<a href='https://talkpolitics.dreamwidth.org'>Talk politics.

You want a king. If I were king, the first thing I would do is to have you executed, for annoying me. That would seem to make the world a better place from the get-go. As

gunslnger pointed out below, there have been entire books and series of books written on the topic of the question you've asked. Thrusting out your chin beligerently and baldly asserting that nobody has ever been able to answer the question makes you look profoundly ignorant. It is the kind of argument one makes when one hopes to garner the accolades only of people more in the dark than oneself. You can have them. I am addressing those who can read and are willing to do some thinking. Your question is answered every day, by everyone who uses adjudication systems outside of the government's courts. Your question is answered every day by every property owner who opens his property to the public for visitation and commerce and who makes rules for their conduct. You are either too insensible to the functional anarchy that already exists all around you, or too ideologically and emotionally hostile to it to acknowledge it. Just because you don't like the answers doesn't mean they do not exist.

From:

mrbogey.livejournal.com

The other day at work a co-worker asked me how a certain tester worked because his understanding of electrical systems would mandate a test probe that the tester did not provide.

I told him it didn't need it because it's designed to do so non-invasively. He kept asking me "but how??"

Eventually I told him, "Look, I don't know how it works. Maybe it uses some electrical property of the system we don't realize or understand but it works."

And he responded again... "but how does it work?"

To which I just said, "I don't know but it does!"

From:

Nah, I can understand genuinely wanting to know the answer to something like that. The key question is, is your co-worker the kind of person to do his own digging and looking for answers besides just asking you over and over again.

Answers to the question you're talking about and answers to the questions about mechanisms a free society might use to guarantee property and provide security are in abundance, especially using the internet as a resource.

From:

I want no such thing. What I do want is an answer to the question, cupcake.

How would the super duper utopia of anarchocapitalist libertarian awesomeness you live to espouse actually function?

For all the effort you're putting into avoiding answering you could have given a really great answer.. if you had one.

Do you?

(deleted comment)

From:

And that answer is 'the wild west", as we all sort of suspected.

A scenario that rapidly grew beyond the tiny scale at which an ad-hoc society can function and started adapting with local and county governments, usually in response to "Swedgin" type gangster-barons.

(deleted comment)

From:

Also your ignoring the Homestead Act, Transcontinental Railroads, just how rapidly California became a state, the role of the Federal government and the US Army in eliminating the pesky natives who were already there......

From:

Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't realize that using a popular culture reference completely negated my, as you admit, completely valid point.

(deleted comment)

From:

I agree completely with the core libertarian value of maximum freedom for all, civil liberty, individual free will.

In fact, when pressed for a shorthand political self label, I use 'progressive libertarian'.

It just kills me that this is, more often than not, used as window dressing for market fundamentalism or otherwise taken to absurd extremes that externalize and ignore reality instead of as a guiding principle for actually operating in the world.

So if you've ever wondered why I'm so hard on lolbertarians, now you know. For whatever that's worth.

(deleted comment)

I love profit. I'm about to go make some right now

From:

squidb0i.livejournal.com - Date: 19/7/11 15:47 (UTC) - Expand

From:

Which is horseshit of the finest quality for manuring one's fields. The West had railroads, settlements, applied for territorial and state status rather quickly, and the influence of the Lincoln Administration's Homestead Act made the Wild West inconceivable without it. Sorry, this is not how anarcho-capitalism works in the real world.

(deleted comment)

From:

Actually if one's analogy of how libertarianism works in practice is the Wild West, it *is* bullshit. The only semi-viable analogy would be the conquistadors when they happened to win.

(deleted comment)

From:

Because the conquistadors were actually people working for themselves who did start out a second son of a noble and wound up kings of encomiendas. But that requires an argument beyond neener-neener.

(deleted comment)

Re: Yes, dear. Whatever you say, dear.

From:

squidb0i.livejournal.com - Date: 19/7/11 14:57 (UTC) - Expand

From:

SO perhaps summarizing those arguments would be in order, Miles Gloriosus.

From:

Summarize, eh, Marcus Lycus? All right. The key understanding is that there is no such thing as an authority to violate rights. There can be no delegated right or authority to initate force against anyone who has not themselves violated rights. Whatever organizations are voluntary and explicitly contracted for are legitimate. Those which presume to authority to confiscate property or otherwise infringe on the rights of others are immoral, and in a just society, resisted or at least eschewed by any moral person.

If one wants something, one pays for it, makes it oneself, trades for it, or receives it as a gift. If one wants to organize, the organization must be voluntary, not presumed under some sort of collectivist mysticism based upon race, religion, tribe, or geographical location. If one wants to partake of the goods and services of others, one obtains voluntary permission through persuasion, not plunder.

There is the operating criterion for any just organization or individual in a free society that claims to respect the common humanity. Any organization, organized for any purpose not violative of these means is legitimate. This would include any organization created for the purpose of providing security, or redress of grievances or dispute resolution.

From:

From each according to his ability, to each according to his need, eh?

From:

From each and to each according to his ambitions, talents, and desire to produce and trade, or to be the recipient or donor of voluntary largess. There is nothing wrong with the Golden Rule other than the fact that people keep looking for loopholes and exceptions to it.

From:

All right, Karl. We all know what would happen when this is tried, we've seen it before, but all right.

From:

malasadas.livejournal.com

I am amused by how smoothly the description of how things would work in Mincapistan can be applied to the glorious workers' paradise. That the similarities are papered over in heroic individualism and them vigorously denied only adds to the ironic humor.

From:

Fucking this.

From: