Alright fellow libertarians time to get to work FAQ TIME

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
Statists point to conditions such as the industrial revoultion and say that it sis evidence that a government is needed for good working conditions to exist. The differences are enormous, that being (1) Working in a factory was an improvement over working on a farm which is what most were doing beforehand, (2) Unions had not existed yet, (by the way unions would likely exist in AC society, in most cases they would have less power though because they would not have the power of government funding and support). and (3) it was the indstrial revoultion and people as a whole were much poorer at the time.

[/ QUOTE ]

(4) The influx of immigrants to this country temporarily overwhelmed the labor market.

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
7) Why wouldn't stateless society quickly develop a state?
Most simply, because when states have fallen there has been a demand to raise another state. Anarchocapitalism cannot and will not come about without a large amount of people supporting it, otherwise another goverment will rise again. Unlike other philosophies that use force to come about, Anarchocapitalism relies on the idea to be popular.

[/ QUOTE ]

Another way is to simply get the statists to tolerate our views instead of converting them, separate from them and leave each other alone. This is much more realistic than trying to convert the majority in this country as a person can much more easily respect your right to have no government if you choose so long as they don't have to as well.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The limit to liability isn't arbitrary at all--it's limited to the amount you invested in the company. What's unreasonable about that?

[/ QUOTE ]

What is unreasonable is that it assumes the amount of harm caused is somehow related to the amount of capital invested.

[/ QUOTE ]

Quite precise and quite correct.

[maybedinero]

Non-libertarian/ACist's question that I don't know the answer to:

12) Doesn't ACism assume that individuals are 100% responsible for their own actions (wrt committing crimes and making unwise life decisions e.g. drinking too much)? What about mental illness? Addiction?

[Nielsio]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Are you a minarchist?

[/ QUOTE ]

I wouldn't label myself either minarchist or anarcho-capitalist. Libertarian is enough for me.

[/ QUOTE ]


I figured out why my statement was correct:

The reason that the minarchist does hold to the belief that there must be a state is that he specifically does not allow competition. Proposing to opt out of his system and going for private arbitration and security is not an option in his view (mainly because this endangers the very existence of the state, rendering it nothing more than a business).

So like any statist it will violently prevent you from doing such a thing.

[/ QUOTE ]

To me, it is essential that for any government to be just they allow for people to opt out by setting aside some place, say a state, where people can live in anarchy if they choose, but I don't begrudge those who DO want to live under a government. Does that make me a minarchist or no? :P

[/ QUOTE ]


Yes it does.

Here are some implications:
http://www.freedomainradio.com/Traff...nintheroom.mp3
http://www.freedomainradio.com/Traff...intheroom2.mp3

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
Non-libertarian/ACist's question that I don't know the answer to:

12) Doesn't ACism assume that individuals are 100% responsible for their own actions (wrt committing crimes and making unwise life decisions e.g. drinking too much)? What about mental illness? Addiction?

[/ QUOTE ]

Good question. I'm preparing a post on this.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
To me, it is essential that for any government to be just they allow for people to opt out by setting aside some place, say a state, where people can live in anarchy if they choose, but I don't begrudge those who DO want to live under a government. Does that make me a minarchist or no? :P

[/ QUOTE ]

The problem with this is that it presupposes that the state in question has the legitimate authority to designate such areas as "statist" and "non-statist".

If the state truly does "own" the territory in question, then sure, that state can freely designate portions of it for any particular use. However, states cannot legitimately own property. Cf: this post

[lehighguy]

Perhaps having one person outline a basic faq, then having other add and modify it would be the most organized way to do this.

[bisonbison]

Question: is their ownership of broadcast frequencies, or is it a 'strongest signal wins' king-of-the-hill situation?

[HumanACtor]

[ QUOTE ]
Question: is their ownership of broadcast frequencies, or is it a 'strongest signal wins' king-of-the-hill situation?

[/ QUOTE ]

Radio broadcast frequencies are scarce, and so property rights naturally follow.

Property rights in these frequencies were in their infant stages before the government nationalized all frequencies at the request of the Navy.