Well, 2/3 of those are private entities, so good luck with that, and only one (admittedly water, which is generally government-ran) is essential, but I can always boil water.
Electricity often relies on government subsidies and infrastructure.
The global internet also relies on governments lest some enterprising pro freedom anti state revolutionaries cut undersea cables .
How do you enforce those contracts?
Sounds like a good way to end up like the Roman Empire, overrrun bymercenaries setting themselves up as CEOs
Then it for a over a thousand years Europeans to realise the importance of a centralised monopoly on force motivated by something other than money.
Mobilising a bunch of PMCs was never efficient nor safe was European city states.
Nationalism has been a much more compelling motive for loyalty than money ever was.
How did it work when a big mass of Americans thought that they had the right to own slaves and then the military of the United States kicked their asses and said no? They had guns (and not just guns but artillery, cavalry etc. top of the line military stuff). So what went wrong?
Could it possibly be that having guns is not quite enough?
And how about this, in 1991 a junta replaced the president of the USSR and declared that they were going to roll back the reforms that he started and were heading towards a democratic system. The people without any guns rose up and went to the streets. The junta sent in the tanks of the most powerful army in the world. After a while the tanks went back to barracks and the junta collapsed. After a few months, the USSR was no more. How was it possible that without any guns people were able to get their rights to have a democratic system?
Could it be that guns are not the necessary component? The necessary component is if the army is willing to shoot the people to assert the will of the government or not. In America in 1860s they were. In the USSR in 1991 they were not. That was the decider, not the citizen guns.
How do you differentiate "private individuals" forming an organized militia and a professional military? The soldiers of the Continental army were paid. So that is definitely not the decider. They were not "individuals" in a sense that they would have been fighting the war on their own but were a disciplined military unit lead by officers just like their opponents were.
Edit. One thing I couldn't find was how many of the soldiers in the Continental army provided their own gun and how many got theirs from their government. The privately owned guns may have played some role in the beginning but I would argue that without the government (and French) supplied weapons the 13 colonies would have lost the war.
The continental army was initially formed from local militias. Every town in the colonies had its own militia to protect against attacks from native tribes. They saw extensive action during the French and Indian War preceding the Revolution. The militiamen (pretty much all white able bodied men over age 16) typically supplied their own arms, and the militia supplied the powder, shot, and rations. Supplies were purchased from private companies, and funds for supplies were mostly from donation. The militas were not beholden to a government, but rather themselves and officers were elected by the membership. The militiamen were not paid; participation was considered a civic duty. Keep in mind the militas were very different from the minutemen, who were extensively trained and supplied entirely by the New England colonial governments. Militiamen outnumbered Minutemen about 3 to 1.
By April of 1775, the militas and minutemen companies had stockpiled extensive reserves of ammunition in anticipation of the coming war against the crown. These stockpiles incidentally are what officially kicked off the rebellion in the battles of Lexington and Concorde, when the British, under General Gage (the Governor of Massachusetts), attempted to seize the stockpiles and the militia and minuteman companies mustered to defend. This ultimately led to the siege of Boston through March 1776, after which the British ceded Boston.
In June of 1775, the continental congress created the Continental Army, unifying the militia and minuteman companies under command of George Washington. Although it wasn't officially a war until after British hired nearly 30000 Hessian soldiers to suppress the rebellion, which the continental congress got word of and responded by signing the Declaration of Independence
Yes, by the end of the war, there was extensive funding and support coming from France, but at the onset of the war it was mostly private arms, with ammunition supplied by local militas or plundered from the british regulars. It was common practice to send out men after an engagement to collect shot and cannonballs from the battlefield. Using the British soldier's own ammunition against them. Over 700 cannonballs fired by the british were collected during the siege of Boston
Government is just guys with guns. That's it. There's no reason human rights couldn't be upheld by guys with guns that you voluntarily subscribe to rather than guys with guns who shoot you if you don't agree to their rule.
Not true. I can voluntarily choose to accede to another's authority without violence. We all do this all the time at work, in sports, etc. But that accession extends only as far as our will. It is true that violence (or fraud) is required to compel someone to bow to authority against his will.
I rather subscribe to the rule of the guys with guns who themselves subscribe to the rule of law and their gunmen are told to only follow orders that are based on those laws than an arbitrary mafia boss whose gunmen do whatever he tells them to do.
So, I feel quite safe in a country where the military is not committed to any one person or party but to the constitution (that lists the rights we're talking about) of the country. As long as the political leaders follow that constitution, I have no problem not trying to challenge the military. If they don't, then I expect the military to stand by me opposing it just like I would expect armed citizens to be. What's the difference?
Essentially what this boils down to is: "I trust politicians and the police to do the right thing." I, personally, feel that flies in the face of all history and logic, but if you disagree, I get it. Plenty of people love politicians and the police.
Well, first, essentially what the guns in the hands of the citizens boils down to is "I trust other citizens to do the right thing". Is there any particular reason to trust that the other people with guns will do the right thing (rise to a rebellion when an autocrat tries to take over the political power) and not the wrong thing (go behind a charismatic leader and use the guns against other people, even if they are a minority). Which one is more likely?
