@necrospaia Iโve noticed itโs mostly just the ones who donโt actually know any theory and are really just vibe-ertarians. Captain AnCapistan is usually one of the worst of those I usually see.
@ultimatecub0@ProjectAncap@Ouroboros88_ I appreciate the polite conversation :) I hope I can eventually convince you that private societies are really in the best interest of everyone
@ultimatecub0@ProjectAncap@Ouroboros88_ I agree, and I think in that book Hoppe makes an argument for that as well. If i remember correctly, he makes the argument that it is always cheaper to chose non-aggressive over aggressive solutions. The state even in democracies is always acting somewhat aggressively ~
@ultimatecub0@ProjectAncap@Ouroboros88_ I would agree that that is a possibility, but states can and somewhat do this already. And if a PMC were to act aggressively it is in the best interest of other PMCs to get involved as they are likely to begin threatening everyone hurting the business interest of other PMCs
@ultimatecub0@ProjectAncap@Ouroboros88_ This is true and this is a problem caused completely by states acting aggressively. This only goes to show how states act aggressively to the detriment of most involved.
@ultimatecub0@ProjectAncap@Ouroboros88_ That being said, it is very likely that use of nuclear weaponry would be an aggressive act no matter what as there is no way I can conceive in which you can use nuclear weaponry without killing innocents (committing an aggressive act)
@ultimatecub0@ProjectAncap@Ouroboros88_ With Mutually Assured Destruction, it stands to me that it is extremely risky to threaten nuclear war with anyone. It would be in a PMCโs best interest if they wanted to stay private to develop nuclear weaponry. I also donโt think state bulling justifies state agression.
@ultimatecub0@ProjectAncap@Ouroboros88_ Iโm not exactly clear on what you mean by this? Weโre defining aggression as violation of an individualโs natural rights (property rights), self defense is not aggression (defense of property rights)
@ultimatecub0@ProjectAncap@Ouroboros88_ It would be much less likely to succeed against a well-developed private society. Which through the free-market would be able to more rapidly develop and produce weaponry.
@ultimatecub0@ProjectAncap@Ouroboros88_ Once again, it would be better run if it was privatized. Public transportation running efficiently doesnโt refute the fact that private transportation would be better run and more efficiently funded.
@ultimatecub0@ProjectAncap@Ouroboros88_ I would encourage you to read, The private production of defense by Hans-Hermann Hoppe I have linked above. Itโs a free pdf online if you donโt want to go through the link.
@ultimatecub0@ProjectAncap@Ouroboros88_ Once again, it is in the best interests of everyone to stop aggressors. If there was no state and a band of bandits were accosting my neighbor, I, and I believe many others would step in, because one day they will likely come after me and the rest of the neighborhood.
@ultimatecub0@ProjectAncap@Ouroboros88_ That is the excuse the state gives but you are mistaken. The U.S. steals money from its citizens to and reallocates it to itself and whatever the political class says it should go. This doesnโt change the fact that defense and military agencies could be privately funded.
@ultimatecub0@ProjectAncap@Ouroboros88_ PMCs already exist. The U.S. centrally planning defense doesnโt make that defense better because it is monopolized by the state. Even if the state were to let China waltz in and attempt to take it by force id argue it would be extremely difficult because of armed local citizens.