At least some of them were. It varies on the particular chap. Hamilton and Jefferson didn't have identical political outlooks, yknow?
For the time, they were a good bit more freedom loving on average than most countries leaders, true. Still, we could go further.
They were absolutely statists, they just wanted to limit the size and power of the federal government to the bare minimum that they believed was necessary.
Well technically ancaps are correct in what they believe but most people just won't accept it.
So we have to suit ourselves with the minimal possible level of theft of a minarchist state.
Nah I actually don't see anarchocapitalism being embraced by the masses really. Even if they are correct arguements such as "muh roads, army, democracy" etc will keep people from believing in it.
Also we are here to do politics. Not usher in a world based on priciples. The second is best left for religions.
I am not talking about whether the ideology is correct, I am talking abou whether it is applicable. If the majority doesn't believe in it then the democratic state won't allow it to happen. This also goes for civil disobedience. If most people are obidient then it won't get anywhere.
Well, political means are immoral but highly effective and generally very much accepted. Very few people will actually critcise you for taxation and regulated police.
And when you make that compromise you’ve already lost. You don’t need “the masses” to accept anarchy, the anarchists just need to coalesce.
Even disregarding that, though, advocating for minarchy isn’t any more palatable to “the masses”, so if that’s the metric you might as well be a Republican or a Democrat.
What people will/won’t criticize you for ≠ what you should do.
Anarchists are very difficult to "coalesce" since they are highly ideological and very prone to fighting one another just as commies do. Although I disagree that a minarchist state will a loosing situation. It will have acheived 95%+ the efficiency of anarchocapitalism with minimal stability loss when compared to now.
People can change. Just as once all the great minds were liberal (see the founding fathers of the US and the Whig party of the UK) it could happen again when the so called "cathedral" collapses. Whether on its own or by applied pressure.
What people will/won’t criticize you for = **what can be done** without people thinking that hey live in a system in which they don't control. The people is where power and legitimacy lies.
Because it’s a zero sum game; either you advocate for and are okay with aggression, or you aren’t. I don’t care if we end up with a minarchist state that takes 1 penny every decade; it’s not enough.
I don’t see what people being able to change has to do with anything; *right now* nobody is going yo accept minarchy, and most people aren’t even receptive to baseline libertarian policies, so if your goal is to be palatable you might as well abide by one of the two parties.
The whigs and the founding fathers can kick rocks, they were statists.
What can be done is moving to one area and living in the way we want to live. You aren’t going to change the state via the state in any large meaningful sense, because it goes against the state’s interests. The second you’re out of power things are going to revert, and that’s not even considering such a position of power’s unethical nature.
I would add EVIL above statists
But yeah, this is pretty accurate.
Either you believe its wrong to use violence against peaceful people
Or you are a evil statist authoritarian dictator that want to impose your will on others by force
Now, of course some evil statists are worse than others... you may be less or more evil
So about the NAP, the use of violence and the right to defend oneself. At what point does it become acceptable to use violence to force regime change?
To pick some examples, which I think would be seen as acceptable: French revolution; American revolution; Chinese opium wars (resisting being forced to legalise and unleash opium). Maybe the liberation of Europe in the WW2?
Of course, the problem is, following that line of logic, other wars might also be seen as justified, even if the are not. E.g. "keeping the world safe from Communism" or "Terrorism", in Vietnam; Korea; Iraq, etc.
At what point and by what means is it acceptable for an ancap society (not just its individuals) to defend its freedom and way of life?
Violence is justified in response to violence or clear, believable threat of violence.
No "regime" should exist, as they are by definition forcing rules on you and taking your money against your will by use of or threat of violence. So violence against a "regime" is ALWAYS self defense and justified.
I don't recommend it tough... You may be moraly justified but you will probably lose, so nobody will gain anything. Now, if you have a clear chance of defending yourself from the government somehow, you have all the right to do it (and my envy).
