6:30AM Breakfast - 12 whole eggs cooked well to kill the salmonella

7AM Dig up some physical gold from one of your secret caches to pay for the day's expenses

8AM Drive to work, paying tolls every mile. You're delayed because some rich doods paid for exclusive access to the fastest route to your jerb today

9:30AM With the economy in ruins, your boss greets you with a pink slip.

10AM Walk back to your car, stepping over pox-ridden hags dying in the street, running occasionally to evade gangs of feral children armed with Saturday Night Specials

11AM Back at home, work on lawsuit against coal plant for damages to your QOL

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2028055&forum_id=2",#21379818)

moar

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2028055&forum_id=2",#21379838)

3:30PM You smoke a lot of weed to calm down and fall asleep

7PM You wake up in a haze and hear some noises in your backyard. Holy shit, a gang with metal detectors is digging up your gold. You grab your trusty Barrett .50cal and tell them to gtfo. They respond by tossing a grenade through your window. You dive to safety just in time. Everything goes black.

10PM You wake up aching all over. Your gold and guns have been stolen. You dial up your police contractor for help, but they inform you that as you are behind on your payments they cannot help you.

11PM You find a well-trafficked street corner and start selling your ass to passersby. This is the first time for you, but it won't be the last.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2028055&forum_id=2",#21379930)

it's called personal responsibility.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2028055&forum_id=2",#21379945)

lmao

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2028055&forum_id=2",#21379946)

For all this to work, we need free markets and competition, thus enforcement areas must largely overlap, so that there is no monopoly of enforcement, and courts must be independent from enforcement organizations, and people must have reasonable grounds to believe they are independent from enforcement organizations, and it must be hazardous for any man to act as judge in his own cause. If enforcement or court monopolies arose, or exclusive cartels of enforcement or courts arose, anarcho capitalism would resemble industrial feudalism for those people who found themselves with little choice of enforcement.

Under Anarcho Capitalism enforcement is based on fealty and association, not on location.

If someone suffers an adverse judgment from a well respected court, and refuses to abide by that judgment, then the judgment will not automatically be enforced, but his reputation is damaged in a fashion that makes it comparatively safe to use violence against him.

Courts are kept honest because they fear loss of respect, leading to loss of authority and thus revenue. Enforcement organizations generally, but not always, adhere to what the courts commend because they fear loss of respect, leading to violence from other enforcement organizations and loss of customers and clients.

It might happen that one enforcement organization preferred court X, and another preferred court Y, leading to the threat of expensive conflicts between these two organizations. If the courts are reasonably just, then both agencies would probably come to an agreement in advance as to which court to use in any future dispute that pitted clients of the two organizations against each other.

And if they did not agree, perhaps because one of the courts was thoroughly corrupt and biased in favor of the clients of the particular agency that wished to use it? Well then, it's war. But at least under anarcho-capitalism those who wish to make war must themselves pay the cost of war, which should make wars exceedingly rare. Since defence organizations do not "own" their clients and their client's property in the way that states own their subjects, they should have far less incentive to make war on each other than states do. If a defence organization wins a war, this means that its view of what law should mean is likely to prevail, but it does not directly gain wealth and power from winning a war in the way a state does. Other methods for determining law, or the interpretation and application of law, tend to be considerably cheaper.

Sometimes there would be conflicts. Perhaps Militia A might claim that Militia B was soft on crime. Militia B might claim that Militia A was lawless and violent.

If Militia A was lawless and violent, this would probably eventually bring it into conflict with other enforcement organizations, a conflict that would normally be resolved by the courts.

Militia A might reject the verdict of the courts, though this is unlikely. If it did it is likely that most of its clients would repudiate it, and the leadership of Militia A might very likely die.

