forcing them out of the government's jurisdiction, fine them, imprison them, etc. Hello Tyranny."

There are a lot of assumptions being made here. You are calling them "tax cows" but we are talking about people voluntarily paying dues to an organization. If I join the Boy Scouts and don't pay my dues are they "tax cows" for asking me to leave if I don't pay them? Why would a voluntarily conceived government be any different?

"I suppose one person with a large plot of privately owned land could form his own government and invite people to come live there. But in the end, it would be his house, his rules, and the legal system would not permit him to deprive others of their right to life, liberty and property when push comes to shove. Likewise, they would all be bound to whatever contracts they signed."

That's certainly one way it could unfold. Or you could have 500 adjoining private property owners who form a city-state organization with an overriding government for defending natural law. This is how greek city-states were formed.

http://lionsofliberty.com/
*Advancing the Ideas of Liberty Daily*

You can start one, however

You can start one, however without the ability to initiate force against your "citizens" it will fail for all the reasons I listed.

So yes in the short term, no in the long term. What more can I say?

It is impossible for a government to be voluntary for long. You could start one with say, 1000 willing people who all agree to the terms you set forth for your government. They could all sign binding agreements. However those born into the system cannot be forced to abide by it until they also volunteer to sign up as consenting adults without coercion or duress.

Think of it as a company where everyone agrees to terms of employment.

To address the points:

1) When does a human reach the age of reason? I expect society would agree on an age where a child becomes and adult for legal purposes, a sort of universally accepted contractual clause that is used by arbitration companies. However, I don't see any reason that a dependent wouldn't have access to a release which could be signed by both the minor and his parent/guardians to certify that he/she has left dependent status and become an adult legally (within reason). Honestly this is one of those issues that people in such a system would demand and answer for, but which I personally can't predict the end result of.

2) If you own a property among other property owners who all have agreed to abide by a system of government, however you have not, what possible justification could they have of demanding that you leave? Sure they could refuse to do business with you, but they have not one ounce of authority to level force against you if you have not signed a contract agreeing to it. You can't be born into a contract; that would be slavery. At best, the voluntary tax-cows could make life difficult for you by refusing to interact with you. But you'd still gain from whatever blanket services/improvements were provided generally to your neighbors, and I'm sure you could have everything you need delivered and be just fine.

Some cows probably enjoy being milked. They might even do it voluntarily, or demand it if they could. Just an analogy.

"Or you could have 500 adjoining private property owners who form a city-state organization with an overriding government for defending natural law. This is how greek city-states were formed."

The problem with this scenario is that according to the NAP which is what the free society would use as its governing and legal principal, that city-state would have no authority over the property owners. They would have to surrender their property ownership to a single corporation (if that was allowed) or individual. Because the only way that said government would have authority under the NAP legal system over its "citizens" is if it had ownership rights and could therefore expel deviants from its land. But this would be nothing more than the land owner demanding trespassers leave his property. It wouldn't be "punitive" actions as we have today.

No voluntary group can force an individual off his/her own property unjustly. Even if they go to arbitration and prove that the "citizen" violated his contract of "citizenship" all that means is that he no longer has to pay taxes or receives those services which can be withheld by said "government" company. His property remains his property. I suppose the contract could have specifically said that breach of contract forfeits your property to Government inc. or whatever the gov. calls itself. But who'd sign a contract like that?

It is those services which can NOT be withheld that will spell the doom for this experiment. The reason there has never been, nor ever will be a "voluntary" government, is because if the government cannot violate your right to property by making taxes mandatory, people will not pay them. This will place the burden of affording the state squarely on the shoulders of the tax-cow (voluntary tax-cow) who will be overwhelmed by the number of free loaders who realized they can get many benefits of a gov without paying for them. The entire thing will either collapse or resort to using force to make the free-loaders pay.

The more important question is; if we achieved a voluntary society based on the rule of law (the NAP), who the hell would want to return to being dominated by criminal gangs?

"however"

Well, firstly, this question is meant to explore what is *morally allowed*, what will "work" or "not work" is utilitarian argument that is a good one to have, but it's all theory until it's played out in reality. I aim for a world where people are free to try all sorts of systems - rights respecting city-states, anarcho-capitalism, even communism if they so choose through voluntary implementation.

