… is leave you alone, protects property rights…
Protects property rights from what? From theft by the government. Which is what governments always do, because they can not produce anything. So to protect against the institutional thievery, businesses have to grow big. What use is government, if all it does is steal from you? And if not-stealing is considered laudable, why government at all? If it doesn’t exist, it can not steal from you. So non-existence must be the most desirable form of government.
At approx. 14:00 in this vid: https://youtu.be/5nuD_CIUJzM
Communists are opposed to the idea of private property. Yet private property is a perfectly natural phenomenon. Because: the default mode in nature is to constantly be on the verge of starvation, because energy (food) is scarce, and even requires energy to acquire. (Hunting or forraging) So, once acquired, the creature will want to reap the benefits itself, and eat that food – replenish the energy lost in acquiring it, and satiate the hunger that prompted the attempt at acquiring the food in the first place.
Which is why Cheetahs drag their catch into a tree, lions fight off hyenas/other lyons. Any creature that continues to let others steal its food, forcing the creature to make another attempt, invest more energy, and then risk having that prey stolen once more.
The same holds true for nests, though not edible; it costs energy to build one, so a bird will not want another bird to steal its nest.
Of course, offspring is very costly in terms of energy investment, so the parental instinct to protect offspring is another manifeststion of the instinct to protect private property.
Anarcho-communists are both opposed to private property, and political rule. Of course, one cannot expect that an entire society full of people will voluntarily choose to fight their own natural instincts and abolish private property. Therefore, commnism requires a political ruler, a despot to enforce non-ownership on his (if communism wouldn’t have claimed 200 million casualties, I’d call it a delightful irony) subjects.
Ancoms are typically agressive people, because:
- Leftism attracts violent characters, due to its nature
- The mental gymnastics needed to try to unite such opposite concepts inevitably results in mental fatigue/spraining of the mind.
Who’ll make the roads?
Is a common complaint about statelessness; if there’s no state to build the roads, who would do it?
Proof that roads can be provided privately: the French Autoroutes are all privately operated toll roads.
Because the French state doesn’t have to spend money on .otorways, they can spend that money on luxuries like universal health care.
Of course, there is the issue of emminent domain where the state can confiscate property to make room for roads. Businesses can’t do that (which is why that is the prefetable solution) but at least one hurdle has been taken in answering the titular question.
Private roads need not be funded by toll, but that can be part of the price of products businesses sell, just like buildings are.
At around 12:09 you’ll see a piece of this ruling:
A government and its agents are under no general duty to provide… police protection to any individual citizen.
Warren v District of Columbia
(444 A.2d 1 (D.C. Ct of Ap., 1981))
Makes me wonder why not every cop in the country resigned in protest: “I only joined the force to help people, but now that it the court has ruled that that’s not my job, I don’t want to know what my actual job is, then. So I quit!”
Actually, I have an idea why: cops are America’s fastest growing class of millionaires
Also makes me wonder what on earth the reason is, that any single citizen still accepts the existence of the nation, since its purpose is not to defend the people – that make up the only reason for the existence of the nation
But the people are forced (at gunpoint, if necessary) to pay for the cowardly, powermad leaches. That is why a stateless society: no business could get away with that; they’d go bankrupt, because nobody would pay them; no income, yet high expenses means:
Mijn grote grutten, WO3 is niet ver meer verwijderd; de politieke spelers moeten en zullen ‘m uitlokken.
De Nieuw-Zeelandse pers meldt http://www.newshub.co.nz/home/shows/2018/03/no-evidence-russia-shot-down-plane-meddled-in-us-election-peters.amp.html?__twitter_impression=true
dat er geen bewijs is van:
- Russische betrokkenheid bij de MH17-ramp
- Bij de verkiezing van Trump
- Dat Hillary de verkiezingen heeft verloren heeft ze op eigen kracht gedaan; de hysterische onzin over dat “de Russen haare-mails hebben gestolen” is allang en breed ontkracht, het is definitief bewezen dat ze lokaal waren gekopieerd, niet over het internet.
De NAVO groeit, tegen de afspraken in, steeds dichter bij de grens van Rusland aan, ongrleacht hoe ver die grensverwijderd is van de Noord-Atlantische oceaan
Vergeet Halbe Zijlstra niet, die ook zijn steentje wilde bijdragen, en nu gelukkig verdwenen is. Het is dus maar afwachten wat voor rotzak zijn vervanger is.
This is such a powerful case against capitalism! The corrupted leadership of a tiny “shithole” nation sells oil rights to a western oil company, the firm does a few back of the envelope calculations and concludes that fixing the leaks is costlier than letting the people suffer health-problems, A few bribes still didn’t sway the calculation the other way.
If anything, this is the best argument for capitalism, for all encompassing private ownership (democratic ownership) of everything. To avoid the trap of the magical authority of the state. If the oil company wants to bribe people, it’ll have to bribe a whole lot of them, thus skewing the calculation for the better as regards the environment.
There are many more parties that can defend their interests, eithet individually, or they can form a united front against the oil company. They can then defend the people’s interests (thrir own) which a government of course will not do: they’re nore interested in “the national interest,” or “the greater good,” or the glory of the nation (which is the political monstrosity, excluding the people).
Zulke tragische (en onnodige) ongelukken als waarbij de windmolenmonteurs zijn omgekomen, zijn te vermijden indien burgers hun eigen verantwoordelijkheid gaan gebruiken, ipv blindelings te vertrouwen op hogerhand.
Zie je iets wat onveilig is, trek aan de bel en verricht die klus niet! Wil de werkgever je dan ontslaan namens werkweigering? Niemand anders zal voor een bedrijf met zo’n reputatie willen werken. Dus dan heeft de baas geen andere keuze dan de regels aan te scherpen.
Joh, wat zou ik graag leven in zo’n samenleving van slimme en krachtige, ipv volgzame, inititiatiefloze mensen.
Dit is niet bedoeld als sneer naar de slachtoffers, trouwens!