Privatized police department.

[Distruzio]

Proof of chaos? Moreover, the prevelence of warlords is not proof of a State. It is proof of natural order.

Even worse.

Needless to say, I disagree.

[Wamitoria]

Even worse.

Needless to say, I disagree.

I thought anarchy didn't have coercion?

The natural order is completely built upon coercion.

[Kerinash]

Even worse.

Needless to say, I disagree.

Did you even read the page?

All the forms of governance listed are authoritarian, differing only in scale.

[Distruzio]

Needless to say, I disagree.

I thought anarchy didn't have coercion?

The natural order is completely built upon coercion.

Being natural, this coercion is preferable, although not necessarily acceptable, to artificial legislative fiat. That is the difference.

[Distruzio]

Needless to say, I disagree.

Did you even read the page?

All the forms of governance listed are authoritarian, differing only in scale.

How embarrassing. I had about a half dozen tabs open and highlighted the wrong one. This is the page I meant to post. Apologies!!

Natural order.

[Kerinash]

I thought anarchy didn't have coercion?

The natural order is completely built upon coercion.

Being natural, this coercion is preferable, although not necessarily acceptable, to artificial legislative fiat. That is the difference.

That doesn't change the fact that there is little to no way for the people to have any say in government.

[Kerinash]

Did you even read the page?

All the forms of governance listed are authoritarian, differing only in scale.

How embarrassing. I had about a half dozen tabs open and highlighted the wrong one. This is the page I meant to post. Apologies!!

Natural order.

How very...

unspecific.

Seriously they don't even have examples.

[Distruzio]

Being natural, this coercion is preferable, although not necessarily acceptable, to artificial legislative fiat. That is the difference.

That doesn't change the fact that there is little to no way for the people to have any say in government.

Read my signature and you'll see where my opinion on this falls.

[Kerinash]

That doesn't change the fact that there is little to no way for the people to have any say in government.

Read my signature and you'll see where my opinion on this falls.

How do you read that?

[The Black Forrest]

Indeed. However, some get automatically renewed and you can apply to renew it.......

Even still, chairs (except specific unique designs, I imagine) are not covered simply because people have made them before. It's a ridiculous argument to make.

Indeed. I was speaking in general and not to the silly chair argument.

I have been on both sides (bought and buyer). Much as he would like to believe, there are precautions in place so the bought doesn't take their money and immediately setup a new company doing the same thing......

[Dread Lady Nathicana]

Court system would require coercive elements to enforce its rulings. If people voluntarily agreed on a resolution to a problem, they wouldn't need courts.

I feel we're just wasting time debating you because when I challenge your assumptions, you ignore me. When I provide examples of historical evidence, you ignore that. And then a few pages later you whine about how I can't talk about this thing until I refute the post you made ten pages ago, which you also ignored. I'll just say, if you're that hellbent on living free of evil government mafia monopoly mobsters, go to Somalia and enjoy Libertard paradise.

You'll get a better response of you stop ignoring what some of us are telling you in turn - like Stop Flaming Your Opponents. Cut the crap with 'libertards' and the like, discuss in a marginally rational fashion, and you won't find yourself getting nearly the hard time you currently are. When you 'debate' with your disdain for the other players so clearly in evidence, you're likely to get the same in return - by folks who've been around long enough to know the rules, and manage to argue you into a fury without crossing the lines.

I realize you've stepped away now, and considering that, and the fact you seem to recognize at least that you were losing your cool enough to warrant said stepping away, consider this an informal yet terse warning to not make a repetition of this sort of behavior. Or next time we will come down on you like a ton of bricks.

Now that that's out of the way, let me politely remind everyone else involved to treat one another with at least a modicum of decency, if not respect, when discussing whatever topic happens to be on deck in this forum. Thank you!

[Robert Magoo]

I thought anarchy didn't have coercion?

The natural order is completely built upon coercion.

Being natural, this coercion is preferable, although not necessarily acceptable, to artificial legislative fiat. That is the difference.

How is a state that people want not natural? Your distinctions between state and "natural order" are only significant with certain types of state. Putting democracies and republics in the same box as dictatorships is ridiculous. This is the same nonsense as when people try to criticize a religion by putting them all into the same box. There are very real differences. All states are not the same.

[Distruzio]

Read my signature and you'll see where my opinion on this falls.

How do you read that?

Ill make it bigger. Click the links on the words that jump out at you.

[Kerinash]

How do you read that?

Ill make it bigger. Click the links on the words that jump out at you.

No, I mean I can't tell which ones you are or are not because it's like this:
I am...
I am not...
Greek Orthodox
Bibliolater protestant

[Distruzio]

Ill make it bigger. Click the links on the words that jump out at you.