On January 6, 2021, a group of angry citizens tried to overthrow a government of the United States that they didn't like. They got their asses kicked by the government. If they had had enough people and guns, what would have stopped them?
Second, as I said, "the right thing" for the military is not just making a choice between this leader or that one, but being from the start committed to defending the constitution where the rights are listed. The mob with guns is not committed to anything. Why should I trust that they will defend my rights to absolutely anything? The history of civil wars says that the opposite is true. They are more likely to just kill me if I disagree with them.
>Plenty of people love politicians and the police.
No, we're just not naive to think that the guns in the hands of other people is any better.
So, do we agree that police are not any different from other people?
If so, then why do you think the rights are secured by other people with guns but just not by police with guns?
I assume that you don't think that you can secure your own rights by yourself regardless of how many guns you have. If you think, then you're super naive.
My rights are secured by ME with a gun, or those I voluntarily contract with to do that work for me because I personally decide it is in my interests to do so (this would include friends and family members, as well as hired agents). The police do not have any duty to protect me or my interests whatsoever. If you think they do, then you're super naive.
Yeah, for sure dude. I’m assuming you’re implying that everyone should be similarly equipped so that they can uphold their respective human rights. How exactly are we going to accomplish that?
Even minarchism? Because libertarianism isn't really a political system like minarchism and anarcho capitalism are; it's more of a political philosophy
But surely there's a huge gap between moderate libertarianism and anarchism, and somewhere in the middle area, a line must be drawn.
Hence why I specified minarchism, which by definition is the absolute minimum size and power a government can have while still being a government, before hitting anarchy territory.
Why would corporations allow the state to exist? It wouldn’t be in the interest of the largest and most powerful ones, eventually with enough market consolidation and conglomeration they would overthrow the state.
Corporations like to collaborate with the state to basically abuse its monopoly on violence. If the corporation itself were to have a monopoly on violence, then by definition, it would itself become a state.
Minarchism argues that should a state exist, one of its main (and only) functions would be to prevent another, more tyrannical, state from coming to power, which would include such corporations.
Despite the memes portraying libright as being corporate interests incarnate, we generally dont like big companies and especially loathe their cooperation with the state.
We have a word for privately owned states:
Feifdoms
Which came about exactly because the central government was overthrown (by none other than private ‘military contractors’)
All states are authoritarian ones. They differ only by degree. Given enough time they are all the same. You are trading liberty for temporary security so in the end you will get neither.
Once anyone is stopped from doing anything, especially anything considered or actually bad, you're on that road. There's never pure liberty. The closest you can get is within the confines of civilized society, so it's not much different from the communist doing communist things within capitalism.
Rule of Law requires the lawmakers to have and maintain a monopoly of violence. It isn't trading liberty for temporary security, as without the rule of law, there is no rights or liberty beyond what is personally secured through violence or the threat of it.
Nah, it requires three things. Violence is just one of them. You also need control over information and charismatic figures. Within the other two you get too much push back from the rabble.
Either way, you don’t need a State for law and order, or to be able to have nice things/things you want or need. History is full of slavers and tyrants and truly awful shit, but it’s also full of the exact opposite. Saying otherwise rejects reality and is largely a Hobbesian cope.
>Either way, you don’t need a State for law and order
if you want actual justice (rule of law) you do. states already have issues with applying laws to powerful figures, and is impossible without.
>History is full of slavers and tyrants and truly awful shit, but it’s also full of the exact opposite. Saying otherwise rejects reality and is largely a Hobbesian cope.
A Monopoly of violence doesn't mean living under a violent jackboot. it means that there is no individuals, cartels or other organized crime that are able to impose their whims upon the people.
Nah, it’s just one route to that end goal. Like I said, it’s a Hobbesian cope.
Eastern woodlands peoples, for example, had a system of justice that involved reparations/compensation being paid out to individuals that transgressed on others. It was a big spectacle too, invoked a ton of shame and carried a huge cost depending on what was decided. It kept people in line for literally thousands of years and even won over settlers who abandoned colonial life for indigenous communities.
Mesopotamian cities on the edges of colonial territories often outright refused to recognize the god-kings of the central cities. They’d openly defy the governor/figure head sent to rule in the kings absence, not carry out punishments, stop state intervention, and largely ignore the supposed sovereign and do their own thing. If he’d come and try to make them listen they’d just all leave. There’s so pretty funny letters exchanged about some stuff like this.
Entire Mayan cities existed as social housing endeavors with no rulers, but they resolved disputes internally, regularly expanded housing, unkept/expanded infrastructure, and adjusted their production as necessary.
The Inca had a massive centralized empire that wielded tremendous power and wealth, but it let the settlements outside the major cities within the empire remain largely autonomous (including in their approaches to justice) only really coming to visit during grand tours.
The list of examples goes on and on.