"It is impossible for a government to be voluntary for long. You could start one with say, 1000 willing people who all agree to the terms you set forth for your government. They could all sign binding agreements. However those born into the system cannot be forced to abide by it until they also volunteer to sign up as consenting adults without coercion or duress."

How do you know it's "impossible"? We are talking about a system of natural law enforcement, not a system that violates rights, so those children wouldn't be "forced" into anything until "of age" (whatever that is), the point at which they would have to "pay in" or however it was set up, at which point they are equally free to choose whatever system they want.

I am going to skip #1, because the issue of children and such is a compiex one and beyond the scope of this specific conversation. On to 2

"2) If you own a property among other property owners who all have agreed to abide by a system of government, however you have not, what possible justification could they have of demanding that you leave? Sure they could refuse to do business with you, but they have not one ounce of authority to level force against you if you have not signed a contract agreeing to it. You can't be born into a contract; that would be slavery. At best, the voluntary tax-cows could make life difficult for you by refusing to interact with you. But you'd still gain from whatever blanket services/improvements were provided generally to your neighbors, and I'm sure you could have everything you need delivered and be just fine."

I didn't say "you have not", I am talking about a situation where one *has* agreed to the terms, and then alters his end of the contract. Think of it this way: a group of 500 families and homeowners decide to form a community. They all build roads, drainage, electric lines as part of that contract. One homeowner in the middle of the community one day says "you know what, screw it, I don't feel like being a part of this, I withdraw my consent". They can do that, but they are violating their covenant, and they should not be able to prevent the rest of the community from utilizing previously agreed upon functions that run through his property. So in a situation like this, he is violating the contract, and if anyone must leave it would be him.

"The problem with this scenario is that according to the NAP which is what the free society would use as its governing and legal principal, that city-state would have no authority over the property owners. They would have to surrender their property ownership to a single corporation (if that was allowed) or individual. Because the only way that said government would have authority under the NAP legal system over its "citizens" is if it had ownership rights and could therefore expel deviants from its land. But this would be nothing more than the land owner demanding trespassers leave his property. It wouldn't be "punitive" actions as we have today."

What? We are not talking about "authority over" - we are talking about mutual agreement. Stop begging the question.

"No voluntary group can force an individual off his/her own property unjustly. Even if they go to arbitration and prove that the "citizen" violated his contract of "citizenship" all that means is that he no longer has to pay taxes or receives those services which can be withheld by said "government" company. His property remains his property. I suppose the contract could have specifically said that breach of contract forfeits your property to Government inc. or whatever the gov. calls itself. But who'd sign a contract like that?"

See above for my comment on restrictive covenants. This doesn't apply to all situation, the point is only that there are certainly situations where it could. Who cares "who would sign a contract like that?" Do you have a right to force someone not to? That is the question.

"It is those services which can NOT be withheld that will spell the doom for this experiment. The reason there has never been, nor ever will be a "voluntary" government, is because if the government cannot violate your right to property by making taxes mandatory, people will not pay them. This will place the burden of affording the state squarely on the shoulders of the tax-cow (voluntary tax-cow) who will be overwhelmed by the number of free loaders who realized they can get many benefits of a gov without paying for them. The entire thing will either collapse or resort to using force to make the free-loaders pay."

Question-beggin and crystal-balling, all in one! This is going nowhere fast. Whether it goes "nowhere fast" is irrelevant to whether people have the right to form a government. you are acting like government is an external force that comes in from another dimension and demands taxes.Are businesses "demanding investments" from their investors? Are charities "demanding donations"?

"The more important question is; if we achieved a voluntary society based on the rule of law (the NAP), who the hell would want to return to being dominated by criminal gangs?"

You are equating government with criminal gangs, despite the premise of the question, and continue to question beg. So why would I reasonable person continue conversing with you at this point?

http://lionsofliberty.com/
*Advancing the Ideas of Liberty Daily*

You are being rude.

You are being rude. Extremely rude. Can we please speak like humans in the same room instead of humans in separate cars?

Yes you can start a government in a NAP society, I simply don't think it will work for long.

