What do you think about the police?

[FlatAssembler]

I am quite sure people a few centuries ago thought similarly that human nature makes a society without slavery impossible.

The difference between the two should be obvious, but I’ll tell you anyway: The support of slavery is an expression of human nature - the desire to control other people. Anarcho-capitalism requires the opposite - not desiring to control other people. Since anarcho-capitalism would inevitably lead to an oligarchy of security firms controlling other people, your fantasy is doomed from the start. It doesn’t do away with the State, it simply swaps a public State for a privatized one. It is therefore not ‘anarcho’ anything.

Boru

Well, in real life, nothing is ever guaranteed, but I think everybody being armed in a libertarian society would do a good job preventing a state from forming.

[The Architect Of Fate]

More libertarian delusions.....🤡

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

The difference between the two should be obvious, but I’ll tell you anyway: The support of slavery is an expression of human nature - the desire to control other people. Anarcho-capitalism requires the opposite - not desiring to control other people. Since anarcho-capitalism would inevitably lead to an oligarchy of security firms controlling other people, your fantasy is doomed from the start. It doesn’t do away with the State, it simply swaps a public State for a privatized one. It is therefore not ‘anarcho’ anything.

Boru

Well, in real life, nothing is ever guaranteed, but I think everybody being armed in a libertarian society would do a good job preventing a state from forming.

Why on Earth would you think THAT??

Boru

[The Grand Nudger]

Never prevented the formation of a state before.

[FlatAssembler]

Well, in real life, nothing is ever guaranteed, but I think everybody being armed in a libertarian society would do a good job preventing a state from forming.

Why on Earth would you think THAT??

Boru

For about the same reason 2nd Amendment was written: everybody being armed prevents a government (or, for that sake, a monopoly of security companies) from getting too tyrranical.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Why on Earth would you think THAT??

Boru

For about the same reason 2nd Amendment was written: everybody being armed prevents a government (or, for that sake, a monopoly of security companies) from getting too tyrranical.

Never mind (for now) the fact that history shows you to be wrong, I'm interested to see how you reconcile those two positions:

1. Everyone being armed would prevent a State from forming.

2. Everyone being armed prevents the State from being too tyrannical.

How can the State become tyrannical when it never formed in the first place?

Boru

[FlatAssembler]

For about the same reason 2nd Amendment was written: everybody being armed prevents a government (or, for that sake, a monopoly of security companies) from getting too tyrranical.

Never mind (for now) the fact that history shows you to be wrong, I'm interested to see how you reconcile those two positions:

1. Everyone being armed would prevent a State from forming.

2. Everyone being armed prevents the State from being too tyrannical.

How can the State become tyrannical when it never formed in the first place?

Boru

I thought that, by "forming a state in a libertarian society", you mean the following happens:
1) Crime raises to the level that cannot be controlled simply by everybody being armed. (I see no reason to think that will happen, but let's say so.)
2) Some entrepreneurs start "security companies" that are supposed to help against crime. And people buy into their propaganda. (OK, I guess it's possible. After all, people are buying into egg industry propaganda that they aren't causing superbacteria, which is even more ridiculous than saying that a company can help us against crime.)
3) Those companies start making contracts with each other, effectively forming a monopoly (Really? And not a single company will proclaim itself to protect from other security companies? Like NSA and TOR Project work against each other?).
4) That monopoly starts doing tyrranical things. So, you call it a "state".

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Never mind (for now) the fact that history shows you to be wrong, I'm interested to see how you reconcile those two positions:

1. Everyone being armed would prevent a State from forming.

2. Everyone being armed prevents the State from being too tyrannical.

How can the State become tyrannical when it never formed in the first place?

Boru

I thought that, by "forming a state in a libertarian society", you mean the following happens:
1) Crime raises to the level that cannot be controlled simply by everybody being armed. (I see no reason to think that will happen, but let's say so.)
2) Some entrepreneurs start "security companies" that are supposed to help against crime. And people buy into their propaganda. (OK, I guess it's possible. After all, people are buying into egg industry propaganda that they aren't causing superbacteria, which is even more ridiculous than saying that a company can help us against crime.)
3) Those companies start making contracts with each other, effectively forming a monopoly (Really? And not a single company will proclaim itself to protect from other security companies? Like NSA and TOR Project work against each other?).
4) That monopoly starts doing tyrranical things. So, you call it a "state".

Simply because a State exists doesn’t make it tyrannical [note correct spelling]. But I’m glad you agree with me that anarcho-capitalism simply replaces a public State with a private one.

Boru

[FlatAssembler]

I thought that, by "forming a state in a libertarian society", you mean the following happens:
1) Crime raises to the level that cannot be controlled simply by everybody being armed. (I see no reason to think that will happen, but let's say so.)
2) Some entrepreneurs start "security companies" that are supposed to help against crime. And people buy into their propaganda. (OK, I guess it's possible. After all, people are buying into egg industry propaganda that they aren't causing superbacteria, which is even more ridiculous than saying that a company can help us against crime.)
3) Those companies start making contracts with each other, effectively forming a monopoly (Really? And not a single company will proclaim itself to protect from other security companies? Like NSA and TOR Project work against each other?).
4) That monopoly starts doing tyrranical things. So, you call it a "state".

Simply because a State exists doesn’t make it tyrannical [note correct spelling]. But I’m glad you agree with me that anarcho-capitalism simply replaces a public State with a private one.

Boru

Like I've said, each of those steps of how a private state would form seems problematic. Why would crime rise to the point that everybody being armed does not control it? Would people really think security companies are the answer? Would security companies really form a monopoly (rather than working against each other, like NSA and TOR Project)?

[The Grand Nudger]

Like I've said, each of those steps of how a private state would form seems problematic. Why would crime rise to the point that everybody being armed does not control it?

I can't see why it would rise by necessity, but I do wonder whether this anarcho-capitalist state(....?) would be paying me for having my guns and paying me more for using them to stop crime, because..if not..I aint doin it...and they aren't capitalists....and if so..I'm pretty sure that makes me a bog standard cop?

Would people really think security companies are the answer?

Already do. Cast your gaze over the gated communities of the world.

Would security companies really form a monopoly (rather than working against each other, like NSA and TOR Project)?

Already do. Cast your gaze over the security conglomerates that work said gated communities and the attendent financial, production, and shipping centers that support them.

That's why we have (poorly enforced) anti-trust laws. How does the anarcho-capitalist state(...still....?) view anti-trust laws?