This is really dumb. If there is no nation state, there is no country. And foreigners would gain nothing by coming here. Without a nation state, no one will give them free shit. So dissolving the nation state would not flood the “country” with foreigners.
Plus, communists don’t want to dissolve the nation state. They want to strengthen it and give it the power to run everyone’s lives.
Europe is a superior territory. Valuable land will be invaded. 💯
Things Europeans have a surplus of:
Bitcoin
physical gold
fertile women
clean, fresh water
pleasant climate
high-quality, cheap food
energy (it's true!)
infrastructure
manufacturing centers
beautiful nature...
If there is no country, it will take about five minutes for another country to decide it's part of their country now
Didn’t know all it took was to just call dibs
it's calling dibs and using their country's army to convince everyone of the dibs
The only reason a “country” would use military power to show the world they have dibs over a territory is to declare that they have the sole privilege of extorting the people through taxes. If the prior government was dissolved by the people, what makes you think it would it take 5 minutes for another country to just take over and start taxing everyone?
Well, surely you can point us to the many examples of free peoples in the world, living free like the wind without any country collecting their taxes
This guy literally researches which *countries* will be nicest for you, in terms of tradeoffs between rights and privileges and taxation.
Smh some of them don’t tax you at all. Read the article.
If your only objective is to live without paying taxes, you can probably manage somehow, but it seems like a strange objective in life. It also seems hypocritical if you're living in a country where you use services financed by other people's taxes. What is your main reason?
I don’t think it’s strange to not want my money stolen. And what services am I using that other people pay for with taxes?
Depends where you live, but defense, schools, hospitals, roads, trains, police, courts, etc.
I only use services that I pay for.
“Defense” is just a term they use to maintain their ownership of tax cattle. I’m not interested in government indoctrination camps for my children. Hospitals are not free I would have to pay for the services. Roads are paid for by gas taxes and car registration. If I drive, I would pay my share of the roads. Trains are not free. Police and courts exist to enforce the tyranny of the rulers. Most of the time people are using private security and arbitration to resolve these disputes. If they’re forced upon, that does not mean I must pay for them.
I agree with hardly anything of what you wrote above.
But let me ask you: what would the place that you would like to live in look like, and how come it doesn't exist?
I cannot see the parent so… no context. But I think one argument is that without a state foreigners will come and take what they want. And I’ve yet to see a serious explanation of how & why they wouldn’t/couldn’t
Guns
You’d need tanks, jets, drones, and so much more….
Why?
Gosh, idk. Heck maybe BB guns or squirt guns would be enough of a defensive deterrent too? Whaddya think?
These threats are unrealistic. A foreigner would typically attack you if they wanted something from you. In this case, it would be your home. Using tanks and jets to steal your home is retarded because the cost of using tanks and jets is more than the cost of the home lmao
You’re either missing or refusing to acknowledge the point here. It’s not gonna be one foreigner that you have to worry about.. but an “army” of foreigners. If there is no standing army then another army will come in AND history and even current events undeniably prove this.
Okay so an army of foreigners show up and they burn everything to the ground. Then what? What did they gain by doing that? This is stupid reasoning because they don’t gain anything by doing that.
Whatchu talkin’ bout? Armies been taking land since armies existed. Still do. It’s going on right now. Anyhow it’s cool mah dood, I know you’re fuckin’ wit me 😜 ✌️
Instead of burning everything to the ground, they could tax or enslave you
That’s the ultimate goal but it wouldn’t take 5 minutes for a country to just declare they own you
I don't understand what you're saying here
This is what the original argument was about lol someone claimed that if the nation state was dissolved, another country would declare this new free land belongs to them within 5 minutes.
I've looked back in the thread and i don't see anything about "5 minutes."
The "take over and enslave/tax" thing has happened many times in history, so i dont see how you can brush it off.
Open my reply to op
I’m not brushing it off. I’m just saying it’s not as simple as another country just declaring they own you.