"what will "work" or "not work" is utilitarian argument that is a good one to have, but it's all theory until it's played out in reality."

It may surprise you to learn, governments have been tried a few times. The results are in: They are NEVER voluntary, they ALWAYS violate natural rights, and the freer they start, the more totalitarian and blood-thirsty they end. Governments are too dangerous to live. The fact that in a NAP based society, rights violations would be against the law, no "true" government could emerge, because governments absolutely MUST violate your rights to exist longer than a single generation.

"What? We are not talking about "authority over" - we are talking about mutual agreement. Stop begging the question."

Would you sign a contract that says if you want to leave an agreement, than your house and land that you worked your whole life to pay for is automatically forfeit and force can be leveled against you by the group you signed up with? Maybe you would, there's a sucker born every minute. I don't foresee that being a very popular business model personally, call me a dreamer.

Maybe the phone company will institute such a clause in their contracts too? If you decide you don't want to be a part of the phone company any more, your house is taken from you and you are banished from your community? I'm sure said phone companies' competitors would dance for joy if they tried that BS. No one would sign up, and that company would go out of business within seconds.

The fact is, for your little government to work inside of a NAP based society, people would have to sign contracts like that. Then they would have to convince their fully-grown offspring to do the same. Good luck... but yes, its allowed to attempt this. You can attempt anything you want, and then relearn the failures of your forefathers for yourself.

According to Magwans rigid

dogmatism, the following scenario could play out:

A small community of voluntarists are living in peace, off the grid and protecting their wealth from outside plunder by keeping a low profile, not drawing attention, and with the unspoken, but assumed, deterrent of some stockpiled nuclear weapons and heavy artillery.

It's a community of just a few thousand, maybe ten thousand, and all are either founding members or signers to the contract terms of the community. All the land is private except for some roadways designated public by group consensus.

Not to go into too much detail, but one of the contract terms is that no member reveals sensitive info about the community to outside powers or gangs. Maybe they don't really have strong defenses, maybe they had a lot of hidden wealth in case they need outside assistance if attacked.

As children are born into the community and come to majority age, they are obliged to sign the contract, or else be thrown off the property of all the other owners.

All the other owners agreed to not harbor any non signer.

So contractually they can expel any non signer off the private property of any member.

Also, they can have the majority age be 12, 13 yrs or 15, and most kids that age are just not going to take their bed roll and leave the defenses of the little community, since on the outside there's marauding gangs of flesh eating cannibals and foreign governments with non voluntarist customs. At least that's the line people tell them to protect their wealth and independence.

All of this is voluntary, even up to and including 'public lies' about how dangerous it is outside to incline 15 year olds to sign the contract. Lying doesn't violate NAP.

Anything can be construed as voluntary if people are desperate enough to sign the paper.

The problem with contracts though is that if someone denies signing or claims to be coerced, it's not really voluntary, so to enforce it would require a panel of judges to decide if its a valid contract.

Since there's no jurisdiction on anarchism, any person can claim they are going to arbitrate if the contract is valid or not. Even any two people disagree about, they can justly shoot each other for being an aggressor.

I.e., it's a giant clusterfsck that really can't even justify contract enforcement when you get down to brass tacks, and which would ultimately end up in government anyway when these stupid little disputes were settled by larger and larger coalitions of security forces.

As they became more powerful, they could just dispense with all the voluntariarity and impose a fee on their dependents and simplify things, firing all the useless lawyers and getting on something productive.

P.S. If some disgruntled asshole comes to majority age and doesn't sign the contract, and decided to turn coat and go reveal the community weakness, the community would have no right or power to restrain him, even if it meant their death by cannibal road warriors.

"Rigid dogmatism" BILL?

"Rigid dogmatism" BILL? Really? The NAP is definition of crime according to the philosophy of liberty. Can you tell me where dogma comes into play in this? This is a philosophy not a religion. There is 0 faith required. Everything is based on simple logic. The question is dealing with a hypothetical of could "X" occur in a society governed by the NAP. Here's my dogmatic statement: If a society is governed according to the NAP, all violations of your right to life, liberty and property are a crime. So if "X" requires a violation of said rights, than you have your answer.

