Well, considering i dont think anyones changed their position it seems you've done a lousy job. Hard to fault you considering your position is pretty much indefensible but the important thing is you tried.

The options aren't between democracy and AC. An AC-like state can arise through democracy and undemocratic governments can obviously opt for policies that limit peoples freedoms.

It just happens to be the case that it's really hard to convince an informed electorate that rights bequeathed by the freedom fairy should be their prime directive (even though a lot of people will pay their empty lip service to those ideals). It's like a religion. It costs nothing to say you believe so lots of people nod their head and pledge allegiance to it, and some i'm sure ARE actually "good" people with genuine convictions. But then when the rules require significant sacrifice of them the convictions shrivel up and self interest overrides it.

How many AC acolytes are out there advocating for open borders? None? Of course not. And they can whinge about how it isn't feasible given how generous social programs are, but if you really didn't like those programs this would be the perfect path to forcing the governments hand to thin them out.

Yes I agree. And once we get past the pure AC then there's a huge amount of AC type ideals that can be supported within a state. The more rational AC ideal has a state that's role is enforcing AC.

As you say, their problem is that not many want it.

On the tax side not many want it (actual support for it is amplified because the people who want it most oftne have the loudest voices), but I think on the social side of things we're already there. Giving people free reign to make horribly self defeating choices has bipartisan support these days, the divide is just in whether we let them suffer the consequences or bail them out.

open borders, ethical counter-economy, police child trafficking, favor ip... favor logical land titles, favor not full rights for the young adults (no you do not have the right to wreck your life pre-adult in various ways), favor locked doors and gun ownership, favor free market legal decisions to regulate problem/gray areas. favor free enterprise to lead and solve problems for profit.

well not many people want any other bills either. We accept them as having to pay for what we want and there's huge amounts many people want from government - education, health, roads, sewage/waste, regulations, redistribution, armies etc etc.

I'm not sure we would agree much about horrible self-defeating choices but it's unrelated to the sorts of things most people want government to spend money on.

a sensible libertarian gray market would alleviate suffering at the border right now.

A libertarian approach of just not caring about nations/borders sounds good to me but I'm not sure many libertarians would be on board.

Although sadly not many of anybody are on board.

yes, that's true many libertarians are moderates from the middle class.

best case scenario is that enlightened law enforcement and judges lock up the real criminals rather than fixating on border politics. but you know this wave of enlightenment ain't coming soon.

No, government is immoral because government initiates force against innocents. It is wrong to initiate force against an innocent, for example if I was walking down the street and punched a guy in the face for no reason. That would be bad.

How are you being coerced by the absence of a state? Who is threatening you with violence in that scenario? Or are you using a definition of coercion that is different from mine (coercion being threatening people with violence in order to get them to do what you want).

The libertarian position, that it is wrong to use violence against innocents, is entirely defensible. It is the statist position, that it is okay for the state to use violence or the threat of violence (coercion) against innocents which is logically indefensible. It flies in the face of everything that we know to be right and true.

If I had to guess I would say that the majority of supporters of anarcho-capitalism are in favour of open borders. Or at the very least a large minority. I know I certainly favour this policy.


It's self defeating to make any element of a free society contingent upon some other. I'm in favour of open borders, and I'm in favour of eliminating the welfare state, and I'm also in favour of any partial measure that makes any progress in either direction (while firmly maintaining my end goal is the elimination of the welfare state and the elimination of controls on the movement of people). Although I guess you could make a pretty strong case for keeping out convicted murderers and/or rapists.

Why not eliminate property?

Because we favour standards of living beyond those of subsistence agriculture?

How does people choosing to be governed by a democratically accountable government become 'force on innocents'?

Are we not allowed to chose this system?

Sure, we get utility out of having property. But why would you want to get rid of the welfare state then? Generally, the more the welfare state = better outcomes aka better utility.

businesses shouldn't be owned by individuals

I have not read this thread, but all taxes are paid in currency. You can opt not to use currency. Your life would be more difficult, but if you choose to use the currency, you choose to opt into taxes. This consequently invalidates the moral question, as you decided to collect currency for your time and that currency has "contracts" with the government that distributes it, if you will. If you do not want to pay taxes, dont collect currency.

