Smushy Snake 🐍

NAPist. Writer. Anarcho-Capitalist. Exploring Objectivism. Trying not to be retarded. Zeil Zulu gang.

[Smushy Snake 🐍 @SmushySnake]

@Califemboy

[Smushy Snake 🐍 @SmushySnake]

@HoppeanCJ

[Smushy Snake 🐍 @SmushySnake]

@necrospaia I’ve noticed it’s mostly just the ones who don’t actually know any theory and are really just vibe-ertarians. Captain AnCapistan is usually one of the worst of those I usually see.

[Smushy Snake 🐍 @SmushySnake]

@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

[Smushy Snake 🐍 @SmushySnake]

@ultimatecub0 @ProjectAncap @Ouroboros88_ Because the state is at the very least stealing from its citizens to provide for these negotiations

[Smushy Snake 🐍 @SmushySnake]

@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 ~

[Smushy Snake 🐍 @SmushySnake]

@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

[Smushy Snake 🐍 @SmushySnake]

@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.

[Smushy Snake 🐍 @SmushySnake]

@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)

[Smushy Snake 🐍 @SmushySnake]

@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 PMC’s best interest if they wanted to stay private to develop nuclear weaponry. I also don’t think state bulling justifies state agression.

[Smushy Snake 🐍 @SmushySnake]

@ultimatecub0 @ProjectAncap @Ouroboros88_ I’m not exactly clear on what you mean by this? We’re defining aggression as violation of an individual’s natural rights (property rights), self defense is not aggression (defense of property rights)

[Smushy Snake 🐍 @SmushySnake]

@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.

[Smushy Snake 🐍 @SmushySnake]

@ultimatecub0 @ProjectAncap @Ouroboros88_ I would ask again why this cannot be provided privately?

[Smushy Snake 🐍 @SmushySnake]

@ultimatecub0 @ProjectAncap @Ouroboros88_ Once again, it would be better run if it was privatized. Public transportation running efficiently doesn’t refute the fact that private transportation would be better run and more efficiently funded.

[Smushy Snake 🐍 @SmushySnake]

@ultimatecub0 @ProjectAncap @Ouroboros88_ I would encourage you to read, The private production of defense by Hans-Hermann Hoppe I have linked above. It’s a free pdf online if you don’t want to go through the link.

[Smushy Snake 🐍 @SmushySnake]

@ultimatecub0 @ProjectAncap @Ouroboros88_ https://t.co/8GrcWRTFM8

[Smushy Snake 🐍 @SmushySnake]

@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.

[Smushy Snake 🐍 @SmushySnake]

@ultimatecub0 @ProjectAncap @Ouroboros88_ Resources would have been more efficiently allocated if it was market-based and not centrally planned.

[Smushy Snake 🐍 @SmushySnake]

@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 doesn’t change the fact that defense and military agencies could be privately funded.

[Smushy Snake 🐍 @SmushySnake]

@ultimatecub0 @ProjectAncap @Ouroboros88_ PMCs already exist. The U.S. centrally planning defense doesn’t 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.