Despite the OP's insistence that I am somehow beggering his question, I am merely applying that formula to it. Could a government exist in a NAP based society? That depends on whether the government can exist without violating rights. I lay out a case for why that is impossible.

Concerning your example of the age of kids becoming adults. You'll notice that the age of consenting adults across the world averages pretty close to 18. If there were no governments, do you think that would change? Would humans (especially parents) suddenly consider adults to be 12 to 15? Do governments keep the age around 18 by some magical force? Or is it that only politicians are wise enough to know that 18 is a good average age, whereas the rest of us are too stupid to understand that 12 year old kids are not ready to be adults on average?

Could a group of humans who adhere to the NAP consider 12 to be an adult? Sure, but it would be no more likely than a group of humans who is ruled by a government doing the same thing.

As for telling their children that flesh eating cannibals populate the outside world and using this as a basis to get them to sign a binding contract, this "is" a crime. We call it fraud, and it is a direct violation to their right to liberty. When you willfully use deception to trick someone into signing a contract, you have employed fraud, and are a criminal according to the NAP. Remember fraud is not a victimless crime.

Getting someone to sign a contract under duress or via coercion violates the contract and is NOT considered voluntary.

"Since there's no jurisdiction on anarchism, any person can claim they are going to arbitrate if the contract is valid or not."

There is jurisdiction, the governing philosophy. Its every ounce as concrete a foundation for society as the peace of paper that America is based on. We could put it on paper too and call it "The NAP Constitution" if that would make it feel more real for you?

You already tried these same arguments in our previous debate and I shot them down one by one. Are you just going to pretend there are no free market forces keeping companies working in a cohesive way that pleases their customers with claims about willy-nilly arbitration companies that just toss out verdicts with no regard to justice? You want to talk about dogmatic thinking? Paying customers would "demand" companies that produced consistent and just rulings and fierce competition coupled with 3rd party dispute resolution in arbitration would give us a justice system vastly superior to the government monopolized protection racket we have now.

This isn't rocket science. In a monopoly backed by government force, there are NO disincentives for incompetence or corruption. Why do I need to explain this to conservatives? Monopolies = bad. Competition = good. Why do people who defend statism insist that a government is outside of basic economic laws? Why do people who defend statism seem adamantly unable to understand the excruciatingly simple fact that humans want, are willing to pay for, and will demand for their money quality services and stable legal structure, even without a criminal gang ruling over them?

You guys trying to shoot down volunteerism (with cheap slurs like calling a system based 100% on law; anarchism) seem to forget you are preaching from a mire of utter corruption and lawlessness we call the United States. You are standing in one of the most obscene failures of your dogmatic faith in gang dominance, preaching about why people are too stupid to be free. America is turning into an Orwellian nightmare where everyone is under constant surveillance with jack-booted thugs kicking in doors without warrants casually executing people. We are in constant wars for profit, murdering humans all around the globe with flying death bots. Our money is a fraud and our wealth is being inflated into the hands of globalist banksters by a printing press, and last but not least, we are breath away from having all life wiped off of planet Earth in nuclear fire. And you think Volunteerism is too dangerous because there could be some gang fights?

Its tough when you

don't know what words mean.

wiki dat shyt, son.

Dogma is a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true.[1] It serves as part of the primary basis of an ideology or belief system, and it cannot be changed or discarded without affecting the very system's paradigm, or the ideology itself. The term can refer to acceptable opinions of philosophers or philosophical schools, public decrees, religion, or issued decisions of political authorities.[2]

The term derives from Greek δόγμα "that which seems to one, opinion or belief"[3] and that from δοκέω (dokeo), "to think, to suppose, to imagine"

I don't take the Non

I don't take the Non Aggression Principal to be incontrovertibly true in some cosmic sense. It is not beyond question or critique, though I have yet to be swayed that there is anything better out there. I think of the NAP as a good idea that would make for a the best chance I know of that we humans have to coexist in a prosperous free society. I also understand that what is crime and what isn't is utterly subjective to humans, and ultimatly this will change depending on who can level the most force and establish what they consider to be "legal." Just because the majority of people in my ideal society believed that only the violation of individual rights constitutes a crime doesn't mean that there is a magical definition floating through the cosmos that backs this up. Its just our opinion that we are willing to force on others by taking these rights on the battlefield.