We are not in that thread, we are in a different thread.
Oh my bad. Too many convos to track. But yeah I was trying to get him to reach the conclusion that these large groups of “foreigners” would not have anything to gain by senselessly attacking you. Instead, they’d want to enslave you. If it was an individual foreigner, they’d want to maybe steal your property. Defending against one or two “foreigners” is more doable and you don’t need a standing army or tyrannical government for that.
I don't ever find the idea that "we need government" compelling. What i always get stuck on is that warlords can gain from enslaving/taxing people, and the only thing that has ever stopped them is either 1) other warlords, 2) unusual technological situations where rag-tag defensive groups have a temporary advantage, or 3) areas where the targets are too spread out, for example a few random mountain men scattered in the wilderness.
In the future the Soveriegn Individual thesis might play out, but until that happens, a highly populated anarchist societiy ("Ancapistan") is unlikely to last long.
This does not mean the state is good or just in any way.
And none of this denies that it's possible for an individual to do a lot to free themselves.
This article helped me refine my views on these things, and also contains a pretty solid prediction about the coming decentralisation of the US.
https://www.anarchonomicon.com/p/after-the-state-the-coming-of-neo
https://libertarianism.uk/2017/10/20/libertarianism-and-the-alt-right-hoppe-speech-2017/?amp=1
cc: nostr:npub1zt8u9mz68x3e6qhey8mhuuqahst4kc587gka7qj84uuhq6t878vsn7yx9r
An excerpt from Hoppe:
Many libertarians hold the view that all that is needed to maintain a libertarian social order is the strict enforcement of the non-aggression principle (NAP). Yet... it does not hold and apply, or rather it is insufficient, when it comes to people living in close proximity to each other, as neighbors and cohabitants of the same community.
A simple example suffices to make the point. Assume a new next-door neighbor. This neighbor does not aggress against you or your property in any way, but he is a “bad” neighbor. He is littering on his own neighboring property, turning it into a garbage heap; in the open, for you to see, he engages in ritual animal slaughter, he turns his house into a “Freudenhaus,” a bordello, with clients coming and going all day and all night long; he never offers a helping hand and never keeps any promise that he has made; or he cannot or else he refuses to speak to you in your own language. Etc., etc.. Your life is turned into a nightmare. Yet you may not use violence against him, because he has not aggressed against you. What can you do? You can shun and ostracize him. But your neighbor does not care, and in any case you alone thus ‘punishing’ him makes little if any difference to him. You have to have the communal respect and authority, or you must turn to someone who does, to persuade and convince everyone or at least most of the members of your community to do likewise and make the bad neighbor a social outcast, so as to exert enough pressure on him to sell his property and leave. (So much for the libertarians who, in addition to their “live and let live” ideal also hail the motto “respect no authority!”)
The lesson? The peaceful cohabitation of neighbors and of people in regular direct contact with each other on some territory – a tranquil, convivial social order – requires also a commonality of culture... multi-culturalism, cultural heterogeneity, cannot exist in one and the same place and territory without leading to diminishing social trust, increased tension, and ultimately the call for a “strong man” and the destruction of anything resembling a libertarian social order.
And moreover: Just as a libertarian order must always be on guard against “bad” (even if non-aggressive) neighbors by means of social ostracism, ... so, and indeed even more vigilantly so, must it be guarded against neighbors who openly advocate communism, socialism, syndicalism or democracy in any shape or form. They, in thereby posing an open threat to all private property and property owners, must not only be shunned, but they must, to use a by now somewhat famous Hoppe-meme, be “physically removed,” if need be by violence, and forced to leave for other pastures. Not to do so inevitably leads to – well, communism, socialism, syndicalism or democracy and hence, the very opposite of a libertarian social order.
Idk if I agree with that. That’s how you establish a governing body. The cycle would just repeat.
But what's the alternative?
A good answer from Larken Rose
Which part is the response?
The NAP paradox
