User Controls
Anybody who "hates the police" is either retarded or a total fucking poser
-
2017-05-04 at 12 AM UTC
Originally posted by Sophie Thank you Fox Paws. And yeah, a common misconception is that if there is no state there would be no security forces. In an AnCap society there would be no restriction on Gun Laws, so citizens are well armed if they desire. What's more, there would be private defense contractors. The beauty of this system is that they are beholden to their consumers. This is especially important if you consider "Police Brutality" you can't fire the police, you can fire private defense contractors. Same goes with organized defense. If they are inadequate you hire another firm or what have you.
Also, you would pay for it with your salary, the government takes like 20% off your salary in taxes, well what you save by not paying taxes you can choose to invest in security. Like you would insure yourself medically, you would do the same for defense if that is important to you.
So people like me and you probably wouldn't be able to put a dent in the cost of hiring our own PMC. Would it be like a collection of people who get together and decide to do this? -
2017-05-04 at 12:18 AM UTC
Originally posted by Fox Paws So people like me and you probably wouldn't be able to put a dent in the cost of hiring our own PMC. Would it be like a collection of people who get together and decide to do this?
Of course, in an AnCap society you'd still live in a society. It is in the interest of most people in your society to have a type of defense contractor. Like a mutual defense fund. -
2017-05-04 at 12:22 AM UTC
-
2017-05-04 at 12:23 AM UTC
-
2017-05-04 at 12:25 AM UTC
Originally posted by Sophie And yeah, a common misconception is that if there is no state there would be no security forces. In an AnCap society there would be no restriction on Gun Laws, so citizens are well armed if they desire.
This in particular is awesome. I like the idea of the majority of society being armed at any given point in time. Want to start trouble? lolnope -
2017-05-04 at 12:26 AM UTCI live in ancap rattox empire. The end result : You can go to jail for being late for work lulz.
-
2017-05-04 at 12:28 AM UTC
-
2017-05-04 at 12:45 AM UTC
Originally posted by Sophie Nope. The difference is consent.
Yes it is. You have a group of people who decide together to pay into a mutual defense fund (taxes). There is no consent, it's a necessity. And what's to stop the people who have the biggest army of mercenaries choosing to kick out all of the people who don't "contribute" to the defense fund (i.e. forcing their will on others). Or better yet, collect from them.
Even if there are separate groups or factions of people with their own mercenaries, there's literally nothing stopping society from devolving into the Warring States period, or modern Africa, with groups of warlords vying for more resources and more stuff.
Your whole argument is predicated on the assumption that people are reasonable, ungreedy people. You would have to find a shitload of like-minded people for this to work even temporarily.
Post last edited by Fox Paws at 2017-05-04T00:47:22.186316+00:00
Post last edited by Fox Paws at 2017-05-04T00:49:52.461621+00:00
Post last edited by Fox Paws at 2017-05-04T00:50:53.433331+00:00 -
2017-05-04 at 12:51 AM UTCEdited thrice for grammar
-
2017-05-04 at 1:17 AM UTC
Originally posted by Fox Paws Yes it is. You have a group of people who decide together to pay into a mutual defense fund (taxes). There is no consent, it's a necessity. And what's to stop the people who have the biggest army of mercenaries choosing to kick out all of the people who don't "contribute" to the defense fund (i.e. forcing their will on others). Or better yet, collect from them.
Even if there are separate groups or factions of people with their own mercenaries, there's literally nothing stopping society from devolving into the Warring States period, or modern Africa, with groups of warlords vying for more resources and more stuff.
Eating is a necessity yet i can choose not to do it. The fundamental issue is the one of choice vs coercion.
Originally posted by Fox Paws Your whole argument is predicated on the assumption that people are reasonable, ungreedy people.
Greed is good. Makes people work hard. Besides, most people are reasonable in day to day society and not because else they'd be thrown in jail. People have this thing called ethics and morals. Except for psychopaths, but you deal with those with economic ostracism. If no one wants to sell them food, utilities or security all they can do is leave. -
2017-05-04 at 1:20 AM UTCThe only people you interact with are lolis on cam, how do you know what day-to-day society is like? I'm telling you 90% of the human population are ignorant, self-serving scum that would go to shit if left to their own devices. If the entire world was made of people like me and you then maybe it would work. Just my opinion.
-
2017-05-04 at 2:12 AM UTC
-
2017-05-04 at 2:27 AM UTC
Originally posted by Sophie How can you even compare laws of physics to the laws of men. It's not like there is a fundamental constant in the physics of cars that prevents me from going faster than 20 in a school zone and 60 on the inter state.
Quite easily. Look:
Many of the findings of physics and the laws of man can both be expressed in natural language.
The people who write about both the laws of physics and the laws of men are male.
Western civilization has a long standing interest in both the legal code and findings in physics.
Both findings in physics and statutory laws are opinions in the philosophical sense, that is both represent assertions about the world.
The point here was that this usage of "opinion" is very broad, and calling a thing like law or statements about the physical world an opinion doesn't damage it in the way you seem to think calling the legal code a collection of opinions does.Lol no. Dickheads never ought to be coerced into any thing. In fact you shouldn't coerce people, period.
See, that's an opinion. It may or may not be true, but you definitely haven't justified it yet. -
2017-05-04 at 2:29 AM UTC
Originally posted by Sophie What's more, there would be private defense contractors. The beauty of this system is that they are beholden to their consumers.
I think you mean "beholden to whoever has the most money to spend on 'defense contractors'" which is a somewhat less egalitarian sounding term than "the consumers" -
2017-05-04 at 2:59 AM UTCThanks FOR NOT replying to my point anyone. Sorry it was TOO RIGHT to dispute. :)
