What do you think about the police?

[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

Yeah, it's often said that knowing Latin helps you with spelling. But, first of all, knowing Latin will not at all help you to guess the spelling of Greek words, such as "tyrannical". And even with Latin words, it can often mislead you. The Latin word for "serious" is "serius", without the silent 'o'. Makes some sense when you know the history of French, but it's far from knowing Latin language helping you guess the spelling. And the Latin word for "air" is "aer", and I don't know why it is spelt with 'i' in English. The Latin word for "literature" is "litteratura", with double 't', and I don't know why it's a single 't' in English. And there are many such examples.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

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)?

Crime wouldn’t rise to that level, and everybody being armed does not control crime (it exacerbates it). 

Here are some more problems for you to ignore:

-How is everybody going to be armed?

-Who is going to arm them?

-Who does ‘everybody’ include?

-Anarcho-capitalism is all about property right. Could someone use violence to defend themselves against a non-property crime?

-Who, in your stateless society, is going to punish people who commit crimes? Who will have the authority to fine or imprison them?

Boru

[Angrboda]

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

Yeah, it's often said that knowing Latin helps you with spelling. But, first of all, knowing Latin will not at all help you to guess the spelling of Greek words, such as "tyrannical". And even with Latin words, it can often mislead you. The Latin word for "serious" is "serius", without the silent 'o'. Makes some sense when you know the history of French, but it's far from knowing Latin language helping you guess the spelling. And the Latin word for "air" is "aer", and I don't know why it is spelt with 'i' in English. The Latin word for "literature" is "litteratura", with double 't', and I don't know why it's a single 't' in English. And there are many such examples.

[FlatAssembler]

everybody being armed does not control crime (it exacerbates it)

I thought that, in most cities in the USA, it's the black neighborhoods that are the highest in crime, and that they also have the lowest gun ownership (because blacks tend to be left-wing).

How is everybody going to be armed?

With whatever weapons the market provides. Similar to how now almost everybody has a mobile phone: they have whatever mobile phone the market provides.

Who is going to arm them?

They are going to arm themselves. Similar to how now almost everybody has a mobile phone: people buy those things for themselves.

Who does ‘everybody’ include?

Everybody who wants to be armed. Those who believe in anarcho-capitalism, those who believe in conservativism... In short, everybody but the strongest opponents of anarcho-capitalism.

Anarcho-capitalism is all about property right. Could someone use violence to defend themselves against a non-property crime?

Sorry, I do not understand the question.

Who, in your stateless society, is going to punish people who commit crimes? Who will have the authority to fine or imprison them?

Like I've said earlier, I think the idea that we should punish criminals is nonsense...

[arewethereyet]

everybody being armed does not control crime (it exacerbates it)

I thought that, in most cities in the USA, it's the black neighborhoods that are the highest in crime, and that they also have the lowest gun ownership (because blacks tend to be left-wing).

How is everybody going to be armed?

With whatever weapons the market provides. Similar to how now almost everybody has a mobile phone: they have whatever mobile phone the market provides.

Who is going to arm them?

They are going to arm themselves. Similar to how now almost everybody has a mobile phone: people buy those things for themselves.

Who does ‘everybody’ include?

Everybody who wants to be armed. Those who believe in anarcho-capitalism, those who believe in conservativism... In short, everybody but the strongest opponents of anarcho-capitalism.

Anarcho-capitalism is all about property right. Could someone use violence to defend themselves against a non-property crime?

Sorry, I do not understand the question.

Who, in your stateless society, is going to punish people who commit crimes? Who will have the authority to fine or imprison them?

Like I've said earlier, I think the idea that we should punish criminals is nonsense...

Have you read that rule we have about posting stuff you wrote for other sites, blogs, etc.?

Maybe you should.

[FlatAssembler]

Yeah, it's often said that knowing Latin helps you with spelling. But, first of all, knowing Latin will not at all help you to guess the spelling of Greek words, such as "tyrannical". And even with Latin words, it can often mislead you. The Latin word for "serious" is "serius", without the silent 'o'. Makes some sense when you know the history of French, but it's far from knowing Latin language helping you guess the spelling. And the Latin word for "air" is "aer", and I don't know why it is spelt with 'i' in English. The Latin word for "literature" is "litteratura", with double 't', and I don't know why it's a single 't' in English. And there are many such examples.

Sorry, I cannot see the image there. I tried both on mobile an on desktop. Could you please try posting it some other way?

[Angrboda]

What kind of computer science are you studying?

[FlatAssembler]

What kind of computer science are you studying?

I don't know how to respond. I am studying Computer Engineering (računarstvo) on the FERIT University. Why do you ask?

If you mean to say that I should study at an even more difficult university (FER or perhaps MATHOS), I cannot do that. Even FERIT is too much for me. I've been enrolled in a three-years program for five years now.

[The Grand Nudger]

I thought that, in most cities in the USA, it's the black neighborhoods that are the highest in crime,

Nope.

and that they also have the lowest gun ownership

Nope.

(because blacks tend to be left-wing).

Nope.

Anywho, this business of arming up all the anarchists and "those who love conservatism" sounds like a great idea to me.  We give them weapons, and they destroy each other with them, yes?

[FlatAssembler]

Yeah, it's often said that knowing Latin helps you with spelling. But, first of all, knowing Latin will not at all help you to guess the spelling of Greek words, such as "tyrannical". And even with Latin words, it can often mislead you. The Latin word for "serious" is "serius", without the silent 'o'. Makes some sense when you know the history of French, but it's far from knowing Latin language helping you guess the spelling. And the Latin word for "air" is "aer", and I don't know why it is spelt with 'i' in English. The Latin word for "literature" is "litteratura", with double 't', and I don't know why it's a single 't' in English. And there are many such examples.

Do you mean to claim that knowing Latin helps a lot with English spelling? If so, why? Like I've said, somebody who knows Latin would probably guess that "serious" is spelt "serius" (like in Latin), that "air" is spelt "aer" (like in Latin), that "literature" is spelt "litterature" (like Latin "litteratura"), that "flame" is spelt "flamme" (like Latin "flamma"), that "sum" is spelt "summe" (like Latin "summa"), and so on...