which is why it wont work.
Discussion
Did you murder anyone today or steal from them?
nope...
Good job. You accidentally furthered my goal. Just because you don't personally see how a process works, doesn't mean it does not exist. Not every single person in the universe needs to respect people in order to have a libertarian society. And not even the majority of people need to understand the theory, either. There are things which operate all the time which contribute to the workings of the market that no one sees. Yet they are indispensable. Reality is more than what you see.
whats your goal again?
To reduce harm in the world, and within that to create wealth and options for people and a plethora of interesting discussions. You've furthered my libertarian goal of reducing harm by continuing about peacefully and following your values, doing noncoercive actions.
i just cant help but think that MS-13 African Juntas have the same definition pf "respect" that you might...
perhaps libertarianism could work in a european society that maintains 85% demographic dominance...
dont see it working out in South Africa or New America...
You're on the right track. It doesn't even need that much doninance (of people who are totally 100% libertarians) for anarchy to work. But yes culture is the most important ingredient. The culture needs to be compatible with libertarianism, and provided there are options on the market, the anarchy becomes self-sustaining.
uh, ok...
whats it gonna take for this dream to shatter so we can get work preserving an actual society for the children because while you're conjuring utopias in your mind , the places wherein your preferred modality might have been possible are being invaded at a harrowing rate and we got little while girls being raped and gutted by said invaders...
in three years the major cities in america will be owned by MS-13...
wut then with libertarianism?
Libertarianism is NOT about imaginary societal ideals that can never be attained. It is about imaginary society ideals that have already been attained and can be applied to right here and right now. The ends ARE the means. I am not a Marxist utopian. I do not pretend that we need to convince some giant cohort of the population to have a revolution to seize control of the government, peacefully by voting or otherwise, to make liberty reign ad desgroy the state or let it "whither away." I am not a utopian.
The ends I describe are not some lofty goal. I practice it every fucking day. It is called be humble, be kind, don't be arrogant, have discussions, learn about reality, recognize your own error. When you start to believe that you can work toward a peaceful society by doing ANYTHING other than peaceful action, stopping to assess and understand stuff, or retribution to stop an aggressor, then you have become a utopian. A fool. A nincompoop.
An alternative question: what is it that has caused the difference between the Roman Empire, which had slaves, and The United States, which has very few slaves (a few sex slaves here and there but it's illegal)? Is an increase in basic respect on a societal level truly impossible?
People who dismiss the capacity for people to change their behavior (not by force, but by a natural process over time) are so abysmally ignorant of reality and in contradiction of the fact of their own perception of interpersonal affairs and of history that they can deceive themselves into thinking or feeling anything.
hmmm i would first take issue with "societal respect" which seems suspiciously akin to "social justice" in that there can be no such thing, as justice is based on 1-1 one issue at a time...
respect is similar.
I mean that most individuals are generally pretty respectful of people, moreso than most individuals in ancient Rome.
rome was destroyed by imperialistic multiculturalism.
at end of empire there was something like 10% (less maybe if i recall correctly) were ethnically "roman"...
*official roman citizens
7 million out of 120 million in the empire...
Rome was destroyed by inefficient monetary and fiscal policy and an excessive reliance on coercion. The various distinct cultural/national identities across a wide geographic region determined where the splits would be. The splits themselves were from Rome losing its ability to fund things and to influence culture and maintain legitimacy in the eyes of the people.
If a large portion of people (not 100% but most) starts to recognize that every single individual has their own identity and yet they are worthy of respect, a libertarian or anarchic split occurs, where there may be broad national identities but there will be little to no coercion mandating collective action, and instead collective actions become voluntary contributions. This has happened in the past in many places, and it will happen again. There is little stopping it besides silly mystical notions of divine right to rule. That is the basic way the causality works, in rough language. The loss of legitimacy in the eyes of the people.
thats yesteryears propaganda for self-hating whites and their anti-white weaponized counterparts: 
if you need contemporary examples, see DETROIT, CHICAGO, SF, NY etc ad infinitum🥱
I think you misread me here because I didn't say anything remotely anti-white or racial. Culture and national boundaries can be along ethnicity but do not have to be, and that is related to the success of the state by means of the perception of its legitimacy to rule over that population.
but you did say that the fall of rome was because of monetary policy and coercian...
it was multiculturalism which is clear by the recent genetic analysis of rome which shows that 80% of rome at time of collapse was non-european...
of course you dont know that because if you did you would have spoken out a long time ago against the same thing happening here...
thus the function of "rome fell cuz muh austrian econ"...
you seem to have a moderns bias and arrested understanding of what the Divine Right To Rule was originally - what the fallen losers did with it in late monarchy is another story...
