I didn’t say anything about any regieme. I was speaking plain and simple Ancap ideology which is so obviously broken (as I demonstrated) that it’s funny. It’s a collection of soundbites, sounding good to neoliberal edgelords, masquerading as principles, which break apart as soon as you connect them up because they contradict each other. As, to wit, the “everyone is bound to non-aggression” and “there’s no such thing as a social contract” thing. I don’t even have to bring up that private property is violence in itself.
I don’t know who’s interpretation of Anarcho-Capitalism you are following, but since ther has never been an Anarcho Capilist government in the world (which sounds ironical) it’s all just ideas and interpretations, of which seem you are grabbing the worst of the pile.
Rothbard’s definition includes in the fundamentals of the Contractual Society being voluntarily approached and free of violence or harm, which is to say that if you do not respect the inalienable rights of the others, you are violating the Contract for being in that society, and you are rightfully gonna be aprehended. There is no contradiction
Also, to what you said about “demonstrated” something, mind linking to what you have? There’s nothing around here like that
So I must have the opportunity to live outside it. How does Ancap theory limit land ownership, and the defence of that land by force? If you don’t then nothing about Ancappery is voluntary.
free of violence or harm,
Then there must not be capital accumulation: For resources are power and accumulation of power corrupts even the most virtuous mind.
which is to say that if you do not respect the inalienable rights of the others, you are violating the Contract for being in that society, and you are rightfully gonna be aprehended.
So if you, or ancaps collectively, own all the land which prevents me from exercising my inalienable right to not be part of any of their fiefdoms then they are violating that contract, and will be rightly apprehended by their goons.
I think the social contract thing came into the general anarchist vs. ancap discussion because social contract theory leads to a lot of things Ancaps don’t want, such as universal welfare, so people at least on the internet started dismissing it entirely. But it just so happens that you made your own contradiction so I didn’t need to recourse to that, you built a contradiction into your description of ancap fundamentals: Congratulations, you back a political suicide cult.
The principle of no-agression and respecting the other’s freedom are literally the principles or Anarcho-capitalism
This measures ensure that those are enforced, how is it against anarcho-capitalism?
I never signed no no-aggression treaty and as ancaps don’t consider social contracts valid I’d say I’m free to to whatever the fuck I want.
What are you on about?
Are you confusing principles and ideals of an ideology for an instated regime? Or what’s your point here
I didn’t say anything about any regieme. I was speaking plain and simple Ancap ideology which is so obviously broken (as I demonstrated) that it’s funny. It’s a collection of soundbites, sounding good to neoliberal edgelords, masquerading as principles, which break apart as soon as you connect them up because they contradict each other. As, to wit, the “everyone is bound to non-aggression” and “there’s no such thing as a social contract” thing. I don’t even have to bring up that private property is violence in itself.
I don’t know who’s interpretation of Anarcho-Capitalism you are following, but since ther has never been an Anarcho Capilist government in the world (which sounds ironical) it’s all just ideas and interpretations, of which seem you are grabbing the worst of the pile.
Rothbard’s definition includes in the fundamentals of the Contractual Society being voluntarily approached and free of violence or harm, which is to say that if you do not respect the inalienable rights of the others, you are violating the Contract for being in that society, and you are rightfully gonna be aprehended. There is no contradiction
Also, to what you said about “demonstrated” something, mind linking to what you have? There’s nothing around here like that
So I must have the opportunity to live outside it. How does Ancap theory limit land ownership, and the defence of that land by force? If you don’t then nothing about Ancappery is voluntary.
Then there must not be capital accumulation: For resources are power and accumulation of power corrupts even the most virtuous mind.
So if you, or ancaps collectively, own all the land which prevents me from exercising my inalienable right to not be part of any of their fiefdoms then they are violating that contract, and will be rightly apprehended by their goons.
I think the social contract thing came into the general anarchist vs. ancap discussion because social contract theory leads to a lot of things Ancaps don’t want, such as universal welfare, so people at least on the internet started dismissing it entirely. But it just so happens that you made your own contradiction so I didn’t need to recourse to that, you built a contradiction into your description of ancap fundamentals: Congratulations, you back a political suicide cult.