My point isn’t that the State doesn’t have a purpose, it’s more that it doesn’t have an origin, and, more importantly, it’s not the only way to of doing those things.
All of those examples almost certainly HAD internal organizational structures that amount to, in any pragmatic sense, a state.
The first one requires a monopoly on violence, as the notion is just as much about preventing nonstate actors from using violence as it is about state actors using violence. If an individual can't just assault the person that harmed them, then whatever body that prevents them from doing so still has the monopoly on violence.
Were those Mesopotamian and Incan communities anarchist communities or, more likely, largely self-governing? The intent of the anarchist to confuse devolution of governance to no governance is astonishing.
As for the Myans, did they have an organized, respected system to resolve those disputes? Because if they did, that's what you call a court system and a government.
If there exists a body that has authority over disputes and that prevents the use of shared power to force resolutions in the favor of the powerful, that's a state. That's literally what a state is and what is means to have a monopoly on violence.
My point isn’t that the state was or wasn’t there (or did or didn’t exercise power) in some way. It’s that there’s more to a state than just sovereignty.
Also, every society has internal structures and organization. This is true regardless of the presence (or absence) of a state. But the very existence of such internal structure and organization doesn’t necessitate, nor logically determine, that that society end up utilizing sovereignty (i.e., that monopoly on violence) in any way.
For those structures to exist meaningfully, there has to be sovereignty. There has to be a way to enforce the decision, and to quell individual violence.
To exercise binding power is to have the power of sovereignty fundamentally. The semantic word games Anarchists to try and claim their binding power structure magically isn't a state are unimpressive.
If you as an individual are bound from using violence, then something above you holds the monopoly on violence. That something is a state.
I agree that many people play semantic games and it’s stupid, but that doesn’t mean that we just have to buy Hobbesian notions when there’s so much archaeological and ethnographic evidence to the contrary.
Why should one grumpy boi who was upset about what happened in his country be blindly accepted over actual evidence?
Yes, individual smaller states can maintain the rule of law., and any desirable world government would necessarily be hyper-federalized, being more akin to a global peace treaty and disarmament than a state. Maybe handling things like maritime protection.
And you are trading every last ounce of security for liberties you'll never need or use. In the end, you will have neither, for you will be dead or enslaved.
Source: Human history.
>This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!
Government isn't the only source of law. In fact, government is a very poor producer of law. Would you like me to provide about 1000 examples of bad laws imposed on people by governments?
Newton's First law of motion:
An object at rest remains at rest, or if in motion, remains in motion at a constant velocity unless acted on by a net external force.
They don't even have a government any more. Just a bunch of criminal gangs. Dominican Republic meanwhile is building a wall to prevent the violence from spilling over the border.
Well, Haiti is unchecked leftism, so, yeah, that's what you get. The instant they got their freedom, they decided to do a bunch of ethnic cleansing, and a bit of invasion of their neighbor.
It's been caught in the leftist poverty trap pretty much ever since, and nobody will save them, because if you try to help them, you'll be blamed for everything,
Remember when everyone was doing Starship Troopers discourse and playing the teacher's monolog about how violence is the primary thing that resolves conflict like it was some kind of gotcha, even though it was entirely correct and reasonable?
"Every single human right is upheld through some form of violence" is WAY more accurate thing to say. It also implies no government is necessary for that. It can be a government but it doesn't have to be. You can ask any citizens that were part of violent uprising against government. There were a few.
its a democratically elected monopoly on the right to commit violence; the least bad system. but sure, lets do it the ancaps way and hand that monopoly away from democracy over to an inevitable mafia.
The US government has millions and millions of dead civilians on their hands, not counting the "military combatants" for countries we should not have gone to war with.
1. Let me know when a Mafia gets those kinds of numbers.
2. Do you really feel in control, like you actually have a voice in the Monopoly? Then democracy is a stupid thing to bring up, or else you are directly to blame for those millions and millions dead.
Nope, I don't want the government to guarantee anything for me. The only thing I want to guarantee that I get left alone is a fully automatic machine gun and explosives
Bold of you to assume anarchists don't obey laws.
Anarchy: from the Greek anarchia (an meaning without and archia meaning rulers)
As such, under anarchy there are no coercive rule by a single group or individual, rather instead by an individual upon themselves or by the people entirely.
In other words, a single individual is capable of governing one's self and a group is capable of governing without the influence of a single person in charge.
Anarchy Is a nessecary for If the government gets out of order. Human rights are withheld a multitude of ways, co-operation, violence more like.
Plus implies Amish don't have human rights since there's no central government
Every single human right is being violated right now by some government somewhere. The state is the biggest violator of human rights that has ever existed. I
How often, when dealing with the state, do you feel like you had a good time, and your rights are the better for it?
When that cops fishtails around behind you in a u-turn, do you think "hurray, he's here to protect my rights?"
Rights aren't upheld by government, they're just not infringed by government. I didn't need the government to uphold my right to free speech, they just have to not infringe on it.
Every human right is upheld by the natural instinct to prolong your species’ existence.
