Anarcho-Capitalism & Why Libertarians are statists.

[Paixao]

Voluntary association is not the state. Rented accommodation is not the state. Paying for a service is not the state. Are you seriously claiming they are?

So if, hypothetically, the landlord starts forcing you to live there by hiring people with guns to follow you and kill you if you try to leave, it's still not a state? If he starts enforcing laws of his own within the accommodation area, using Men With Guns to backup the rules, is it still not a state? Does he really have to declare himself "ruler" for it to become a state?

States provide a slew of benefits to their citizens, and through purchase*, conquest or legal claim legitimately own the territory they posses (with few exceptions). They are, in effect, a private entity without a single owner, charging "rent" for your right to live there.

[Liberaxia]

Voluntary association is not the state. Rented accommodation is not the state. Paying for a service is not the state. Are you seriously claiming they are?

So if, hypothetically, the landlord starts forcing you to live there by hiring people with guns to follow you and kill you if you try to leave, it's still not a state? If he starts enforcing laws of his own within the accommodation area, using Men With Guns to backup the rules, is it still not a state? Does he really have to declare himself "ruler" for it to become a state?

States provide a slew of benefits to their citizens, and through purchase*, conquest or legal claim legitimately own the territory they posses (with few exceptions). They are, in effect, a private entity without a single owner, charging "rent" for your right to live there.

Territory is not equivalent to property. Please do not reinforce the claims of ancaps.

[Sociobiology]

The fallacy with the argument is that nothing ensures the landlords to do such things. If we switched to Anarcho-Capitalism today, there would not be the people, nor the culture for landlords to do some things.
The landlord would definitely get security in place of a government, but that won't result in an army.

why?
just look at what happens to former states that fall in to anocracy.

We have private security today, why don't the large companies have an army?

because it is against the law, and with good reason.

They definitely have the means to overthrow the government and instill their own rules

no they don't not even close.
Walmart is by most measures the largest corporation on earth, it employs some 2 million people and takes in around 500 billion, the Us federal government takes in 3 trillion dollars and employs 1.5 million soldier alone and more than twice that in total employees, and that does not include state or local employees.

The difference between landlords and the government setting regulations are that there are much better ways to bargain and negotiate than with the government. If you go to a market street, you will more than definitely see bargaining, you will see this too with landlords. Furthermore, due to far more competition within a far smaller area, one can simply change to a better landowner, thus deterring the chances of any sort of this hypothetical situation happening.

including the most important situation actually being able to enforce law. lots of little local competing laws results in no common law, thus no large population centers.

[Sociobiology]

Wikipedia is your source? At least source Rothbard, I want something! Anarchists understand a state to be a centralized hierarchal organization that has the means to mobilize violence over an area to sustain it's rule. A private institution that has such capabilities is a state by definition.

See those citations (little blue numbers in boxes) on every Wikipedia article? Those are Wikipedia's sources. If you don't think annotated Wikipedia is a source, you obviously don't know how to use Wikipedia.

you do realize about half of those will not be sources either right? half the time they link to a blog or unsourced news article. which is why nobody accepts wikipedia as a source.

[Sociobiology]

Private security firms?

The most successful firms in a given area establish monopolies on violence through legitimate means. They are the best at providing their services cheapest within their area, so people use their services and they establish a local monopoly on violence over the territories they service. I thought this much was obvious.

They can still only use violence as a defensive action (yes, arbitration firms would settle this), these aren't legions of hitmen we're referring to. Anyone can legitimately use violence in self defence. All the PMC would do is amplify that capability for people who didn't consider themselves capable of defending themselves against a perceived threat. That's not a monopoly. Anyone can do what they're doing. That's a lot of people using a service.

so the people the PMC are attacking can hire their own PMC to drive off the aggression of the first PMC. and what exactly restricts PMC's to only defensive actions? arbitrations firms make no sense if if the arbitration firms are relying on the PMC's to enforce their decisions.

[Arkolon]

See those citations (little blue numbers in boxes) on every Wikipedia article? Those are Wikipedia's sources. If you don't think annotated Wikipedia is a source, you obviously don't know how to use Wikipedia.

you do realize about half of those will not be sources either right? half the time they link to a blog or unsourced news article. which is why nobody accepts wikipedia as a source.

Ignore those, then?

[Death Metal]

Pretty much all this. I mean I'm a little more optimistic and change that will into can.

Quite frankly, the only reason we have governments in the first place is because assholes exist.

At least in a democratic system, we can try to keep the assholes from running things without people who aren't assholes getting killed in wars.