To expand, I don't believe we are born with natural rights. I just think they are a good idea, but hold no illusions that they can't be taken by force. In fact if you kill everyone who believes in them, they will cease to exist until someone else dreams them up.

Some who are accused of crime under the NAP will feel oppressed or feel that the NAP is unjust according to whatever moral compass they steer their lives by. Maybe they think the Flying Spaghetti Monster gives them the right to tell me what I can smoke, and harm me for non-compliance. I won't say which way is the super cosmic TRUTH because I don't think there is one. However if given enough like-minded people, I will wage war against those who oppose the NAP and take my freedom by force. According to the NAP, this would be my justifiable right. According to the Flying Spaghetti Monster, I could be a criminal. I don't care what he thinks.

Keep in mind, unlike a religious person might consider their deity to be the justification that their set of morals are "TRUTH;" I have no claim that the NAP is some universal truth. Only that it makes sense to me and all logical scrutiny seems to support this given the correct circumstances (which may never arise). I don't doubt we may come up with something even better some day, though I cannot conceive of what it could be.

well then

if you don't take NAP to be true, there's nothing to discuss.

also, communal property sharing would "work" just as well as NAP if 'everyone adopted it voluntarily.' if that's your condition for something 'working,' you need to find some behavior that everyone actually will do.

in reality, everyone will not adopt either, so talking about one or the other as the best principle is waste of time. changing human nature is a poor political strategy.

The NAP doesn't require a

The NAP doesn't require a human nature change. You can act in any way you please so long as you don't harm others by your actions. The only thing it does is define what crime is. Community property sharing could work too, it certainly works under my roof with my family and I. I doubt it would work too well with a large group of humans who didn't love each other; at least not when they fell on hard times. The pilgrims is a fine example of that.

While I think the NAP is smart, "true" is a different matter all together. That's a pretty subjective thing in this context. Murderers, thieves and politicians would probably hate it. People who don't have any desire to steal, murder and otherwise commit crimes against others would probably like it. The NAP just makes logical sense.

it does, in order to be stable/successful

think about it.

suppose 99 out of 100 people were by nature violent and hated peace. the one person, all else being equal, would perish if he was not the very strongest and best violent bastard. therefore, in such a setting, voluntarism would fail as a stable/successful strategy.

granted, that's not the reality. but i use the example to establish the concept that some conditions of human nature preclude successful use of volunariarity as a guiding principle of behavior.

if we make it 50/50, same problem. even if every single one of the 50% that desired peace walked in lockstep with the other 50, they would be destroyed if they only responded to violence, never initiating it against the gang of predators.

whatever the actual breakdown is on real human nature (whether evolved, or fallen, pick your evil), it is far from the level that could permit a stable, functional, lasting strategy of voluntarism.

this, of course is why no such societies exist either now, or in history, outside small religious pacifists under the protective umbrella of a violent state.

People in a NAP society would

People in a NAP society would only be able to survive if they were capable and willing to overpower and destroy criminals. Rights are won on the battlefield.

"this, of course is why no such societies exist either now, or in history, outside small religious pacifists under the protective umbrella of a violent state."

Criminals who do not adhere to the NAP can easily overpower and destroy those who do. This is why no NAP society has ever existed. There will never be a voluntary society until enough people wake up to the NAP that our numbers allow us to overwhelm and destroy criminal gangs who try to level aggression against us. As I said, this may never occur. However it has never had a better chance than today where the philosophy of liberty can actually escape the governmental censorship drag-net and reach billions of people. If technology continues to progress in a way that helps interconnect people with the ideas of liberty, and expands our ability to martial self defense against aggressors, than the NAP is possible in the future. If not, then it will never exist.

Its 100% about our mentality. There are 3 types of people:

Statist says: Its not crime cause he's got a badge!

Minarchist says: A little crime by those guys with badges is a necessary evil.

Volunteerist says: If its a crime, its a crime, badge or no.