No, I mean I can't tell which ones you are or are not because it's like this:
I am...
I am not...
Greek Orthodox
Bibliolater protestant

Oh! sorry, the left column is "I am" the right column is "I am not..."

[Kerinash]

No, I mean I can't tell which ones you are or are not because it's like this:
I am...
I am not...
Greek Orthodox
Bibliolater protestant

Oh! sorry, the left column is "I am" the right column is "I am not..."

I'm not much of a fan of pure democracy either.

Tell me, have you read any Machiavelli (besides The Prince, which may have been satire)

[Distruzio]

Oh! sorry, the left column is "I am" the right column is "I am not..."

I'm not much of a fan of pure democracy either.

Tell me, have you read any Machiavelli (besides The Prince, which may have been satire)

Why yes... I have indeed.

[ZombieRothbard]

A Court system would require coercive elements to enforce its rulings. If people voluntarily agreed on a resolution to a problem, they wouldn't need courts.

Not necessarily. Two individuals can both voluntarily agree to go to a private judge for arbitration. There is no coercion needed for that. Even if one of the parties doesn't respect the final ruling, the guilty one would simply have his power cut off, his trade cut off, and he would be forced into one of those aforementioned prisons out of necessity for food and water.

I feel we're just wasting time debating you because when I challenge your assumptions, you ignore me. When I provide examples of historical evidence, you ignore that. And then a few pages later you whine about how I can't talk about this thing until I refute the post you made ten pages ago, which you also ignored.

First of all, I don't ignore you, and if I do, it is because I did not see your post. Secondly, providing historical examples doesn't do anything to advance your position in my eyes. This is because, historically, defense hasn't been competitively provided in a free market system. There are virtually no examples from history you can provide that lends evidence towards your points. Rather, the very few examples from history that could be provided (Icelandic Commonwealth, American West) actually tend to support my position.

Second, your massive private army takeover scenario is fundamentally flawed, as I pointed out earlier in the thread. I did not see a refutation of that post I made earlier. If it exists, please provide it to me. If you cannot provide a refutation, do not be angry when I do not consider your position relevant at all to our discussion.

And I also find it insulting that you are bringing out terms like "libertard". There are people on these forums that call ME disrespectful and haughty, yet have nothing to say for people that constantly assault me with "lolburtarian", "free market fairy" and all the rest. At least when I am out of line, I admit it and apologize. Keeping your cool on this forum as a libertarian is quite difficult.

EDIT: Also, Somalia has improved since their state collapsed.

[Kerinash]

Saying tribalistic pseudo-anarchy is better than the average post-colonial kleptocracy is like saying smallpox is better than AIDS.

A functional republic like the U.S. would be like the common cold.

[Terra Agora]

See page 40
Here ya go

I'm not surprised they source something published by CATO. Those are a bunch of libertarian idiots who think that excessive government killed the Roman Empire. They're willing to exaggerate, misquote, or outright lie to prove their point. I've seen the kind of papers they publish, and they have a level of ignorance that's simply disgraceful.

Ah yes the "I dont agree with your source so I'll dismiss it argument".

[Sibirsky]

I'm not surprised they source something published by CATO. Those are a bunch of libertarian idiots who think that excessive government killed the Roman Empire. They're willing to exaggerate, misquote, or outright lie to prove their point. I've seen the kind of papers they publish, and they have a level of ignorance that's simply disgraceful.

Ah yes the "I dont agree with your source so I'll dismiss it argument".

It's the most frequent "argument" used on NSG.

[ZombieRothbard]

Ah yes the "I dont agree with your source so I'll dismiss it argument".

It's the most frequent "argument" used on NSG.

That, and just plain denialism. To be fair, there are a number of people on this forum that do provide for good debate. But the vast majority don't.

[Sibirsky]

It's the most frequent "argument" used on NSG.

That, and just plain denialism. To be fair, there are a number of people on this forum that do provide for good debate. But the vast majority don't.

Indeed. Several times I was forced to admit that I was wrong.

[ZombieRothbard]

That, and just plain denialism. To be fair, there are a number of people on this forum that do provide for good debate. But the vast majority don't.

Indeed. Several times I was forced to admit that I was wrong.

If you are interested, I will link you a Mises Academy seminar by Bob Murphy on private defense. I used to go by Hans-Hermann Hoppe's proposed model, but Murphy's might even be better. Send me a TG sometime if you make it through that seminar with Rothbard on Mises, that lecture is a must-listen for sure.

[Sibirsky]

Indeed. Several times I was forced to admit that I was wrong.

If you are interested, I will link you a Mises Academy seminar by Bob Murphy on private defense. I used to go by Hans-Hermann Hoppe's proposed model, but Murphy's might even be better. Send me a TG sometime if you make it through that seminar with Rothbard on Mises, that lecture is a must-listen for sure.

Yes, sounds good. Probably Sunday.