That people not be stolen from for things they do not want or need. That people coexist peacefully without trying to extort, manipulate, cheat, steal or connive other people. That this world does not exterminate itself in some blind sense of fulfilling prophecy when in actuality, it is rather simple to see and transcribe the error of Men and how we can and will destroy ourselves. (not excluding any sort of deity, just saying we wouldn't necessarily need flood waters to exterminate this planet)
Hell no. The concept of police is abhorrent to my senses. Why do I need police? If one wanted extra security or help with a problem with all involved acting in accordance to the Law, that would be fine. And if a company wanted to retain the tarnished name and call themselves, "police", that would be their choosing as well. But as soon as they acted outside of the law, they should be immediately dealt with. (and probably would, depending on who they harassed [once their protected status ceased)
Anarcho Capitalism is just as unsustainable as Minarchism, but atleast minarchism has some history of succeeding,would be easier for people to grasp, and is more possible to achieve within our lifetime.
I am arguing for freedom. Saying freedom is unsustainable is only wise if you include the phrase, "unless the populace remains diligent in their duty." What's easy for people to grasp has relatively little sake to me. I give the planet one hundred years if society doesn't see the light. I don't lose sleep over what petty authoritarians are comfortable with. Fuck them. They ruined everything good about this planet. If that is to be their fate,.... meh. As to achieving what within our lifetime, you are optimistic. I'm not as much. Not that I don't wish for a
more free society (if
true freedom is considered too radical, of course
) but ultimately I'd consider myself naive or a fool to not see the writing on the wall. I understand that it is often times difficult to come to such terms with human nature. I am not implying or intending to state you to be naive or a fool.
How does an Anarcho Capitalist society prevent new states arising (as historically happened at the dawn of civilization)?
First, just to clarify, I don't readily call myself an "anarcho-capitalist" though the term is often times used to describe my views. What I say is probably more or less in line with what an anarcho-capitalist may say, but some probably disagree with me on things here and there. In any case, I will attempt to answer your questions.
"We" don't. If people wish to live voluntarily with a central planning structure that is their right. I have no interest in what level of freedom everyone else wants. If they wish to set up a commune, work for the community, and divvy out food; cool. People understanding the Natural Rights of Men (I say
Men to illustrate mankind, btw, women are granted the same Rights as the next.) would do the world good.
How does it protect itself from a world with other states?
Guns. And a willingness to die for your Rights.
How do we even achieve a stateless world?
Not to seem dodgy with answering your question with a question but does that mean we not try? How did David slay Goliath? How did any intellectual revolution happen? Through persistent agitators challenging the status quo and through a changing and education of the people. The slaves who died in an attempt to seize their Rights, were they in error? This notion that because something appears to be impossible, we ought not try or simply settle for something else is a defeatist attitude. The minds of Men move mountains.
Beyond the philosophical arguments your costs are completely exaggerated (Trillions for veterans medical care? please) as the US of old did all the things I mentioned above without going anywhere near your costs.
No they are not. Do you know how much money a single veteran with brain cancer, or leukemia, or lung cancer's care is going to total? We are talking multiple millions. Do you know how many soldiers were exposed? What about those and their treatments else wise? Those who are subsidized pills and therapy, prosthetic limbs and joints, the home hospice care, the rehabilitation centers, the nurse's and doctor's and oncologist's salary, the maintenance of said facilities, the airlifts, the ambulances, the lifetimes of medical complications? "trillions" is conservative. We are talking some 300 billion a year going to the VA and related services... and the services are still shitty! I mean, to actually provide them with the healthcare they need, it could never happen unless you had a funny money scheme and mass theft from the public. And even with all that, they are homeless, committing suicide, rats in the hospitals, denied care, infected through contaminated equipment... My "exaggeration" stands. (especially considering the next lawsuit to be paid when some 10,000 of them are casually infected with Hepatitis)
They shouldn't have been there is one thing, to deny that there is an extreme cost to be burdened on the backs of future generations is another. We are still paying the interest of WWI. And you mean to convince me that twenty dollars a month could possibly cover these expenditures?
Things like courts can be funded through user fees, police can be voluntary and part of a civic duty instead of professional forces.
Generally speaking, I agree. "Police" is a word that needs to be removed from the human lexicon.
We wouldnt need such large police forces with so many former "crimes" being legalized."
We don't need any police. Perhaps I am nitpicking words, but the very label of "police" draws implied visualizations of a class separate from the rest. An entitled class. If people wished to invest in a service where if they needed help someone would arrive, they would be free to do so. The people arriving would be bound by every Law and held personally accountable for their actions. It isn't as if they'd be roaming the streets looking for a possible would be, could be criminal. Their actions would be extremely limited in scope in that they would be the same actions any other person could take. This qualified immunity and circular force continuum ought be burnt. And to hell with the concept of police.
Likewise the military would be small and for defensive purposes, completely voluntary.
The president commands them to do his (and the related interests of few) bidding. Your system would be systematically undermined. War is the health of the state. A few manipulators or provocateurs would have the people clapping for another invasion. The Framers understood the problems with having a standing army. Disregarding their views on the matter is foolish.
I vaguely recall reading about practicing all week and not playing in the Sunday football game through the words of a soldier. You can't practice for months on end without itching to
play on Sundays. Many are anxious to fight. Many are anxious to kill. And many Americans share their views. The whores of media can easily convince a scared and timid populace to be subservient to their ideas (wars).
What cant be funded through user fees can be funded through a very low head tax, which is a fixed tax of lets say 10-20 dollars a month that applies to all regardless of income.
That would never fund the bare minimum. We are talking about three months, perhaps, worth of medical care for soldiers with the seventy-two billion raised by your example. But never mind even that, what if I don't want to pay? What if I don't pay? Am I going to be put in prison for not paying? The answer undoubtedly would be yes. (or some other form of indenturing servitude.) But who would pay for that? Who would pay for the equivalent bureau of the IRS? Would regulations and a bigger need for an increased head tax not be an issue? Would, by you compromising to the precedent of even that, not be complacent or even to blame for what would come in the following decades? Would the people who vote, through paying their union dues, (while not actually being involved in any union) not attempt to strip the Rights from those who did not want nor need the services?
Ignoring even all that. Can I be left alone in your minarchist ideal? Is that too "radical" of me to ask of society? (a rhetorical question)
People can pay for it in lump sum at the beginning or end of the year or month or they can pay it weekly, however they feel is less intrusive, Rothbard described the head tax as the best-worst tax to have. This would be the only tax the government would be allowed to apply, and raising or lowering it would be immediately felt by all. If you dont pay it you cant vote.
What are people voting for? To take further rights from those who refuse to be extorted? For politicians who will protect someone (while denying another) and hand out "freebies" in return for power?
Is this system perfect and pure? No but theres no such thing as utopia. We should constantly strive for the ideal stateless society but must understand its untenable.
There is no such thing as a utopia. Because people feel their wants or needs are superior to a person's freedom. Voluntary interaction is what we should strive for. Untenable? Maybe. Then again, the world is prophesied to be untenable. Looking at the nature of humanity, it doesn't take an Angel of God to deliver that message. The evil abounds.
But in any case, I find myself not interested in how human nature is, or what level of attainability freedom has but more focused on how it should be and trying to educate those of another way. The earth will be clouded anyways. Waste it voting for the lesser of two evils, I'll waste it talking myself blue; in the end it hardly will matter.
