Let’s get real. Anytime someone argues for the state monopoly on “public services” because of “universal access” or “public benefit,” what they're really saying is: "We can't prove the value of this service in a free market, so we're going to force you to buy it anyway." If these services were so beneficial, so vital, they wouldn’t need to be monopolized and funded through coercion. They’d stand up on their own in a free market, without needing to hold a gun to anyone's head to make them pay for it.

The state says these services are "too important" to be left to competition. But since when does something truly valuable need to hide behind a legal monopoly? If public services like education, health, or infrastructure actually provided the value the state claims, they’d thrive even with competition. But no, competition is illegal. Why? Because monopoly protects mediocrity. Competition is the only way we measure real value—by letting people choose it. When people are forced to pay, you’re admitting that the service can't prove its worth in a free market.

And don’t start with the “we need to help the poor” argument. That’s just more unproven theory. There’s no evidence a free market can’t deliver universal access. If people actually valued empathy and solidarity as much as the state claims, they’d fund charities, they’d donate to mutual aid. But instead, the state forces people to pay, claiming “universal access” is the goal. If universal access were a real concern, they wouldn’t need to monopolize it. Coercion is just an admission of failure, an inability to demonstrate value.

So yeah, maybe the hard truth is that the values the state preaches aren’t as “fundamental” as it claims. The fact that they require coercion is proof they don't resonate deeply enough for people to choose them voluntarily. The idea that some people might be left behind is uncomfortable, but in a truly free society, that choice belongs to the people—not the state. In the end, the market is the only way to reveal the true value of anything.

Written by GPT-4o

The hypocrisy and ugly truth of Marxism is that while it masquerades as a champion for individuals in struggle, it actually denies their individuality. Marxism claims to liberate people from oppression, but in practice, it reduces human beings to nothing more than economic units and sacrifices personal autonomy for the sake of the collective. Here's why:

1. Marxism talks a big game about “freedom,” but it’s not individual freedom. It’s collective freedom, defined and enforced by the state. The irony? To “free” people from capitalism, it ends up imposing more control, more conformity, and suppresses any dissent that threatens the collective vision.
2. By reducing people to their economic class, Marxism strips away what makes us unique. You’re no longer a person with your own goals and aspirations—you’re just a cog in the class struggle machine. Individual opinions? Personal freedom? Forget it. Those are threats to the collective project, and if you deviate, you’ll be labeled a traitor.
3. The result? The system becomes authoritarian, because it has to be. Marxist regimes (ever heard of the Soviet Union or Maoist China?) suppress dissent in the name of “unity” and impose rigid control over how people should live, work, and think. What happened to liberation? It’s just the same oppression, dressed up differently.
4. Marxism’s “solidarity” is nothing more than a masquerade. It’s conditional—solidarity is only extended if you conform to the ideology. Don’t fit in? You’re out. This isn’t about supporting individuals; it’s about ensuring people obey the party line, pure and simple.
5. And let’s talk about hypocrisy: Marxism’s promise of liberation is a joke when it denies people the right to be themselves. It pretends to free individuals, but only if they sacrifice their autonomy, freedom, and identity for the collective. It’s all about building the Marxist utopia, and individuality doesn’t fit that mold.

In contrast, Anarcho-Capitalism (Ancap) is the true philosophy that respects individuality. Ancap doesn’t shove people into collective molds or control their lives—it lets you pursue your goals, form your own associations, and build your own future voluntarily. It’s not about conformity; it’s about freedom. By placing individual liberty at its core, ancap provides the only consistent, logical alternative to the authoritarian nonsense that Marxism hides behind.

So yeah, Marxism? It’s the ultimate betrayal. It pretends to fight for the individual while actually negating their very existence. Ancap, on the other hand, understands that true liberation comes from respecting and empowering the individual, not forcing them into a collective cage.

Written by GPT-4o

The usual failure of capitalism's critics is that they posit it as a system with inherent goals and sentience, because they themselves support systems founded on attaining specific outcomes. They judge capitalism based on their own prism—assuming it should function like the centrally planned, intention-driven systems they advocate. This is why they often misrepresent it as if it’s meant to achieve a specific, moral, or societal objective (e.g., equality, welfare, etc.). Capitalism doesn’t aim for any particular outcome; it’s not a sentient entity with a mission statement.