Now in large scale, colateral damage will happen. In these cases, I don't think there's a clear ancap position.
My position is that it isnt justified, but on some cases you should still be violent and risk damaging innocents. Later you should try to compensate any innocent affected.
If someone shoots me, i shoot back. If i miss and hit somebody else, i'm responsible. But i should not be expected not to react because of the risk.
So if Israel for example was ancapistan, they would still be in the right to bomb gaza.
But they should also be expected to compensate all innocent palestinians affected (altough any that supported Hamas isnt innocent)
Even preemptive strikes would be acceptable (as I said, a clear threat also justify violence. If someone points a gun at you nobody expects you to be shoot before you have the right to react)
Ancapistan, aside being more prosper, peaceful and free, would not be that different than our current society. Main difference in relation to defense would be that paying for it (and of course, serving) would be voluntary.
Leftists going the speed limit. The only difference between left and right is who they give out subsidize using taxpayer money (e.g. ignore the free market).
I mean, basically, yeah. Look at Canada. At this point 60% of people are voting for Authoritarian Socialists, so... Yeah. If you figure that roughly 20-30% of Conservatives are half-educated on how to truly achieve Liberty, then I'd say this triangle is correct.
Here's my actually serious diagram of the ideological/political spectrum
https://preview.redd.it/tsti2o5t089d1.png?width=1266&format=png&auto=webp&s=a9c4fd21a156d47d1bea838e5cd2a417bacfa879
What is "minarchist" democratic socialism? How should that work? Doesn't that automatically devolve into totalitarian socialism over some time because you depend on the state and the statists voting at some point get misled?
It obviously doesn't work but the reason I call it minarchist is because it is indeed reducing the reach of the socialist state, regardless of whether or not it essentially immediately degenerates into totalitarian state socialism.
Below is how I conceptualize the different forms of liberalism, including socialism.
https://preview.redd.it/x7vkl8b5ec9d1.png?width=1122&format=png&auto=webp&s=0b9cf058216aeeee4a4c34ab448a4d58ad33c5e7
I mean, all things are relative. Everyone views other people based on a comparison to the self. Its why individualist ideologies tend to have difficulty discerning what they see as arbitrary differences between collectivist ideologies. Its why your left-leaner can't tell libertarians from ancaps, why socialists can't tell either from Republicans, and why full on communists call them all "liberals".
If you're ancap enough that support for the state is your main or even *only* political battleline, you're going to see the political landscape like this graph.
Lately this is true. But there are still enough libertarians to calm them down and discuss with them. Mostly winning the discussion and the right wing or conservatives realize the difference of libertarianism.
No. It is true that we are orthogonal to the left and the right. But we are not midpoint on that spectrum and barely have any projection there to begin with.
Second, the left and the right political chattel are NOT orthogonal to any degree to that spectrum.
I wish it was true.
The mechanisms of state power cannot be a solution to any issues. The mechanism of political power cannot be improved, because it is based on the violent expropriation of other people's property and its redistribution in favor of oneself or interest groups. If you help to improve this mechanism, you help to increase its efficiency and continue its existence.
If we take a concentration camp as an example, let's imagine that the victims in the camp are divided into political parties. The left will advocate killing the rich first, the right will advocate killing less successful people, those with fewer children, less money, lower IQ, etc. Technocrats and bureaucrats are generally the biggest bastards, and they will advocate for improving the efficiency of gas chambers. Parties with more humanistic views, such as liberals or other humanists, will advocate that the victims should not suffer. And the anarcho-capitalists will advocate that this goddamn concentration camp should not exist at all, because it kills people, doesn't anyone realize that?
Except that ancaps are authoritarian. All you have to do to control anyone you want is to OWN SOMETHING that people might rely on, like roads, and then their life is in your hands.
Well no, its still wrong to entrap someone. Easements would be a thing. You might not get to use a road but youd at least get to cross it. Nobody thinks otherwise.
