Duke

[Duke @Duke_4343]

@SProviso69292 @HoppeanGhoul Same arguments go for the “citizenry”.

[Duke @Duke_4343]

@SProviso69292 @HoppeanGhoul While security firms gain the most by not fighting. Just based on how corporations act now, even under government scrutiny, they would most certainly participate as little as possible. In fact, every private security contractor so far has only been effective at earning money.

[Duke @Duke_4343]

@SKanuckS @WattusMaximus @HoppeanGhoul Well the state would come and protect it if someone tried to take it. With no state a foreign nation or warlord would just take it.

[Duke @Duke_4343]

@KonsavageBret @HoppeanGhoul I agree it would be realistically impossible to not be a part of any “contract”, but if you want to live amongst people, there has to be some things which is agreed upon. The alternative is living in a place where the only reassurance you have of keeping your property are guns.

[Duke @Duke_4343]

@KonsavageBret @HoppeanGhoul Maybe the word contract carries some bad connotations. I use it mostly as a shorthand for agreement. I haven’t signed a contact with my friends to not steal from each other, but we still agree to not do it.
As for the “national” social contract, people are free to move.

[Duke @Duke_4343]

@KonsavageBret @HoppeanGhoul Let’s say a road. Resources would have to be wasted to make prevent people who didn’t pay from using it. The owner would be squeezing consumers as much as possible, and a new road can’t be rapidly erected. If it was we’d then have a bunch more roads that we don’t actually need.

[Duke @Duke_4343]

@KonsavageBret @HoppeanGhoul Markets excel at many things, but public goods, “national” security etc are usually provided by government because purely voluntary provision has well-known coordination failures. In my view there are plenty of improvements that should be tried before the abolishment of the state

[Duke @Duke_4343]

@KonsavageBret @HoppeanGhoul Personally I’m very satisfied with my government. I’d assume the difference in outlook is a result of the USA being so large that it struggles to accurately represent its population and provide what each group wants. A system with more than two parties would be a good start.

[Duke @Duke_4343]

@SProviso69292 @HoppeanGhoul I don’t think the state is necessary either, just the way of organizing society that is most likely to produce good outcomes. What is your ideal solution to a warlord or nation aggressing on anarchist territories? Private security firms? It’s usually the first issue in my mind.

[Duke @Duke_4343]

@SProviso69292 @HoppeanGhoul An agreement between people makes the clauses legitimate. What do you think makes something legitimate…? (On a country wide scale we’d never achieve 100% agreement so we have to settle for a majority or supermajority)

[Duke @Duke_4343]

@KonsavageBret @HoppeanGhoul Furthermore, it exists on multiple levels; between friends or family, your local community the nation as a whole. Usually most of these expectations are revoked by geographically leaving. But in intersocial cases you can just tell them you no longer want to be e.g. friends…

[Duke @Duke_4343]

@WattusMaximus @HoppeanGhoul And yeah I know about Quisling, been to his mansion even. What about him?

[Duke @Duke_4343]

@Fadrique247 @LettuceHK @HoppeanGhoul The Nazi Germany comparison actually reenforces my point: that regime didn’t have real, functioning mechanisms for citizens to engage with and change it. They weren’t participants but mere subjects.

[Duke @Duke_4343]

@HoppeanGhoul Calling taxation theft ignores the social contract. Modern societies function because people collectively fund shared services. Theft means taking property outside the legal and social framework; taxation is a democratically established obligation of participating in society.

[Duke @Duke_4343]

@Fadrique247 @LettuceHK @HoppeanGhoul That passage is arguing against a different claim that mere benefits or being allowed to participate once creates an obligation. My point is about the ongoing, structural ability to alter the system. A societal organization that the majority prefers to fiefdoms or corporatocracy

[Duke @Duke_4343]

@BeuwenDragon @HoppeanGhoul If you can opt out of taxes because you don’t want to pay them, can someone else opt out of respecting your property rights? Without a greater guarantor of property it ultimately belongs to whoever can successfully defend it. That’s not eliminating coercion it’s decentralizing it

[Duke @Duke_4343]

@LettuceHK @HoppeanGhoul Say you one day woke up on a boat with a group of people. You’re free to voice your opinion on where the boat should go, but that doesn’t override the will of the others. Though you didn’t choose to be here, the only options are to convince the rest or jump ship.