The experience of the wild west was that bitter and prolonged conflict between enforcement organizations was very rare, but not totally unknown. Those cases that happened are alleged to result from persistent criminal behavior by one of the enforcement organizations, some say both.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2028055&forum_id=2",#21380214)

What if he he's located in belarus and protected by a private army of gurkhas and spetsnaz? Could the individual who's harmed by pollution from his smokestacks do anything about it?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2028055&forum_id=2",#21380840)

" You're a little old for this game, aren't you?"

"Excuse me?"

"Most of my boys are half your age. Old enough to make their own choices, of course--far be it from me to violate their body/property rights. Not that I don't violate their bodies," he giggles.

"Ok man whatever"

"Yes, whatever... Whatever I want YOU SHALL GIVE ME" he bellows, a thick froth of spittle forming on his mouth.

He half-opens a chubby little hand and you see something gleam inside.

"Is that gold?"

"Oh my yes. PHYSICAL GOLD. They said I was a fool. They called me mad. MAD! But look who's laughing NOW!" he laughs diabolically

"I need that gold, man. Whatever you want, I'll do."

"Then you shall have it."

5 disgusting minutes later:

"alright, how about that gold?"

He shoves you out onto the street and floors the gas.

"Just remember, you were better off at the time of our transaction! Muaahahahahahaha!!!"

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2028055&forum_id=2",#21391229)

(CGM's ultimate neckbeard fantasy)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2028055&forum_id=2",#21740683)

Roving gangs of unemployed TTT law school alumni with mohawks and cross bows raiding small settlements in the wasteland.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2028055&forum_id=2",#21771059)

Of course they neglect to mention that Mogadishu in the 1970s looked like this: http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-RSD2S7AqZD0/ToDY8crp-tI/AAAAAAAAEO4/59t8MuIz2Vw/s1600/Mogadishu1970s%25281%2529.jpg

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2028055&forum_id=2",#21771081)

Second, all you have succeeded in showing with this post is that government from 70-91 fucked up mightly and that its collapse has brought about improvements to the nation/city.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2028055&forum_id=2",#21771121)

What you need to do is move to africa. that is the place where you can find what you want.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2028055&forum_id=2",#21771129)

This is objectively not true. Forget the nadir, just pick the late 80s-91 (i.e. pre-civil war) and compare the QOL vs now. You will see that in basically all key measures (infant mortality, life expectancy, literacy, etc) Somalia is better now than it was then.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2028055&forum_id=2",#21771180)

*Erects strawman conflating mainstream pragmatic libertarian with hardcore anarcho-libertarian ideologue; pretends that all "libertarians" are hellbent on eliminating every single vestige of state power, up to and including public roads, public police forces, a public judiciary, etc.*

*Posts this strawman on XO*

*Gets dozens of 180's from gleeful, chuckling liberals smiling smugly at the thought of the unfathomable idiocy of their political opponents*

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2028055&forum_id=2",#22255526)

Naw bro, I just prefer my scathing political humor to come from a place of truth. That's why liberal-friend-threading is so funny: we all know a bunch of super-sensitive faggots like that. I know a lot of libertarians, and very few of them get pissed about public roads, the existence of public police departments, etc.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2028055&forum_id=2",#22255557)

Government should be forced to rigorously justify its existence/intervention, or else it shouldn't exist/intervene. Justification stems from answering the simple two-part question of whether the government is both capable of doing a decent job and is needed in the first place (i.e., the private marketplace won't realistically solve this problem in an acceptable manner).

Public roads are clearly justified. Wasteful, ultra-nitpicky bullshit "regulations" that make it basically impossible for small businesses to succeed (and often arise from industry capture in the first plce), or "obscenity" laws that don't really do a goddamn thing except allow the government to prosecute people engaging in relatively unpopular free speech without even providing clear guidelines for what is/isn't constitutional, are clearly not. Most things fall in the middle, and require thoughtful individual evaulation.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2028055&forum_id=2",#22255592)

CGM and his ilk routinely argue against public roads

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2028055&forum_id=2",#22255774)

the president has stated this principle before but obviously has a broader view of what problems government can and should "solve"

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2028055&forum_id=2",#22255782)