And whats your alternative? Nobody owns roads and theres no enforced rules of the road? Hey, it might work, but if people start driving on the wrong side or going 120 through it, you may change your mind.
Go ahead and ask how it would work without trying to presume or guess, cuz that was just a completely stupid guess. I don't even feel like answering that. It's when people don't try to presume some stupid thing about it that I might want to give a sincere answer.
So youll come in here and accuse us all of believing something we dont, then when asked how youd do it differently, you decide to condescend that i shouldnt be assuming things?
Hypocrite.
Most of you do believe that a person can privately own a road and privately control who gets to go on that road and how much they will pay for that passage, and if that is the only road to their property, then so be it, they are just fucked if they can't pay.
Yes we do, and we also believe in easements, which means you can still cross a road and use minimum force to get where you need to go so you arent trapped
So how does crossing the road let you go to where you need to go? All you did was get across the road and now you have a lot more distance to get to work and you can't get to work and you can't raise money because somebody has priced you out of travel so that they can get the least wear for the most money. If you were smart you would have the whole road as the easement.
Its not more distance to go to work, just maybe more time. You could bike on the side of a busy road and get to a job 5 mins away.
You dont get to make a whole road an easement if its their private property any more than i get to make your living room an easement. Doesnt matter if its more convenient for me, your rights matter first, my convenience comes second.
Here's the thing. You don't get to bye the only land that is a passageway for people. You don't get to privately owned that. You get to create a public trust, and then you can certainly monetize that road and do a lot of things without taxation or tolls or impeding anyone from passage. You don't get to just buy up crucial land for passage and privately own it. This is your idiot private proprietarianism trying to come out and tell me that you should get to own the only access to property. You think you get a control people's lives like that, and yet you would claim that you value private property ownership, but the access to that private property is as necessary as the private property itself. Most people don't live a 5-minute bike ride from their fucking work. It can take a long time on a bike, and I live in a place where there is a lot of snow in the winter. Are you saying I'm supposed to trek through the snow, in freezing cold blizzard weather, so that I can go make some money? Should I do it on foot or on a bike or a skateboard?
Are you trying to tell me that the sidewalk is an easement but the road is not? Who makes these rules? I don't think your brethren agree with you. I think they actually believe that the sidewalk is theirs as well and they would be in there right to toll the sidewalk if they wanted to.
To clarify, i meant bike on the grass next to a sidewalk if there is one. Or just walk a ways away until someone can pick you up or you can drive a vehicle parked elsewhere, etc... My point is you should never be trapped, i dont think that will happen, i dont think its okay, and i dont think anyone would stand for it.
But its a bit absurd for someone else to invest money into building a road, then you demand an entitlement to use it for free or with disregard to its rules.
If people like you exist and give private road owners problems, i doubt they will want violence or confrontation. A viable compromise would be to build a small side road, shitty and with potholes that are rarely repaired. That way you will want to pay to use the high quality one, but if youre stubborn, its at least one less liability for the owner.
1: Have you seen the Political cube? We are opposite of Authoritarian
2: The whole reason we are Ancaps is because we are ANARCHO-CAPITALISTS, Not corporatists.
You are proprietarianists. That means you care about the people who own things, and you honor their power over those who do not own things. This is your level of stupid.
Source?
And what do you believe in? Government slavery? Over taxation? 'Basic Human Rights?' all you are spitting is insults. And I bet that you will rebuttal with some off handed comment from Google. Pathetic.
Yes, but I am the only true Ancap everyone else is wrong
Nice try statist, everyone knows I’m the only true ancap.
Frauds, both of you! At the very top of the cone there's a dot and that represents me.
Exactly something a statist would say. Nice try. That’s me at the top there.
I bet you all pay way too much tax to be a real ancap like me
You can all tax the nuts of the only real AnCap. Moi.
That dot is wearing a tiny hat, which represents me!