Humanity will never reach its golden age of freedom until we stop giving criminal activity a sanction for the greater good. The minarchist trades a little bit of his natural rights for safety. But the principal of liberty is violated 100% and sets the direction of society on a path toward tyranny. It is trading liberty for security; in the end you wind up with neither.

i like your style

'crime' is whatever the F we say it is. once the majority say aggression is a crime, they will fall like a pack of ravenous wolves on the criminal.

likewise, once the majority is socialist, it will fall like a pack of ornery tarantulas on whoever dares be taller than average.

moreover, the disciples of the bastard spawn of Nietzsche and ayn rand will vehemently engulf any individual who dares be average and commonplace, like a swarm of individualistic prodigies all flying in sync for the attack.

meanwhile, people will just go on being people, and having government, while jerk offs, jerk off.

Crime isn't whatever the F.

Crime isn't whatever the F. we say it is. Crime is clearly defined by the NAP as being any intentional act which deprives another of their right to life, liberty or property. There isn't a lot of room for opinions here. It is clearly laid out in one of the simplest and self evident forms of law devised by human reason. So simple people have understood it as the chief moral code of our species ever since the first human coined: "Do unto others as you'd have done unto you."

Only government force and collectivist brainwashing have managed to abort this simple way of thinking from most humans.

Seriously though, this is one of the silliest attacks against the NAP I've ever seen. Coming from someone who supports gang dominance where "law" really actually is at the whim of the ruling class, ironies abound.

But yes, if we gained the power to do so, we would fall on criminals like pack of ravenous wolves. That's what everyone with sufficient power and an ideology does. The difference is, those of us who support the NAP happen to be in the right whereas all of the those who support governments are wrong. Rights are won on a battlefield. However who exactly would we be falling on? People who believe they can initiate force against other humans without due process. Gee, I feel really bad for a bunch of thieves, rapists, and murderers. We who believe in liberty are a cruel bunch.

"moreover, the disciples of the bastard spawn of Nietzsche and ayn rand will vehemently engulf any individual who dares be average and commonplace, like a swarm of individualistic prodigies all flying in sync for the attack."

Is there something wrong with working toward your own long-term self interests for whatever personally motivates you so long as you don't deprive others of their rights? Is there something wrong with a society which applauds and cherishes the merits of a successful entrepreneur rather than throwing themselves at the feet of the government's enforcement class of thugs? Is achieving success in your profession somehow harming those who do not? Does a man invent a motor at the "expense" of those who did not? Bill envy is the one deadly sin that gives no pleasure.

"meanwhile, people will just go on being people, and having government, while jerk offs, jerk off."

translation: Meanwhile, people will continue using a gang of lawless criminals to rob and pillage the productive capability of other humans in order to get free stuff for themselves, and then cry about how there are no jobs while the jerk offs, jerk off.

or: Meanwhile, people will continue to go about their restricted, monitored, regulated, tightly controlled debt slavery while their government steals their wealth via a printing press, then uses it to drop bombs on women and children around the world for the profit of a few elites while the jerk offs, jerk off.

or: Meanwhile, people; 26% of whom are so @#$%ing stupid, they don't even know that the Earth revolves around the Sun (my mother-in-law included) will continue to be allowed by their slave masters to make major decisions concerning which rights to take away from their neighbors by vote while the jerk offs, jerk off.

what?

most people have never believed in NAP. that's why there's never been any anarchist society. yes, if everyone believed in NAP, or communism, or building a pyramid in iowa, they'd do it.

Exactly. Unlike a group who

Exactly.

Unlike a group who believed in communism however, those who believed in the NAP could flourish. They might even someday build pyramids in iowa.

The human instinct for

demanding "fairness" is just as strong, or stronger, than the demand for non aggression. Since most people disregard both in their practical positions (supporting both economic inequality, and force), I don't see what basis you have for claiming one has priority over the other. They both are contrary to human nature in pretty much the same way. Whether you blame evolution or The Fall, humans don't much care about "everyone else's" rights and interests, when they conflict with their own.

A very different world and a very different human nature would be needed to make either communism or NAP appealing to a large majority, and capable of producing a stable, sustainable social order.

Nonsense. The NAP conforms

Nonsense. The NAP conforms perfectly with our nature. It lets us do whatever the hell we please so long as we don't harm others. In what possible way can you justify that you think it is normal that people believe its okay to harm others as civilized beings? This is a collectivist construct and an abortion of our reason.