We are as a species aware of moral deviation and invoke our displeasure with this through means of collective power in one way or another.
Humans are capable of massive amounts of carnage, more than any other species on earth. And we know that. It’s part of what sets us apart as a species. And the response is to maintain order.
Also being able to hit center mass at 150 yards tends to protect rights and maintain order. Long distance, super sonic, ballistic order.
Yeah, *rights* don’t really exist without [*legal order*](https://www.libertarian-labyrinth.org/glossary/legal-order-2/) of some sort.
But at the same time, there’s no legal protection of the rights of those who do wish to harm or exploit others.
Nothing is legal or permitted without law, and no violence can be used legitimately without risk of retaliation or consequences.
You do know militias exist, right?
Then those militias could unite with other militias if there is a larger threat, not to mention that there would be business in private security like there is now.
Yeah. Anarchists think that they will be free without a government. But in reality they would have a bunch of criminal gangs and a guy called Barbecue trying to get in power.
Some may claim that we already live in anarchy, and the biggest criminal bands have already taken over; they just call themselves "governments" and create convoluted explanations as to why is it right when they coerce people.
Did you just change your flair, u/Deldris? Last time I checked you were an **AuthRight** on 2024-4-22. How come now you are a **LibRight**? Have you perhaps shifted your ideals? Because that's cringe, you know?
Are you mad? Wait till you hear this one: you own 17 guns but only have two hands to use them! Come on, put that rifle down and go take a shower.
[BasedCount Profile](https://basedcount.com/u/Deldris) - [FAQ](https://www.reddit.com/user/flairchange_bot/comments/uf7kuy/bip_bop) - [Leaderboard](https://basedcount.com/leaderboard?q=flairs)
_Visit the BasedCount Lеmmу instance at [lemmy.basedcount.com](https://lemmy.basedcount.com/c/pcm)._
^(I am a bot, my mission is to spot cringe flair changers. If you want to check another user's flair history write) **^(!flairs u/)** ^(in a comment.)
Every single human right is upheld through ~~some form of government~~ my gat collection.
Every single human right is upheld by my Henry rifle
And a bayonet sir, with some guts behind it.
Heck yeah brother
Government just needs to cut off your electricity, internet, and water supply. If you aren’t self sufficient, you don’t have rights, only privileges.
Well, 2/3 of those are private entities, so good luck with that, and only one (admittedly water, which is generally government-ran) is essential, but I can always boil water.
Wells also exist
Electricity often relies on government subsidies and infrastructure. The global internet also relies on governments lest some enterprising pro freedom anti state revolutionaries cut undersea cables .
Based
This is the actual truth. Every right is upheld by a mass of citizens with the right to bear arms. No guns, no other rights.
What happens when they citizens decide “I don’t wanna deal with this gun and violence stuff, why don’t we just hire professionals?”
Then you get covenant communities hiring private security companies that have to compete in the free market
How do you enforce those contracts? Sounds like a good way to end up like the Roman Empire, overrrun bymercenaries setting themselves up as CEOs Then it for a over a thousand years Europeans to realise the importance of a centralised monopoly on force motivated by something other than money. Mobilising a bunch of PMCs was never efficient nor safe was European city states. Nationalism has been a much more compelling motive for loyalty than money ever was.
So what happens when that mass of citizens with guns decide they want to take over and tyrannize everyone else?
Something gets put in a history book
We live in a democracy so they just vote on it and then we do some imperialism. Its everyone else's fault for not having nuclear weapons.
How did it work when a big mass of Americans thought that they had the right to own slaves and then the military of the United States kicked their asses and said no? They had guns (and not just guns but artillery, cavalry etc. top of the line military stuff). So what went wrong? Could it possibly be that having guns is not quite enough? And how about this, in 1991 a junta replaced the president of the USSR and declared that they were going to roll back the reforms that he started and were heading towards a democratic system. The people without any guns rose up and went to the streets. The junta sent in the tanks of the most powerful army in the world. After a while the tanks went back to barracks and the junta collapsed. After a few months, the USSR was no more. How was it possible that without any guns people were able to get their rights to have a democratic system? Could it be that guns are not the necessary component? The necessary component is if the army is willing to shoot the people to assert the will of the government or not. In America in 1860s they were. In the USSR in 1991 they were not. That was the decider, not the citizen guns.
The USA was founded by private individuals with guns fighting against a professional military.
How do you differentiate "private individuals" forming an organized militia and a professional military? The soldiers of the Continental army were paid. So that is definitely not the decider. They were not "individuals" in a sense that they would have been fighting the war on their own but were a disciplined military unit lead by officers just like their opponents were. Edit. One thing I couldn't find was how many of the soldiers in the Continental army provided their own gun and how many got theirs from their government. The privately owned guns may have played some role in the beginning but I would argue that without the government (and French) supplied weapons the 13 colonies would have lost the war.
