Yeah, the deal is getting worse all the time

All of you need to know, that nostr:npub1v60thnx0gz0wq3n6xdnq46y069l9x70xgmjp6lprdl6fv0eux6mqgjj4rp exists.

nostr:note1reag4x63jjta86evlqw550ng0qsgm4l4kgwf3h76jaynj0ldtv0q4rnfrg

That is not a definition. That's random words.

I am the ancap type, that populates your feed. (unsurprisingly)

Still, the definitions and most talking points are the same as with minarchists and other libertarians, or tbp classical liberals.

The only meaningful difference is whether we believe. that the state can do something, that the free market cannot or whether it can do something better.

Me trying to find that thing that we need a state for is what made me an anarchist, because I couldn't find one.

You may have seen some zealous fresh ancaps, which feel the urge to force feed everybody their freshly found truth. Every single movement has that kind of people (unless it's dead) and in every movement they are very annoying and mostly wrong. Could that be the case?

https://nostrcheck.me/media/public/nostrcheck.me_8165827398031730411691697728.webp

I am curious as to whoch libertarians are you referring to.

We use defintions consistent in form and time. In fact our vocabulary and positions pretty much haven't changed for 150 years. (possibly aside from the creation of anarcho-capitalism, which however still uses the same definitions and most of the positions, it just goes a bit further with them.)

Most often we are criticized for not pushing the overton window (usually verbalized as "not going with the times") and using overly abstract definitions (the exact opposite of what you are accusing us of) instead of the modern ones. (the ones that are modified to fit the current dominant natrative)

You can for instance read Frédéric Bastiat's work and find, that he uses pretty much the same defintions I do and has pretty much the same talking points despite being born over 200 years ago. Almost no political school of thought can say the same.

So once again, I am curious as to how did you figure what you are accusing us of? I am genuinely curious.

What is the essence of state in your view?

Also it doesn't matter whether you are or aren't libertarian. You accused libertarians of crafting defintions ad hoc and then misusing those definitions. (also for a reason that is likely just a stupid insult instead of an honest criticism)

If you want to just throw feces, be my guest, if you truly think there is something wrong with the libertarian attitude towards definitions and the state, I highly suggest stepping up your game.

Aside from some wording issues. (statists often try to legitimize the stste in definition) this one is pretty widely accepted.

If you disagree with both of it's main points, maybe you should consider calling whatever it is you have in mind a different word.

I reject any argument that relies on religious texts.

However even if I were to entertain this nonsense, Jesus would not be a literal king, and heaven not a kingdom. It's a metaphor that people of the time would understand as many of the things in ancient desert scribbles, people still for some reason admire, are.

That's the same definition in statistspeak (trying to legitimize state violence) and wrongly ignoring issue of physical location, which is in fact necessary.

Enforcement of the monopoly on violence always is delimited by an area where thst monopoly applies. Even if it was the entire universe you must specify that it's in the entire universe.

What is that definition?

"...and self evident" is the important part. Both is evident after an analysis, but neither is self evident.

An example of an axiom is that "water is wet" as just by definitionsof water and wet this statement inherently and inevitably proves itself true.

Given that the concept of good and evil relies on morality which is inevitably subjective, no such statements can be axiomatic as axioms do need objective estabilishment of the truth.

You may call it a presumption and I won't have any issue with it as I agree with both statements, but they simply are not axioms.

There is a fine line.

For instance "don't get into huge debt to bet on a very risky investment" is a sound advice.

Once you have tried risky investments with little to lose and are fairly familiar with risk mitigation strategies, risk profit calculations and so on, it may lose it's appeal, but it's a good starter.

I assume most advice you were given could be used in a similar manner.

Losing a high stakes poker game. Buxing a shitcoin that will not jump up in price immediately and so on.

If you have any set rules, you can use them to your advantage.

Neither of those is an axiom. They are pretty common results of analyses on those topics.

Bitcoin is not a state not because states are evil and btc isn't, but because btc doesn't fit the definition of a state. (see my reply above)

"Monopoly on violence in a given non trivially sized area"

That is the standard libertarian definition. It fits every state to ever exist. It reflects the crucial difference between an organized and/or cooperating group of people and a state. It makes sense and works.

What is your problem with it exactly?

Today I learned about drivechains. I know fuck all except for what I read in a couple threads and read in 15 minutes of googling.

Give me your best why yes, why not.

Two senteces at most.

nostr:note12yse7ke6t6wcx79h2rzmwzqj2mmqyze3evdg0k2aa0xkkx79jtassf063z