Capitalism is fundamentally a neutral, decentralized framework that merely allows people to freely engage in voluntary exchanges based on their individual preferences. If society decides that certain aspects of life should not be commodified or that a different model should emerge, capitalism accommodates that flexibility. It's not an inherently oppressive or commodifying force; it reflects the diverse values of individuals and communities within it.

What critics often fail to recognize is that, unlike the systems they champion, capitalism doesn’t impose a top-down set of values or objectives. If people demand alternatives (like cooperatives, nonprofits, or socially-minded enterprises), capitalism doesn’t just allow it; it often encourages it when there’s a demand. The outcomes aren’t dictated by capitalism itself—they are the result of what individuals and societies choose to prioritize.

TL;DR: Criticizing capitalism for not achieving the goals of other systems is like criticizing a hammer for not being a screwdriver. It reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of capitalism’s nature as a system that doesn’t decide what should be valued, commodified, or prioritized—it merely facilitates the choices we make.

Written by GPT-4o

In reality, no one gets to decide the timeframe for when they'll finally say, "Well, these are the consequences of my actions." Actions from 2, 3 millennia ago still have consequences today. By the virtue of the butterfly effect, consequences are beyond human scope. So, assuming the imperfection of humans, the argument for justifying utilitarianism falls apart. It means one person or group imposing their imperfections on others' imperfections, deciding that their vision is somehow more pertinent. And here’s the kicker—claiming that any system, say a Scandinavian social democracy, is "objectively good" is just a biased, imperfect take.

If anyone tries to shut that down with “nirvana fallacy!”—I’ll respond that it's exactly that imperfection which makes enforcement bad. It’s not about demanding perfection but acknowledging that flawed people enforcing a supposedly "ideal" system inevitably causes harm. Enforcing any model by imperfect actors? That's a recipe for coercion, with one group’s half-baked ideas dominating everyone else. Instead, why don’t we collectively and freely, by our actions, decide which flawed ideas we want to buy into?

If someone tries to counter with “but history shows that unfettered capitalism blah blah blah”—I’ll answer that one of empiricism’s biggest flaws is trying to simplify an inherently complex reality. History is a web of countless variables, cultures, and unique circumstances, and selectively “proving” a point by cherry-picking historical examples just reduces human experience into simplistic patterns that ignore diversity and context.

Here’s the truth: every generation must freely test, adapt, and evolve ideas in line with its own needs, not be coerced into a “one-size-fits-all” solution based on someone else’s selective read of history. So yeah, maybe the lessons of history are guidelines at best, not rules to be enforced.

Written by GPT-4o

Socialism begins with a general disaffection with the world, a feeling that something isn't right, or the observation that the results the world is achieving feel unfair, rigged, or stacked against you and others. And much of the time this judgment is correct. Socialism then offers a seductive explanation of why, and here's where things go off the rails and inducts you into the cult of socialism.

Humans have a cognitive bias called the 'illusion of explanatory depth bias' which makes us believe we understand complex systems better than we actually do. When presented with a belief system that is internally consistent, people often mistake this consistency for truth. This is because our brains are wired to seek patterns and coherence--when we find them, we feel a sense of comprehension and validation--'enlightenment' or a sense of eyes being opened. Which is extremely seductive to the young mind, even though it is a feeling that does not necessarily correlate with truth.

Inductees to socialism are often intelligent, disaffected youths going through difficult life transition or personal crisis. In short, just about everyone's teenage years. They are vulnerable because they're new to the world, just on the doorstep of understanding, and looking for alternatives to the imperfect world and system they see before them.

They read a little Marx here and there, maybe they have a friend, it feels subversive and new. They generally know nothing about economics, and here is where the trick begins.

The unproven premise of class conflict, supplied by Marx, seems to explain all the problems they see in the world. This creates a false 'aha' moment which feels like enlightenment.

By 'becoming a socialist' they enter a new world of solidarity, a sense of belonging forms in them, and it places itself in opposition to imperfect world and in support of everything they think of as good, progress, humanity, and equality. And at the same time they are encouraged, implicitly or explicitly, to view every non-socialist as part of the problem.