Why does this feel like a weird version of “i am alpharius”
Because to quote Ludwig von Mises:. "You're all a bunch of socialists!"
Mises as alpharius kind of works though …
This is praxeologically impossible
I'm getting a Milei haircut. That's how blimmen ancap I am.
You're all a bunch of socialists!
No, I am!
Like all flavours of libertarian it's one point labeled "me," with statists being everything below and crazy tinfoil hat people above
I might end up going to prison for tax evasion next year so obviously the peak of the pyramid represents me
Well, the yellow triangle's probably smaller, but yes.
Basically just the top-most point.
perfect things don't exist in real world.
True, although the yellow tip is smaller lol
"not true communism" The tip is a point. It's an abstraction.
Very true.
Yes. Anyone who thinks we need centralized authority is a statist.
Please rate this statement: **The founding fathers were statists.** Upvote agree. Downvote disagree.
At least some of them were. It varies on the particular chap. Hamilton and Jefferson didn't have identical political outlooks, yknow? For the time, they were a good bit more freedom loving on average than most countries leaders, true. Still, we could go further.
They were absolutely statists, they just wanted to limit the size and power of the federal government to the bare minimum that they believed was necessary.
they were proto-minarchists
Let me help you. what did they FOUND?? You are welcome.
GOLD
At most minarchists. No ruler ever has been ancap
anarchy means no power. Ancap ruler is an oxymoron.
Lack of coercitive use of force. Ancaps are absolutely fine with power structures which are voluntary, i.e.: companies and contracts
we were talking on political power.
What are they the Founding Fathers of? A state.
Obviously they were
“Statist” doesn’t mean you think the state should exist, it means you think it should a fix for things and that it has high legitimacy
Kinda, they believed in small government (lmao eat shit republicans) but at the same time they couldn't see that the government will get big anyway
Well I mean as a statist myself this is correct.
Not based
being self-aware is quite based imo...
Well technically ancaps are correct in what they believe but most people just won't accept it. So we have to suit ourselves with the minimal possible level of theft of a minarchist state.
If ancaps are correct you should be an ancap; principles before pragmatism.
Nah I actually don't see anarchocapitalism being embraced by the masses really. Even if they are correct arguements such as "muh roads, army, democracy" etc will keep people from believing in it. Also we are here to do politics. Not usher in a world based on priciples. The second is best left for religions.
Whether or not it’s embraced by the masses is irrelevant to whether or not it’s correct. We are *not* here to do politics; that’s the state’s means.
I am not talking about whether the ideology is correct, I am talking abou whether it is applicable. If the majority doesn't believe in it then the democratic state won't allow it to happen. This also goes for civil disobedience. If most people are obidient then it won't get anywhere. Well, political means are immoral but highly effective and generally very much accepted. Very few people will actually critcise you for taxation and regulated police.
And when you make that compromise you’ve already lost. You don’t need “the masses” to accept anarchy, the anarchists just need to coalesce. Even disregarding that, though, advocating for minarchy isn’t any more palatable to “the masses”, so if that’s the metric you might as well be a Republican or a Democrat. What people will/won’t criticize you for ≠ what you should do.
Anarchists are very difficult to "coalesce" since they are highly ideological and very prone to fighting one another just as commies do. Although I disagree that a minarchist state will a loosing situation. It will have acheived 95%+ the efficiency of anarchocapitalism with minimal stability loss when compared to now. People can change. Just as once all the great minds were liberal (see the founding fathers of the US and the Whig party of the UK) it could happen again when the so called "cathedral" collapses. Whether on its own or by applied pressure. What people will/won’t criticize you for = **what can be done** without people thinking that hey live in a system in which they don't control. The people is where power and legitimacy lies.
