Pareto principle guarantees that a tiny percentage of the population will end up "owning" most of the land in a free-for-all anarchist society. Maybe ancaps think it'll be them?
Could you explain what a free-for-all anarchist society is?
lol I thought it was in the desert. I'm saying introduce actual scarcity so people have to start deciding between altruism and personal survival. You'll get a few "criminals", then...
Obviously if you put people in a situation where they have no food or water they are going to start fighting. Law enforcement or anarchy doesn’t matter. Survival can become savage.
Not necessarily starvation level famine, just enough scarcity that there are winners and losers in food production which means inequality. You'll have a government in no time.
“free for all anarchist society” wasn’t a term I used. Sorry I kinda jumped in on your conversation with someone else because when I read that I immediately thought burning man
Watch Princess Mononoke, pretty much that. No different than straight up feudalism. If you amass any wealth there'll be raiding parties of samurai at your door every damn day.
The statement "taxation is theft" is like a child complaining that it's not fair he has to do chores to get an allowance. As the parent I'd say 'don't let the door hit you in the ass!'
The kid wants the benifits of living in the household he was born in without any obligations. You want the benifits of the society you were born into with none of the trade-offs.
Being born into a society that organizes using theft validates that theft? Is the taxation repealed when child matures? Aren't families communistic? Is everyone a perpetual child?
It's a limited analogy. You know that demanding perfect solutions is a socialist tactic? Gotta say I'm disappointed. I thought I'd learn from you but it seems you're just an NPC.
Anarchism becomes feudalism because of the Pareto principle. A small amount of people will own most/all of the land. A monopoly on land ownership is feudalism by definition.
Haven't convinced me of anything other than that you blindly, dogmatically, definitionally believe to the idea that a tax is necessarily a violent violation of your property rights.
I don't expect to convince you of anything in one conversation. I don't understand how you're concluding that I'm dogmatic about taxation. Could you explain that?