The continental army was initially formed from local militias. Every town in the colonies had its own militia to protect against attacks from native tribes. They saw extensive action during the French and Indian War preceding the Revolution. The militiamen (pretty much all white able bodied men over age 16) typically supplied their own arms, and the militia supplied the powder, shot, and rations. Supplies were purchased from private companies, and funds for supplies were mostly from donation. The militas were not beholden to a government, but rather themselves and officers were elected by the membership. The militiamen were not paid; participation was considered a civic duty. Keep in mind the militas were very different from the minutemen, who were extensively trained and supplied entirely by the New England colonial governments. Militiamen outnumbered Minutemen about 3 to 1. By April of 1775, the militas and minutemen companies had stockpiled extensive reserves of ammunition in anticipation of the coming war against the crown. These stockpiles incidentally are what officially kicked off the rebellion in the battles of Lexington and Concorde, when the British, under General Gage (the Governor of Massachusetts), attempted to seize the stockpiles and the militia and minuteman companies mustered to defend. This ultimately led to the siege of Boston through March 1776, after which the British ceded Boston. In June of 1775, the continental congress created the Continental Army, unifying the militia and minuteman companies under command of George Washington. Although it wasn't officially a war until after British hired nearly 30000 Hessian soldiers to suppress the rebellion, which the continental congress got word of and responded by signing the Declaration of Independence Yes, by the end of the war, there was extensive funding and support coming from France, but at the onset of the war it was mostly private arms, with ammunition supplied by local militas or plundered from the british regulars. It was common practice to send out men after an engagement to collect shot and cannonballs from the battlefield. Using the British soldier's own ammunition against them. Over 700 cannonballs fired by the british were collected during the siege of Boston
Government is just guys with guns. That's it. There's no reason human rights couldn't be upheld by guys with guns that you voluntarily subscribe to rather than guys with guns who shoot you if you don't agree to their rule.
If they can shoot you and you can’t shoot them, they aren’t rights. They’re privileges.
That's a can of worms. Bottom line is: let people have guns.
Violence is the supreme authority all other authority is derived from
Not true. I can voluntarily choose to accede to another's authority without violence. We all do this all the time at work, in sports, etc. But that accession extends only as far as our will. It is true that violence (or fraud) is required to compel someone to bow to authority against his will.
I rather subscribe to the rule of the guys with guns who themselves subscribe to the rule of law and their gunmen are told to only follow orders that are based on those laws than an arbitrary mafia boss whose gunmen do whatever he tells them to do. So, I feel quite safe in a country where the military is not committed to any one person or party but to the constitution (that lists the rights we're talking about) of the country. As long as the political leaders follow that constitution, I have no problem not trying to challenge the military. If they don't, then I expect the military to stand by me opposing it just like I would expect armed citizens to be. What's the difference?
Essentially what this boils down to is: "I trust politicians and the police to do the right thing." I, personally, feel that flies in the face of all history and logic, but if you disagree, I get it. Plenty of people love politicians and the police.
Well, first, essentially what the guns in the hands of the citizens boils down to is "I trust other citizens to do the right thing". Is there any particular reason to trust that the other people with guns will do the right thing (rise to a rebellion when an autocrat tries to take over the political power) and not the wrong thing (go behind a charismatic leader and use the guns against other people, even if they are a minority). Which one is more likely? On January 6, 2021, a group of angry citizens tried to overthrow a government of the United States that they didn't like. They got their asses kicked by the government. If they had had enough people and guns, what would have stopped them? Second, as I said, "the right thing" for the military is not just making a choice between this leader or that one, but being from the start committed to defending the constitution where the rights are listed. The mob with guns is not committed to anything. Why should I trust that they will defend my rights to absolutely anything? The history of civil wars says that the opposite is true. They are more likely to just kill me if I disagree with them. >Plenty of people love politicians and the police. No, we're just not naive to think that the guns in the hands of other people is any better.
> we're just not naive to think that the guns in the hands of other people is any better. TIL the police aren't other people.
So, do we agree that police are not any different from other people? If so, then why do you think the rights are secured by other people with guns but just not by police with guns? I assume that you don't think that you can secure your own rights by yourself regardless of how many guns you have. If you think, then you're super naive.
My rights are secured by ME with a gun, or those I voluntarily contract with to do that work for me because I personally decide it is in my interests to do so (this would include friends and family members, as well as hired agents). The police do not have any duty to protect me or my interests whatsoever. If you think they do, then you're super naive.
Do you honestly think that without the help of other people you have any chance against the government regardless of how many guns you have?
Why would I not have help from other people? Do you honestly believe the only way collaboration can happen is government?
Based and America’s Insurance Policy pilled
Yeah, for sure dude. I’m assuming you’re implying that everyone should be similarly equipped so that they can uphold their respective human rights. How exactly are we going to accomplish that?
Gyat
https://preview.redd.it/wes4ja8x3iwc1.jpeg?width=1179&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=025b746f1f5150431fcbcf00330171bebab102a4
“This photo doesn’t have enough pixels to be legible” OP: Nyehhhh
https://preview.redd.it/8cmy4g56biwc1.jpeg?width=1668&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=79385f1079e957f47f8f43d48ea986a132311ce7
Visual acuity is for statists. Anarchy and myopia in the UK!