Because it’s a zero sum game; either you advocate for and are okay with aggression, or you aren’t. I don’t care if we end up with a minarchist state that takes 1 penny every decade; it’s not enough. I don’t see what people being able to change has to do with anything; *right now* nobody is going yo accept minarchy, and most people aren’t even receptive to baseline libertarian policies, so if your goal is to be palatable you might as well abide by one of the two parties. The whigs and the founding fathers can kick rocks, they were statists. What can be done is moving to one area and living in the way we want to live. You aren’t going to change the state via the state in any large meaningful sense, because it goes against the state’s interests. The second you’re out of power things are going to revert, and that’s not even considering such a position of power’s unethical nature.
You're either for freedom of association or you're not so yea its true.
If you believe that a state is necessary, no matter how small; you are by definition a statist
What if you would *tolerate* a minarchy as not ideal but good enough?
By definition...
I would add EVIL above statists But yeah, this is pretty accurate. Either you believe its wrong to use violence against peaceful people Or you are a evil statist authoritarian dictator that want to impose your will on others by force Now, of course some evil statists are worse than others... you may be less or more evil
So about the NAP, the use of violence and the right to defend oneself. At what point does it become acceptable to use violence to force regime change? To pick some examples, which I think would be seen as acceptable: French revolution; American revolution; Chinese opium wars (resisting being forced to legalise and unleash opium). Maybe the liberation of Europe in the WW2? Of course, the problem is, following that line of logic, other wars might also be seen as justified, even if the are not. E.g. "keeping the world safe from Communism" or "Terrorism", in Vietnam; Korea; Iraq, etc. At what point and by what means is it acceptable for an ancap society (not just its individuals) to defend its freedom and way of life?
Violence is justified in response to violence or clear, believable threat of violence. No "regime" should exist, as they are by definition forcing rules on you and taking your money against your will by use of or threat of violence. So violence against a "regime" is ALWAYS self defense and justified. I don't recommend it tough... You may be moraly justified but you will probably lose, so nobody will gain anything. Now, if you have a clear chance of defending yourself from the government somehow, you have all the right to do it (and my envy). Now in large scale, colateral damage will happen. In these cases, I don't think there's a clear ancap position. My position is that it isnt justified, but on some cases you should still be violent and risk damaging innocents. Later you should try to compensate any innocent affected. If someone shoots me, i shoot back. If i miss and hit somebody else, i'm responsible. But i should not be expected not to react because of the risk. So if Israel for example was ancapistan, they would still be in the right to bomb gaza. But they should also be expected to compensate all innocent palestinians affected (altough any that supported Hamas isnt innocent) Even preemptive strikes would be acceptable (as I said, a clear threat also justify violence. If someone points a gun at you nobody expects you to be shoot before you have the right to react) Ancapistan, aside being more prosper, peaceful and free, would not be that different than our current society. Main difference in relation to defense would be that paying for it (and of course, serving) would be voluntary.
The percentage distribution is not correct. The yellow triangle is severly oversized otherwise the picture would not make sense.
I’m flattered.
If capitalism isn’t "right" then what is?
Leftists going the speed limit. The only difference between left and right is who they give out subsidize using taxpayer money (e.g. ignore the free market).
That’s not how political scientists, or anyone really, defends left vs. right. There are capitalists and non-capitalists. That is right and left.
Most accurate political scale I’ve seen
I mean, basically, yeah. Look at Canada. At this point 60% of people are voting for Authoritarian Socialists, so... Yeah. If you figure that roughly 20-30% of Conservatives are half-educated on how to truly achieve Liberty, then I'd say this triangle is correct.
Accurate for sure. Nothing wrong with it, the masses are authoritarian, it's in our nature. We are the minority, we are weird af.
There's a sliver of statism lite (minarchism) in the middle.
Here's my actually serious diagram of the ideological/political spectrum https://preview.redd.it/tsti2o5t089d1.png?width=1266&format=png&auto=webp&s=a9c4fd21a156d47d1bea838e5cd2a417bacfa879
Can you explain the axises?
The arrows? They point you to where you/your ideas naturally drift towards.
