bonifartius 𒂼𒄄 @bonifartius@social.cleverlibre.org

@tripu @ceoln
is that the monarchic "we"?

i'll try the short version:

- the most important assumption you have to have is that your fellow humans are _like you_.

- you argue that there will be widespread rape, murder and robberies.

- ?

@tripu then they are free to do that and the egoist wouldn't have much say?

@tripu that isn't what natural law means.

natural law means deducing principles like ownership from things other than "the king said so" or "some politicians decided that".

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law

@tripu
> “People being just left alone” sounds simple enough. But that is not #libertarianism, because many necessary ingredients are missing there (individualism, private property, the #NAP, voluntary contracts, etc). Also, it is trivial for anyone to formulate a political system with even fewer “assumptions” that we would all agree would be disastrous in practice.

those things are natural rights until you invent someone taking them. voluntary contracts are the natural state. ownership is the natural state for things you either create or extract.

stirner argues that if everyone decides upon egoism and stands by it, things would be fine.

> Parsimony is definitely a virtue in descriptive natural science, but not necessarily in prescriptive social science. We’re not discussing why homo sapiens came to be what it is, we’re discussing what are the best ways to organise complex societies.

social science has a problem with replication _and_ is done according to the "democratic" system. i'm not aware of research for a better societal construct. there seems to only ibe research for how to fix the shortcomings of our current one.

> I “defend the existence of a state with armed goons coercing you into obedience” (not that I would phrase it that way) only insofar as that’s a better state of the world than some given alternative. We don’t know of a better alternative to liberal capitalistic social-democratic nations. Whoever defends that a different system would make a better society as a whole needs to provide much better arguments than “my idea requires fewer assumptions”, because the stakes couldn’t be higher.

you have people you never legitimized taking things from you by force. if that isn't a racket then i'm not sure what is. if the mob does trash your restaurant after not paying up it's an unjust crime. if you don't pay taxes paying the people who rob and beat you (as last consequence) you are the criminal somehow.

how would _you_ call it?

you seem to limit the choices to has been tested and not failed by now. there are plenty of democracies which failed though. why not try something else without someone in power?

@ceoln @tripu show me where they aren't 💁

@Meckerkopp die luft-wasser teile taugen halt klimatisch fast nie, aber sind vielerorts das einzige was baulich geht.

wasser/wasser und wasser/sole (sole würd ich nicht machen wegen des risikos von sole im grundwasser) ist sinnvoll weil die temperatur der quellmedien nie so stark absinkt.

das hat mit dämmung so viel zutun wie jede andere heizung auch.

@Moon my brain fried by made in abyss: only if they aren't a cartridge!

@N33R

@tripu
> The onus is on defenders of #anarchocapitalism to prove that all those things have been tried in libertarian communities, and how exactly the State or outer authorities stopped all that.

why does the idea of people being just left alone need a proof? hell, we are on a science instance, for things like mutualism or voluntaryism you literally only need the few principles listed in my previous post.

to defend the existence of a state with armed goons coercing you into obedience you need many more assumptions in place.

i think it's rather self evident that the idea which requires fewer assumptions about the reality and humans is more likely to be correct.

> Taxes would be avoided to a large extent if such community worked as I explained, obscuring much of inner economic activity. (Some taxes are evaded outside libertarian utopias, after all.)
>
> You say “drain” of value. What about the alleged increase in value (as per libertarian ideas)? What about all the things members could do on their own, and with each other, in such a community?

you have taxes which make these things hard like property tax etc. to pay these taxes, you have to create value and exchange that for the outside money. then you have to pay taxes on _that_. this goes on and on. the state just forces so many big and small payments on you, that you don't have a realistic chance of establishing such a community without breaking any laws. as soon as you _do_ break the magic laws, you'll have people with guns at your doorstep robbing you.

> If libertarian ideas work only within the very narrow confines of a music festival (a couple of days or a week at most, with only a few hundred quids per person at stake, limited to very specific activities), then it’s further proof that libertarian ideas wouldn’t work for society.

i never said they _only_ work in these situations, i only said that those were the closest instances to a free peaceful market anarchy where "the law" is largely absent that i've witnessed.

@thatguyoverthere yes!