Sure, it doesn't always pan out that way, but nobody ever claimed it was perfect.

[Arkolon]

Pretty much all this. I mean I'm a little more optimistic and change that will into can.

Quite frankly, the only reason we have governments in the first place is because assholes exist.

At least in a democratic system, we can try to keep the assholes from running things without people who aren't assholes getting killed in wars.

Sure, it doesn't always pan out that way, but nobody ever claimed it was perfect.

"If people were angels, we wouldn't need a state. If people aren't angels, don't dare let them have one."

Also: people are bad so we need a government made up of people are bad so we need a government made up of people are bad...

[Death Metal]

Quite frankly, the only reason we have governments in the first place is because assholes exist.

At least in a democratic system, we can try to keep the assholes from running things without people who aren't assholes getting killed in wars.

Sure, it doesn't always pan out that way, but nobody ever claimed it was perfect.

"If people were angels, we wouldn't need a state. If people aren't angels, don't dare let them have one."

Also: people are bad so we need a government made up of people are bad so we need a government made up of people are bad...

I decide to take you off ignore, figuring the last time we talked you might have just had a bad week, and see you still have the same inability to reason without resorting to black/white fallacies and strawmen.

No, the main reason why governments exist is because people needed protection from assholes.

The thing is, when the people protecting you become assholes, you need a way to get rid of the assholes. Revolutions tend to work.... temporarily, until the person leading the revolution becomes an asshole himself... and revolutions (all wars, for that matter) have the nasty habit of having people killed who aren't assholes, even when they don't fight in the war at all.

So because assholes exist, we need a government made up of people who aren't assholes, and if assholes get in, we need a way to get them out peacefully.

Consider that your lesson in social studies for the day. Don't bother responding, I won't read it.

[Sociobiology]

Quite frankly, the only reason we have governments in the first place is because assholes exist.

At least in a democratic system, we can try to keep the assholes from running things without people who aren't assholes getting killed in wars.

Sure, it doesn't always pan out that way, but nobody ever claimed it was perfect.

"If people were angels, we wouldn't need a state. If people aren't angels, don't dare let them have one."

Also: people are bad so we need a government made up of people are bad so we need a government made up of people are bad...

because government creates a mechanism to limit and reduce "badness", called laws, and rights, and courts that are more impartial than the people involved.

[Sociobiology]

you do realize about half of those will not be sources either right? half the time they link to a blog or unsourced news article. which is why nobody accepts wikipedia as a source.

Ignore those, then?

why should I do all the work of sifting through it, its your source, you find the real sources first, since you know your argument in advance, and use THEM as your source.

[Death Metal]

because government creates a mechanism to limit and reduce "badness", called laws, and rights, and courts that are more impartial than the people involved.

Don't forget transparency regulations. How many private firms allow people to witness daily policy discussions without being an executive or at the very least a shareholder? Probably a very small amount, where virtually every democratic republic today does. In the US for example, most Americans can turn to CSPAN.

[Sociobiology]

because government creates a mechanism to limit and reduce "badness", called laws, and rights, and courts that are more impartial than the people involved.

Don't forget transparency regulations. How many private firms allow people to witness daily policy discussions without being an executive or at the very least a shareholder? Probably a very small amount, where virtually every democratic republic today does. In the US for example, most Americans can turn to CSPAN.

well this is only common in modern states, but it is one of the better features they have invented.

[Death Metal]

Don't forget transparency regulations. How many private firms allow people to witness daily policy discussions without being an executive or at the very least a shareholder? Probably a very small amount, where virtually every democratic republic today does. In the US for example, most Americans can turn to CSPAN.

well this is only common in modern states, but it is one of the better features they have invented.

Fair enough, first world DRs. Still, you don't see the likes of, say, Apple do that.

[Mkuki]

In a free market stateless society the people who are wealthy will buy and own the land. Then they will rent out the land to tenants. Essentially, taxing them. Then to make sure the tenants pay, the landlord hires private security to enforce his rents. Thus you get an army. With these two institutions in place the landlord can then define regulations for the tenants to follow to maintain residency. Thus, you have legislation and laws and bingo the landlord effectively becomes a mini state all on his own and thus the "anarcho" capitalists will ALWAYS end up with a similar system to what we have now by removing the state but keeping the accumulation of capital you will always get inequality, then hierarchy, then a state.

Do you believe that libertarians are statists?

Does the existence of capital create a state or is it the fact that all capital is not distributed equally?
[Modedit]Fixed probably-intentional typo in topic title.[/edit]

Yes, Libertarians are statists in that most believe the state is a positive force and, therefore, should continue to exist.