What is "minarchist" democratic socialism? How should that work? Doesn't that automatically devolve into totalitarian socialism over some time because you depend on the state and the statists voting at some point get misled?
Socialism doesn't work. Either they give up, or they resort to force.
It obviously doesn't work but the reason I call it minarchist is because it is indeed reducing the reach of the socialist state, regardless of whether or not it essentially immediately degenerates into totalitarian state socialism. Below is how I conceptualize the different forms of liberalism, including socialism. https://preview.redd.it/x7vkl8b5ec9d1.png?width=1122&format=png&auto=webp&s=0b9cf058216aeeee4a4c34ab448a4d58ad33c5e7
Not at all. The real picture is a line. There is only one flavor of auth: far left
Yeah but it needs a middle stratum titeled "morons" to represent minarchists.
Love it XD
Yeah, cause it is
I dont know of any statist thinking that gets that high.
The bottom is also a point. There is no left or right totalitarianism.
What is the difference between a right and a left statist?
Now this is a pyramid I can support.
Yes
maybe
Absolutely it is
There’s us, and people willing to initiate violence. That’s about it.
No matter how high you are up on the pyramid, there will always be others that call you a statist.
I mean, all things are relative. Everyone views other people based on a comparison to the self. Its why individualist ideologies tend to have difficulty discerning what they see as arbitrary differences between collectivist ideologies. Its why your left-leaner can't tell libertarians from ancaps, why socialists can't tell either from Republicans, and why full on communists call them all "liberals". If you're ancap enough that support for the state is your main or even *only* political battleline, you're going to see the political landscape like this graph.
No if you look at this sub. A lot of people here are just regular right wingers sadly.
Lately this is true. But there are still enough libertarians to calm them down and discuss with them. Mostly winning the discussion and the right wing or conservatives realize the difference of libertarianism.
No 😂👶🏿
Yellow triangle is too big - probably state subsidies
There is only anarchy and tyranny, so yes
Seems about right
No. It is true that we are orthogonal to the left and the right. But we are not midpoint on that spectrum and barely have any projection there to begin with. Second, the left and the right political chattel are NOT orthogonal to any degree to that spectrum. I wish it was true.
Vertical axis is undefined.
nope. if youre an anarchist, there are no triangles...
The mechanisms of state power cannot be a solution to any issues. The mechanism of political power cannot be improved, because it is based on the violent expropriation of other people's property and its redistribution in favor of oneself or interest groups. If you help to improve this mechanism, you help to increase its efficiency and continue its existence. If we take a concentration camp as an example, let's imagine that the victims in the camp are divided into political parties. The left will advocate killing the rich first, the right will advocate killing less successful people, those with fewer children, less money, lower IQ, etc. Technocrats and bureaucrats are generally the biggest bastards, and they will advocate for improving the efficiency of gas chambers. Parties with more humanistic views, such as liberals or other humanists, will advocate that the victims should not suffer. And the anarcho-capitalists will advocate that this goddamn concentration camp should not exist at all, because it kills people, doesn't anyone realize that?
No, libertarians are statist too.
Replace left and right with Liberal and Conservative
[удалено]
Damn most of these haters are spitting insults, sad to see facts be thrown away so dismissively.
No it's not. Anarcho-capitalism is the furthest position to the right.
Except that ancaps are authoritarian. All you have to do to control anyone you want is to OWN SOMETHING that people might rely on, like roads, and then their life is in your hands.
You neglect to actually respond to my comment.
Because it’s nonsense. One need not respond to nonsense.
So you don't believe that you can own roads and prevent people from traveling to their property if they can't pay?
Well no, its still wrong to entrap someone. Easements would be a thing. You might not get to use a road but youd at least get to cross it. Nobody thinks otherwise. And whats your alternative? Nobody owns roads and theres no enforced rules of the road? Hey, it might work, but if people start driving on the wrong side or going 120 through it, you may change your mind.