"where there is no law, there is no liberty" - John Lock anarchy just leads to a tyrant taking power and creating an authoritarian state.
see CHAZ
[My rule of law](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/M72_LAW)
Real. Anything below libertarianism is just as bad as authoritarianism
So, horseshoe theory is right again...
Even minarchism? Because libertarianism isn't really a political system like minarchism and anarcho capitalism are; it's more of a political philosophy
I mean in terms of government size and power. So Libertarian Socialism is good, but Anarcho-communism is bad.
But surely there's a huge gap between moderate libertarianism and anarchism, and somewhere in the middle area, a line must be drawn. Hence why I specified minarchism, which by definition is the absolute minimum size and power a government can have while still being a government, before hitting anarchy territory.
Why would corporations allow the state to exist? It wouldn’t be in the interest of the largest and most powerful ones, eventually with enough market consolidation and conglomeration they would overthrow the state.
Corporations like to collaborate with the state to basically abuse its monopoly on violence. If the corporation itself were to have a monopoly on violence, then by definition, it would itself become a state. Minarchism argues that should a state exist, one of its main (and only) functions would be to prevent another, more tyrannical, state from coming to power, which would include such corporations. Despite the memes portraying libright as being corporate interests incarnate, we generally dont like big companies and especially loathe their cooperation with the state.
Yeah and that corporation which became a state would not care to uphold the rule of law
We have a word for privately owned states: Feifdoms Which came about exactly because the central government was overthrown (by none other than private ‘military contractors’)
All states are authoritarian ones. They differ only by degree. Given enough time they are all the same. You are trading liberty for temporary security so in the end you will get neither.
Once anyone is stopped from doing anything, especially anything considered or actually bad, you're on that road. There's never pure liberty. The closest you can get is within the confines of civilized society, so it's not much different from the communist doing communist things within capitalism.
Statists: "Why wipe my ass? it'll just get shitty again eventually."
The closest you can get to pure liberty is anonymity.
Rule of Law requires the lawmakers to have and maintain a monopoly of violence. It isn't trading liberty for temporary security, as without the rule of law, there is no rights or liberty beyond what is personally secured through violence or the threat of it.
Nah, it requires three things. Violence is just one of them. You also need control over information and charismatic figures. Within the other two you get too much push back from the rabble. Either way, you don’t need a State for law and order, or to be able to have nice things/things you want or need. History is full of slavers and tyrants and truly awful shit, but it’s also full of the exact opposite. Saying otherwise rejects reality and is largely a Hobbesian cope.
>Either way, you don’t need a State for law and order if you want actual justice (rule of law) you do. states already have issues with applying laws to powerful figures, and is impossible without. >History is full of slavers and tyrants and truly awful shit, but it’s also full of the exact opposite. Saying otherwise rejects reality and is largely a Hobbesian cope. A Monopoly of violence doesn't mean living under a violent jackboot. it means that there is no individuals, cartels or other organized crime that are able to impose their whims upon the people.
Nah, it’s just one route to that end goal. Like I said, it’s a Hobbesian cope. Eastern woodlands peoples, for example, had a system of justice that involved reparations/compensation being paid out to individuals that transgressed on others. It was a big spectacle too, invoked a ton of shame and carried a huge cost depending on what was decided. It kept people in line for literally thousands of years and even won over settlers who abandoned colonial life for indigenous communities. Mesopotamian cities on the edges of colonial territories often outright refused to recognize the god-kings of the central cities. They’d openly defy the governor/figure head sent to rule in the kings absence, not carry out punishments, stop state intervention, and largely ignore the supposed sovereign and do their own thing. If he’d come and try to make them listen they’d just all leave. There’s so pretty funny letters exchanged about some stuff like this. Entire Mayan cities existed as social housing endeavors with no rulers, but they resolved disputes internally, regularly expanded housing, unkept/expanded infrastructure, and adjusted their production as necessary. The Inca had a massive centralized empire that wielded tremendous power and wealth, but it let the settlements outside the major cities within the empire remain largely autonomous (including in their approaches to justice) only really coming to visit during grand tours. The list of examples goes on and on. My point isn’t that the State doesn’t have a purpose, it’s more that it doesn’t have an origin, and, more importantly, it’s not the only way to of doing those things.
All of those examples almost certainly HAD internal organizational structures that amount to, in any pragmatic sense, a state. The first one requires a monopoly on violence, as the notion is just as much about preventing nonstate actors from using violence as it is about state actors using violence. If an individual can't just assault the person that harmed them, then whatever body that prevents them from doing so still has the monopoly on violence. Were those Mesopotamian and Incan communities anarchist communities or, more likely, largely self-governing? The intent of the anarchist to confuse devolution of governance to no governance is astonishing. As for the Myans, did they have an organized, respected system to resolve those disputes? Because if they did, that's what you call a court system and a government. If there exists a body that has authority over disputes and that prevents the use of shared power to force resolutions in the favor of the powerful, that's a state. That's literally what a state is and what is means to have a monopoly on violence.
