NationStates

The Liberated Territories wrote:

Napkiraly wrote:Of course the response to Islam, or more accurately its extremist sects, is not to launch some genocidal campaign across the globe.

Tell this to the US. They've been warring in the middle east for almost two decades.

The East Marches II wrote:

Conscentia wrote:Lead to? If you have private property, there already is one. Private property exists because the state enforces the property rights of it's owners.
I'm not arguing, as many do, that Ancapistan will produce a state. I'm arguing it never gets rid of it to begin with - it just changes the form of that state into a plutocracy.

What is the difference between a public police department and a privately owned one? Really only the name. Its no different than if your lot tried to get rid of the state, you would merely call it by a different name.

Conscentia wrote:

The East Marches II wrote:What is the difference between a public police department and a privately owned one? Really only the name. Its no different than if your lot tried to get rid of the state, you would merely call it by a different name.

Literally my point.

36 Camera Perspective wrote:

Conscentia wrote:They'd have absolute control over the state apparatus since they own it. What more power do they need?

In what sense do they have absolute control?

Jelmatt wrote:

The Liberated Territories wrote:This is just circular logic now. The state exists because of private property, and then private property exists because of a state? Obviously one of your definitions are flawed, because nobody would equate private property with a state, if it is dependent on that state to exist in the first place. Therefore your argument is just affirming the consequent, and provides no evidence otherwise.

Consc never mentioned "the state exists because of private property," only the second statement, that private property exists because of a state. What Conscientia was arguing is that the state can primarily be defined by being an institution which protects a class system--a definition I'm not too sure of myself, but it's not circular. It's like saying 'laws only exist because of the state' (this is, of course, excluding systems of custom law--I'm talking about centrally-decided and enforced laws) and then saying that one of the state's defining features is that it creates and enforces laws. This isn't exactly circular, and is analogous to Conscientia's arguments. I have my own problems with Consc's argument, but it's a logically valid one, I think.

The East Marches II wrote:

Conscentia wrote:Literally my point.

Yes and my point is you are no different yourself Bolshevik.

Conscentia wrote:

The East Marches II wrote:Yes and my point is you are no different yourself Bolshevik.

If you want to debate communism and whether or not it really abolishes the state, you are welcome to take this to the LWDT.

The East Marches II wrote:

Conscentia wrote:
If you want to debate communism and whether or not it really abolishes the state, you are welcome to take this to the LWDT.

Typical copout :^)

The Empire of Pretantia wrote:

The East Marches II wrote:
Typical copout :^)

He's right though.

The East Marches II wrote:

The Empire of Pretantia wrote:He's right though.

You are a bolshevik too as I've proven many times.

The Empire of Pretantia wrote:

The East Marches II wrote:
You are a bolshevik too as I've proven many times.

The fuck did you just call me

The Empire of Pretantia wrote:

The East Marches II wrote:
You are a bolshevik too as I've proven many times.

The fuck did you just call me

The East Marches II wrote:

Conscentia wrote:Lead to? If you have private property, there already is one. Private property exists because the state enforces the property rights of it's owners.

I'm not arguing, as many do, that Ancapistan will produce a state. I'm arguing it never gets rid of it to begin with - it just changes the form of that state into a plutocracy.

What is the difference between a public police department and a privately owned one? Really only the name. Its no different than if your lot tried to get rid of the state, you would merely call it by a different name.

The East Marches II wrote:

Conscentia wrote:
If you want to debate communism and whether or not it really abolishes the state, you are welcome to take this to the LWDT.

Typical copout :^)

Conscentia wrote:

The East Marches II wrote:Typical copout :^)

You're the one copping out by not going the LWDT to fite me.

Lady Scylla wrote:

The East Marches II wrote:
What is the difference between a public police department and a privately owned one? Really only the name. Its no different than if your lot tried to get rid of the state, you would merely call it by a different name.

Security can only perform citizen arrest, can usually only observe & report, and can't typically use lethal force or even 'unarrest' people. They're not police, but they are private. PMCs on the otherhand are just illegal in general though the US, UK, Russia, and China never ratified the treaty involving that.

The East Marches II wrote:

Lady Scylla wrote:
Security can only perform citizen arrest, can usually only observe & report, and can't typically use lethal force or even 'unarrest' people. They're not police, but they are private. PMCs on the otherhand are just illegal in general though the US, UK, Russia, and China never ratified the treaty involving that.

Say you fired your local police department and went full ancap. If you were to hire a private firm, to fill the role of police with all their powers. Would it be practically different than a public one?

If only that were the case for the above. The break down of law and order in Chicago has led to buildings to get private security with the traditional powers. We're this close to going full dystopia. On a scale 1 to hype, how hyped are you?

The East Marches II wrote:

Lady Scylla wrote:
Security can only perform citizen arrest, can usually only observe & report, and can't typically use lethal force or even 'unarrest' people. They're not police, but they are private. PMCs on the otherhand are just illegal in general though the US, UK, Russia, and China never ratified the treaty involving that.

Say you fired your local police department and went full ancap. If you were to hire a private firm, to fill the role of police with all their powers. Would it be practically different than a public one?

If only that were the case for the above. The break down of law and order in Chicago has led to buildings to get private security with the traditional powers. We're this close to going full dystopia. On a scale 1 to hype, how hyped are you?

HMS Queen Elizabeth wrote:Private property is just a tautology.

Property exists independent of states.

Lady Scylla wrote:

The East Marches II wrote:
Say you fired your local police department and went full ancap. If you were to hire a private firm, to fill the role of police with all their powers. Would it be practically different than a public one?

If only that were the case for the above. The break down of law and order in Chicago has led to buildings to get private security with the traditional powers. We're this close to going full dystopia. On a scale 1 to hype, how hyped are you?

Problem is that, AFAIK, you can't do that. And private security never gets traditional powers. Some states do license private security -- but they're still security. They're little more than citizens with firearms, handcuffs, OC Spray, a taser with the adequate training, but drowning in redtape on what they can, and cannot do. They're still subordinate to police, and can only enforce company policy on their property.

Neo Balka wrote:

The East Marches II wrote:
Say you fired your local police department and went full ancap. If you were to hire a private firm, to fill the role of police with all their powers. Would it be practically different than a public one?

If only that were the case for the above. The break down of law and order in Chicago has led to buildings to get private security with the traditional powers. We're this close to going full dystopia. On a scale 1 to hype, how hyped are you?

Chicago practically deserves to be walled off from the Civilized part of the midwest then.

The East Marches II wrote:

Lady Scylla wrote:
Problem is that, AFAIK, you can't do that. And private security never gets traditional powers. Some states do license private security -- but they're still security. They're little more than citizens with firearms, handcuffs, OC Spray, a taser with the adequate training, but drowning in redtape on what they can, and cannot do. They're still subordinate to police, and can only enforce company policy on their property.

Does Texas allow for corporate influence in law making. Uh I just want to know as a purely theoretical exercise.

The East Marches II wrote:

Conscentia wrote:You're the one copping out by not going the LWDT to fite me.

Its RWDT related, this is as good as place as any to duel. :^)

Conscentia wrote:

The East Marches II wrote:Its RWDT related, this is as good as place as any to duel. :^)

Communism is not RWDT-related.

The East Marches II wrote:

Conscentia wrote:Communism is not RWDT-related.

The topic of what a state practically is and your total hypocrisy in criticizing the ancaps is in your previous post is. Like I said, you resort to a copout because you know you can't win!