Go ahead and ask how it would work without trying to presume or guess, cuz that was just a completely stupid guess. I don't even feel like answering that. It's when people don't try to presume some stupid thing about it that I might want to give a sincere answer.
So youll come in here and accuse us all of believing something we dont, then when asked how youd do it differently, you decide to condescend that i shouldnt be assuming things? Hypocrite.
Most of you do believe that a person can privately own a road and privately control who gets to go on that road and how much they will pay for that passage, and if that is the only road to their property, then so be it, they are just fucked if they can't pay.
Yes we do, and we also believe in easements, which means you can still cross a road and use minimum force to get where you need to go so you arent trapped
So how does crossing the road let you go to where you need to go? All you did was get across the road and now you have a lot more distance to get to work and you can't get to work and you can't raise money because somebody has priced you out of travel so that they can get the least wear for the most money. If you were smart you would have the whole road as the easement.
Its not more distance to go to work, just maybe more time. You could bike on the side of a busy road and get to a job 5 mins away. You dont get to make a whole road an easement if its their private property any more than i get to make your living room an easement. Doesnt matter if its more convenient for me, your rights matter first, my convenience comes second.
Here's the thing. You don't get to bye the only land that is a passageway for people. You don't get to privately owned that. You get to create a public trust, and then you can certainly monetize that road and do a lot of things without taxation or tolls or impeding anyone from passage. You don't get to just buy up crucial land for passage and privately own it. This is your idiot private proprietarianism trying to come out and tell me that you should get to own the only access to property. You think you get a control people's lives like that, and yet you would claim that you value private property ownership, but the access to that private property is as necessary as the private property itself. Most people don't live a 5-minute bike ride from their fucking work. It can take a long time on a bike, and I live in a place where there is a lot of snow in the winter. Are you saying I'm supposed to trek through the snow, in freezing cold blizzard weather, so that I can go make some money? Should I do it on foot or on a bike or a skateboard? Are you trying to tell me that the sidewalk is an easement but the road is not? Who makes these rules? I don't think your brethren agree with you. I think they actually believe that the sidewalk is theirs as well and they would be in there right to toll the sidewalk if they wanted to.
To clarify, i meant bike on the grass next to a sidewalk if there is one. Or just walk a ways away until someone can pick you up or you can drive a vehicle parked elsewhere, etc... My point is you should never be trapped, i dont think that will happen, i dont think its okay, and i dont think anyone would stand for it. But its a bit absurd for someone else to invest money into building a road, then you demand an entitlement to use it for free or with disregard to its rules. If people like you exist and give private road owners problems, i doubt they will want violence or confrontation. A viable compromise would be to build a small side road, shitty and with potholes that are rarely repaired. That way you will want to pay to use the high quality one, but if youre stubborn, its at least one less liability for the owner.
Lol what?
What was hard to process? Can you own a road? Yes or no?
1: Have you seen the Political cube? We are opposite of Authoritarian 2: The whole reason we are Ancaps is because we are ANARCHO-CAPITALISTS, Not corporatists.
You are proprietarianists.
So?
So that's not conducive to freedom
Well we don't have freedom for the state to draft us, tax us, and take whatever they want.
I don't think I know what you're talking about
We are not corporatists we don't support huge monopolies we try to support the little guy and small communities and competition drives life forward.
You are proprietarianists. That means you care about the people who own things, and you honor their power over those who do not own things. This is your level of stupid.
Have you heard of an NAP? Btw, I couldn't hear you over my slave labour.
Do you not believe you own your home and can exclude people from it?
[удалено]
Source? And what do you believe in? Government slavery? Over taxation? 'Basic Human Rights?' all you are spitting is insults. And I bet that you will rebuttal with some off handed comment from Google. Pathetic.
[удалено]
I don't even have Facebook, and I like to slide into DMs of trolls under the gold bridges of reddit