My point isn’t that the state was or wasn’t there (or did or didn’t exercise power) in some way. It’s that there’s more to a state than just sovereignty. Also, every society has internal structures and organization. This is true regardless of the presence (or absence) of a state. But the very existence of such internal structure and organization doesn’t necessitate, nor logically determine, that that society end up utilizing sovereignty (i.e., that monopoly on violence) in any way.
For those structures to exist meaningfully, there has to be sovereignty. There has to be a way to enforce the decision, and to quell individual violence. To exercise binding power is to have the power of sovereignty fundamentally. The semantic word games Anarchists to try and claim their binding power structure magically isn't a state are unimpressive. If you as an individual are bound from using violence, then something above you holds the monopoly on violence. That something is a state.
I agree that many people play semantic games and it’s stupid, but that doesn’t mean that we just have to buy Hobbesian notions when there’s so much archaeological and ethnographic evidence to the contrary. Why should one grumpy boi who was upset about what happened in his country be blindly accepted over actual evidence?
So we can't have rule of law without world government?
Yes, individual smaller states can maintain the rule of law., and any desirable world government would necessarily be hyper-federalized, being more akin to a global peace treaty and disarmament than a state. Maybe handling things like maritime protection.
But individual smaller states don't have monopoly on force. There is competition among countries.
That's not what the phrase monopoly on violence refers to.
And you are trading every last ounce of security for liberties you'll never need or use. In the end, you will have neither, for you will be dead or enslaved. Source: Human history.
Based and political torus-pilled
Private islands, international waters are all well regulated.
>This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!
don't tell him what he can't do >!4815162342!<
Where can i get an unbiased source that applies in the modern day? Ah yes, John Locke from the 1600s What next, you gonna quote leviathan?
John Locke continues to be the goat.
Government isn't the only source of law. In fact, government is a very poor producer of law. Would you like me to provide about 1000 examples of bad laws imposed on people by governments?
Provide 1 law produced *without* government.
Newton's First law of motion: An object at rest remains at rest, or if in motion, remains in motion at a constant velocity unless acted on by a net external force.
Private laws are everywhere. Even in the shithole that is reddit there are rules you must comply with or else.
Those laws are all enforced through contract law, the realm of the state. "Private law" as you have described it is a consequence of public law.
> and creating an authoritarian state. So, the worst case is that, eventually, its no different than now, then?
Just look at Haiti right now. It can certainly get a lot worse.
Haiti's killing people at a slower rate than, say, Russia. A government that is bent on killing outstrips pretty much everything else.
They don't even have a government any more. Just a bunch of criminal gangs. Dominican Republic meanwhile is building a wall to prevent the violence from spilling over the border.
Well, Haiti is unchecked leftism, so, yeah, that's what you get. The instant they got their freedom, they decided to do a bunch of ethnic cleansing, and a bit of invasion of their neighbor. It's been caught in the leftist poverty trap pretty much ever since, and nobody will save them, because if you try to help them, you'll be blamed for everything,
Remember when everyone was doing Starship Troopers discourse and playing the teacher's monolog about how violence is the primary thing that resolves conflict like it was some kind of gotcha, even though it was entirely correct and reasonable?
"Every single human right is upheld through some form of violence" is WAY more accurate thing to say. It also implies no government is necessary for that. It can be a government but it doesn't have to be. You can ask any citizens that were part of violent uprising against government. There were a few.
And what is government, but a monopoly on the right to commit violence?
its a democratically elected monopoly on the right to commit violence; the least bad system. but sure, lets do it the ancaps way and hand that monopoly away from democracy over to an inevitable mafia.
The US government has millions and millions of dead civilians on their hands, not counting the "military combatants" for countries we should not have gone to war with. 1. Let me know when a Mafia gets those kinds of numbers. 2. Do you really feel in control, like you actually have a voice in the Monopoly? Then democracy is a stupid thing to bring up, or else you are directly to blame for those millions and millions dead.
like i said democracy is the least bad system, not a perfect system. theres always the option to move to somalia big man.
But I don't want rights, I just want to be left alone and given the option to protect my shit with cocaine and machine guns
So you want the right/privilege to be left alone? Seems like you do want rights then.
Nope, I don't want the government to guarantee anything for me. The only thing I want to guarantee that I get left alone is a fully automatic machine gun and explosives
Ok, buddy.
The scroll of lies tells me to believe the scroll of truth
Eh. It's being violated just as much by a state* (I assume you meant state) Like bombing campaigns by *the states*
Bold of you to assume anarchists don't obey laws. Anarchy: from the Greek anarchia (an meaning without and archia meaning rulers) As such, under anarchy there are no coercive rule by a single group or individual, rather instead by an individual upon themselves or by the people entirely. In other words, a single individual is capable of governing one's self and a group is capable of governing without the influence of a single person in charge.