I might not understand what divine right to rule meant in context before the later empires, but that's irrelevant because I was talking about democracy's divine right to rule in modern times. I was being poetic.
really? i dont see that...
i see some sort of clenched-ass proxy quite a bit though... revealed by body language most often.
maybe you are mistaking fear of offending or fear of losing #socialcapital for respect?
It is in fact extremely hard to gauge. My argument here was not a very strong one. I think however that your argument is equally weak in that it assumes people to be at the same level of respect, much as mine does little more than assume people to be at a higher level of respect.
Regardless of this, anarchy theoretically does not require people to be universally or even any more respectful than they already are in order to function adequately. David Friedman addresses this in The Machinery of Freedom.
its a race thing bro.
Specifically on the basic level of slavery. Most people today believe that slavery is a bad thing and that no one should be a slave, and seeing all human beings as, well, human beings, mostly. We have made progress toward the libertarian society that I and other consent radicals want. I think that this most basic thing is pretty much irrefutable.
This has coincided also with massive economic growth since the gradual abolition of slavery in the 1800s, and I think there is some significant bidirectional causality there. It is much harder for people to be complacent with there being slaves everywhere when they have enough comforts to now think about other people. Slavery is also inefficient and unsustainable, and its removal brings more profits to those who do not construct power structures to keep people enslaved. These power structures, incidentally, can only be constructed at great expense, usually with other people's money, as slavery loses money when protection of that alleged right is left up to individuals. Once it is no longer supported by the state, it is almost universally eradicated.
not to be harsh bro but MS-13 and chiraq gangstas dont give a fuck about your cracker philosophy and reason...
dont you know thats just white supremacy?
what then? if you are in west you gonna move? where?
the slaves were a conscious weapon implanted by the enemy via exploitation of the greed instinct of HUMAN NATURE to eventually and intentionally lead to the situation mcmerica finds herself in today...
Did I say human nature was one of universal respect?
nah didnt mean to imply you did...
it does seem that you do have a lighter assessment of human nature than I though... which is why I capped that...
and its also why i believe that libertarianism cant work...
i mean speaking of "culture" needed for something like this to work, seems libertarianism would just destroy that anyway since people who push it seem to be willing to allow all sorts of social deviance or variations on a theme which then pollutes or dilutes the culture, almost ensuring that the high-mindedness necessary for such a system would simply degenerate making it imposssible...
Thank you. Well, I recognize the reality that human nature is broad. It takes many forms. It is not that I am more optimistic in the sense of thinking it is fundamentally really good, no. I am optimistic in the sense of recognizing that it CAN be better, FAR better, and that it can be way, way, way worse. I am realistic in the sense that I don't assume away possibilities, nor do I assume away things I have seen in myself and other people, the compassion, the rationality, the long-term thinking, the deduction, the care. And with economics I can see that even when people are irrational or don't care, they are handled and limited by the market. I am aware of reality. I am aware of my limitations, so I don't assume to be right unless I am damn sure.
Frankly your pessimism and rhetorical support of non-libertarian means comes across as irrationality to me. I do not hope. I reason. And I've reasoned this stuff through to my satisfaction that it is attainable, and that the most effective means of effecting it are to live it, and create a culture around me that embraces the core principles of respect for consent, rationality, uncertainty, value for one's own life, and the understanding of the self-evident truth that there is no such thing as authority. Any culture holding onto those truths will succeed. It is why Sikhs and Jews tend to do so well at accruing wealth and value self-reliance.
That being said, you have some good points and I like to debate. Doing so helps to point out where I'm making a mistake, either in logic or at being convincing haha! And I like to debate in general. So thank you!
And also, yeah, some libertarians are idiots who just want to do drugs, or who think that a bunch of people doing drugs won't be a detriment to society. That is a very large minority of libertarians. A lot of us, on the contrary, recognize that it should be perfectly legal but that a rational person would stay away from it and that stores would certainly not sell them to kids, or that it should be legal but culturally discouraged, or that it should be illegal by way of a covenant community's rules but not by a government. Same for every other questionable thing.
If you think a government is the only thing that stands in the way of a majority of young men deciding to snort cocaine while a hooker who probably has STDs rides his dick to the sound of death metal, in the first class section on a rickety yet somehow expensive private airplane that was purchased just for this occasion on an installment plan denominated in a scammy Dogecoin competitor cryptocurrency, then you might want to rethink how much power the government really has. It's not what holds society together. A culture of self-reliance and rationality is self-sustaining. And it also tends towards libertarian economic systems.
herpaderpopolous