We as a species are victims of cognitive dissonance brought on by a thousand generations of subjugation to criminal gangs. Our religions teach obedience to arbitrary authority, our children since the dawn of civilization have been educated and indoctrinated into worshiping the gangs and believing that might makes right. What chance does your average human have of breaking free of the government paradigm when their ancestors as far back as recorded history began were indoctrinated with the same illusion? Perhaps out of need. Ours is among the first generation to actually even have the opportunity and capability to expose ourselves to the uncensored philosophy of liberty because of technology. This will spread like fire unless the gangs manage to shut down its spread, and I think this is not possible any longer, not without raw, naked force. If that happens, all bets are off on predicting the future, save that it will be bloody.

No amount of education or exposure to the ideas of Marxism will help communism however. It is doomed to fail because it is a failure of philosophy. A logical fallacy which cannot function. Life is not fair, and it cannot be made fair by brutality, what could be more unfair than a government truncheon? Communism relies on theft and whenever you have a society built on inequality, its only a matter of time before the slave rises against the master; or else is utterly subjugated by a total Orwellian state which would be hell on Earth to put it plainly.

In the end, human nature is simple. We are selfish, confrontational apes who war over resources, jealously guard what we value and love, and always try to get the upper hand over our neighbors. We are never content with what we have and always want more more more! This is what raw, stateless capitalism offers us, the ability to live exactly as we are without violating anyone's rights. It is the ONLY system that lets us be humans.

How many more thousands of years of failure and mass graves will it take people to understand this fixation on gang dominance is NOT working? Well, unless your last name is Rockefeller. Liberty is the only way forward.

We hurt each other all the time.

what planet do you live on?

civilized humans have made harm an industrial process.

exploiting and destroying people has been humanity's pastime for all recorded history, even when abundance was all around.

there are good evolutionary, and/or theological, explanations for this reality.

humans are just as much concerned with fairness and evenness as with non violence, and neither one is going outweigh inequality, selfishness and violence.

And the common thread running

And the common thread running through all of this brutality and savagery? Gang dominance by the savage mentality we call "government." It sadly requires either a very deeply religious (peaceful religion) or technologically advanced species to rise above these base desire to form into gangs in order to dominate resources. And of the options, only the technologically advanced society have a chance to actually defend themselves against the vengeful gangs who above all else hate liberty. This is why raw capitalism free of gangs offers the only true social structure that can work.

Capitalism allows us to form into companies or remain individuals rather than gangs, in order to dominate resources and achieve personal gain. A lack of government erases the illusion of separate tribes who have to bring violence against each other. In a world wide free market without the state, there are no separate gangs, there are only those who follow the NAP and the rogue element of criminals who chose to bring force against others illegally.

But let me turn the questioning onto you for a moment Bill; do you believe that initiating force against another human who has not violated anyone's rights is a crime? If so, why do you tolerate a system which engages in crime? For the greater good? Because you think that we have to give up some liberty for safety?

Its true that

small religious cults with lockstep behaviors, enforced by shaming and shunning, have implemented voluntary systems, as long as protected by involuntary states from external attack.

But your assertion that technology has ever permitted all-voluntary systems is just false. Name one!

Magwan, you're really not worth the time. Live in fantasy land.

Reading comprehension Bill.

Reading comprehension Bill. I didn't assert that technology has ever permitted all-voluntary systems. I asserted that only a technologically advanced society could possibly achieve one if they were able to develop the means to share ideas without a government censor, and the ability to defend themselves against the gangs. This does not currently exist.

You didn't answer my question though. I've been answering your questions handily this entire time, you can at least do me the service of answering one of mine:

Is it a crime for a person to violate another person's right to life, liberty or property? If so, why do you give sanction to men with badges doing it?

The position of the minarchist is one of supreme hypocrisy. You claim Volunteerism can never work, while standing in the very system that not only provides the chief obstacle that bars any other theory from being tried, but by whose own application, will either chain individuals into tyranny or extinguish life from our planet in nuclear fire. Its the ultimate failure of our species, self annihilation. What possible claim does a believer in gang dominance have to tell anyone their system if wrong?