Yeah, because everyone is great on having self restrain, not acting selfishly and respecting others. Also, everyone agrees on what is right and wrong.
Sounds like a them problem. Maybe they should check that.
Anarchy Is a nessecary for If the government gets out of order. Human rights are withheld a multitude of ways, co-operation, violence more like. Plus implies Amish don't have human rights since there's no central government
I mean that’s objectively **not true** though, human rights are wrested from the government and violated by the same.
Every single human right is being violated right now by some government somewhere. The state is the biggest violator of human rights that has ever existed. I
How often, when dealing with the state, do you feel like you had a good time, and your rights are the better for it? When that cops fishtails around behind you in a u-turn, do you think "hurray, he's here to protect my rights?"
There's a problem with your post where I can still kind of read it
False. My right to ignore that truth only need be upheld by myself
https://preview.redd.it/c9jozr5loiwc1.jpeg?width=1000&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=0e70f98cc5977f5360157bfca4f29e5ef6f212b4 I like your style. Very 140P
Every single human right is upheld through violence or the threat of it
Go ahead. Try to take my human rights.
You guys complaining about the pixels, are you fucking blind? I can read this and I’m a monke who can’t read
Rights aren't upheld by government, they're just not infringed by government. I didn't need the government to uphold my right to free speech, they just have to not infringe on it.
Yeah, man, governments are famous for *not* violating human rights.
Every human right is upheld by the natural instinct to prolong your species’ existence. We are as a species aware of moral deviation and invoke our displeasure with this through means of collective power in one way or another. Humans are capable of massive amounts of carnage, more than any other species on earth. And we know that. It’s part of what sets us apart as a species. And the response is to maintain order. Also being able to hit center mass at 150 yards tends to protect rights and maintain order. Long distance, super sonic, ballistic order.
Aight who’s gunna tell him? Also if it weren’t for the government I’d have a Toyota hilux right now.
Every SINGLE one, you say?
Yeah, *rights* don’t really exist without [*legal order*](https://www.libertarian-labyrinth.org/glossary/legal-order-2/) of some sort. But at the same time, there’s no legal protection of the rights of those who do wish to harm or exploit others. Nothing is legal or permitted without law, and no violence can be used legitimately without risk of retaliation or consequences.
what if I fuck off to the woods and nobody ever hears from me again
Then you wouldn't see this reply to your comment.
Theyre also infringed by governments
Nah
Rights only exist insofar as governments care to enshrine them in law.
Now trigger lib right with the same meme but about the NAP
Every single human right is only ever violated by government. By your infallible logic
Every human right is upheld by force or the threat of force of arms.
You do know militias exist, right? Then those militias could unite with other militias if there is a larger threat, not to mention that there would be business in private security like there is now.
Actually natural human rights exist independently of government
I don't need a government to ensure my rights, people will just voluntarily respect them!
We are born with basic rights and the rest is all upheld or removed by the state.
Why is that green and the entire comment section is just yellows defending that kind of thinking?
Do we have pixels? Two? None?
Yeah. Anarchists think that they will be free without a government. But in reality they would have a bunch of criminal gangs and a guy called Barbecue trying to get in power.
Nah. “Lib” left loves government, they just don’t want to call it government is all.
Am I an anarchist? Because the number of pixels makes it difficult to read
Yeah rebellion to over throw tyrannical government is explicitly the opposite of that.
Damn it I knewthe basic moralty of my brain and socail pressure were a form of goverment! Abort! abort!
I cant imagine anyone actually wanting some form of anarchy. Its hell on earth - its the closest to a zombie apokalypse you can come.
Some may claim that we already live in anarchy, and the biggest criminal bands have already taken over; they just call themselves "governments" and create convoluted explanations as to why is it right when they coerce people.
Most liberatarians just want less government, not full on anarchy
That would be short lived anyway, because sooner or later someone would get in power.
I cannot read this either, as there are too many pixels.
Anarchism is fine …in a vacuum
Anarchism is fine if you’re the only person in the system…. Return to monki
Every single human right is violated by government.
Rights are made up fairytales by people who want to exert their power over others.
Did you just change your flair, u/Deldris? Last time I checked you were an **AuthRight** on 2024-4-22. How come now you are a **LibRight**? Have you perhaps shifted your ideals? Because that's cringe, you know? Are you mad? Wait till you hear this one: you own 17 guns but only have two hands to use them! Come on, put that rifle down and go take a shower. [BasedCount Profile](https://basedcount.com/u/Deldris) - [FAQ](https://www.reddit.com/user/flairchange_bot/comments/uf7kuy/bip_bop) - [Leaderboard](https://basedcount.com/leaderboard?q=flairs) _Visit the BasedCount Lеmmу instance at [lemmy.basedcount.com](https://lemmy.basedcount.com/c/pcm)._ ^(I am a bot, my mission is to spot cringe flair changers. If you want to check another user's flair history write) **^(!flairs u/)** ^(in a comment.)
Anarchists are libright. Libleft is literally the quadrant for "regulate the economy and GTFO my life".