It's inconsistent to give special status to people below some arbitrary age and once they pass the threshold it applies not at all.

Age is a piss poor proxy for the thing you're trying to accommodate. This is why we have specific laws that protect the senile, the elderly, the mentally incapacitated and even ordinary people in cases where the subject matter is sufficiently complex.

What does it even mean to favor gun ownership? For anyone? Do you also believe everyone should be able to drive regardless of whether they have insurance or have proven themselves capable of driving?

Paying for your risk premium to do things that jeopardize other peoples well being doesn't even fall outside the bounds of the libertarian framework. Unfettered gun access is the position only of lunatics.

When the taxes are levied, for example the income tax. With the income tax, the government is saying either you give them 30% (or whatever rate) of your labour or they will lock you in a cage. In fact, since if you defend yourself from being thrown in jail they reserve the right to use lethal force, they are really saying "give us x% of your income or we will kill you". The innocent here is the taxpayer, and the force is the killing should they not pay.

I assume by "better" outcomes you mean a higher degree of equality. That probably isn't even true (as historically the most laissez-faire societies saw standards of living increase for the poorest of the poor, along with everyone else, faster than in any other society), but even if it were, equal in my book is not necessarily better. If some douchebag pickpocket steals my wallet this probably results in a more equal distribution of wealth, but I for one will not celebrate it. Wealth is created, and I do not see why it is better for it to be redistributed away from those who created it to those who played no part in its creation.

The man equates crossing a line to driving drunk with a kid in the back, and thinks this way because they are both statutes. This is the black-and-white thinking of the border advocates. They are statist in the extreme.

Maybe in the memos or whatever there is some justification for the comparison, but I highly doubt it. Crossing a line in perhaps the attempt to better your family is simply not the same as driving drunk w/ a kid in the back. The border is in my mind an extreme position, and worse than welfare.

Agreed age is a piss poor proxy. I don't think everyone is alike at certain ages, but at some point it becomes expensive to treat everyone differently. For example car insurance does discriminate by age, but would make better decisions if there was more information to work with, depending on how they choose to run their business. Its my view though that certain drug addictions exploit children, whichbis what I meant. I think some people can be safe to drive at a young age in special circumstances for example. But, drinking young does change the psychology, and some psychology research could yield an educated opinion on that. Some restrictions are for good reasons. For example, I am not comfortable with big tobacco targeting children.

Likewise with gun ownership, there are of course limitations. And, no I don't feel they need to be specific. You should have life insurance, and if you are creating more risk than you are solving, then your insurance company faces more expenses. And, so a life insurance market, home owners market, etc. would restrict your gun rights to what is optimal given your situation.

For example, do you need grenades to protect your home? Well, no that's lunacy. You simply run the risk of killing your own family, and blowing up your home.

Beyond a certain wealth point where you can just pay 1M$ out of pocket, car insurance does not make sense. But aside from edge cases you should have car insurance.

And, while the bottom line of a competative market may sound cold... look at the line of the law right now and what they are saying. They are saying lock people up for life for small quantities of xyz, and mass deportations, and concentration camps. While politicians make cold decisions based on the chances of winning. And other persons try to do anything to get a promotion.

Possibly this means separate societies for seperate values. But no, we can't have that. It's one nation under god for a 3000mi stretch. And most of the land is unused. So, bigger picture there is a hidden land dysfunction. So to me if you are a libertarian who supports borders, you misunderstand the problems in the market, and to an extent libertarianism.

I think the best argument against AC is that removing coercion from the market requires regulation. A "free market" is extremely regulated. Sure, under a libertarian view "tax is theft". But you still do not remove theft by removing tax.

I realize AC proponents usually resolves this hypothetically by saying that contractual obligation would be used instead of legislation and arbitration used instead of jurisdiction. To me that sounds like a very convoluted web of contracts and arbitration, and the voluntary component sounds uncomfortably close to the voluntary choice of going back or forward when standing at a cliff's edge.

You should read 'Ethics of Liberty' if you are interested in the libertarian position on how the legal system might function absent a state. There would still be police, judges, law, etc. Rothbard lays the whole thing out quite clearly.

Rothbard also thinks that children should be bought and sold on the open market, and that that is a natural and desirable outcome of a stateless society.