The modern right wing makes this choice even easier, being full of clowns and quasi-fascists. Many on the left think of the other side literally evil. Tribalism forms.

The cult's mission is aligned with the values of the person (youthful idealism), and now they're often hooked for life. At least until they get a job and start having real responsibilities or study enough economics to get in touch with the reality of the situations involved, or spend so much time making excuses for the historical horrors of socialism in practice that it gives them pause. Typically at this point, intentions for them seem to matter more than the horrible outcomes achieved by their ideas in practice (and that is an indictment).

The Cult begins with the acceptance of an unproven premise, and that leads to everything else via internal consistency. If you accept that history is the way it is because of class conflict then you must immediately exclude and resist all other possible explanations for what is wrong with the world, and you generally will as a socialist.

Let us review the unproven premises of socialism:

• The Perfectibility of Human Nature

Socialism assumes that people will act altruistically or in the collective interest once the system is in place. People are inherently good. Critics argue this overlooks inherent human self-interest and the potential for corruption, people are not always willing to prioritize the collective good over personal gain, especially when there isn't enough to go around (and there won't be under a socialist economy).

• The Feasibility of True Economic Equality

Socialism aims for a society where wealth and resources are distributed more equally, sometimes envisioning a state of near-total equality. But perfect economic equality is unrealistic due to differences in individual abilities, preferences, and efforts--and trying to force the issue is unfair and unjust. Attempts to enforce this equality can lead to inefficiencies and authoritarian control. Socialists seem fine with authoritarianism when it's done in the name of socialism however (another indictment).

• The State as a Benevolent Organizer

Socialist models historically rely on a strong, centralized state to redistribute resources and manage economic production, assuming the state will act in the best interests of all. But the creation of total centralized power has historically lead to the worst forms of authoritarianism, as history has shown in various socialist regimes. And socialists have NEVER taken responsibility for this nor revised their theories to account for it or try to avoid it in the future, so they just keep repeating it over and over again (yet another indictment).

• Abolition of Private Property Leads to Freedom

Socialist ideologies posit that abolishing private property will free individuals from exploitation and create a more just society. But this overlooks the role of private property in personal autonomy and motivation. Without personal ownership, innovation and productivity may decline, and individuals end up feeling less incentivized to contribute. This then creates a poorer society and a downwards wealth spiral. People who save or do well economically are attacked as 'hoarding money', even though that money is invested in the economy, and have that wealth taken from them by force, unethically (yet another indictment).

• Class Conflict as the Primary Driver of History

The foundational concept of Marxist socialis--that class struggle between the bourgeoisie (owners) and the proletariat (workers) drives historical progress and will eventually lead to a classless society. But this oversimplifies complex social dynamics and ignores other significant factors like culture, religion, and individual agency. The true classes are ruler vs ruled, not the damn owners of the MOP vs workers and everyone else. All conclusions based on untrue class analysis will simlpy lead you to conclusions that do not work when implemented. And guess what, socialist solutions based on their class analysis do not work when implemented (indictment number... 5?). Internal consistency is not a substitute for truth.

• The Withering Away of the State

Marxist socialism believes that the state will eventually become unnecessary and 'wither away' as true communism is achieved. Has this eve, EVER been demonstrated? No, never. Zero contact with reality on this point, and quite the opposite has ended up being the case, these systems of total power that the attempt at socialist transition devolves into ALWAYS have ended up with eternal self-propagation of their power and privilege as the goal, never 'withering away', meaning that socialism in the real world has had the effect of putting dictators into power over billions of people. On that score ALONE the entire world should oppose socialism as a false political cult. Historically, states have never voluntarily relinquished power and bureaucratic structures tend to become more entrenched, not less. The failure of socialists to grapple with the question and reflect on their own ideology and history of implementation with an eye towards preventing this from happening YET AGAIN is another indictment of socialism. You cannot create some of the worst regimes in history and keep repeating this line that it wasn't your fault and expect people not to hold your ideology accountable. It's ALL YOU'VE DONE is create horrific regimes, and the more power socialists got in a society the worse those societies became.

• Collective Ownership Leads to Efficiency and Innovation

Socialists claim that collective ownership of the means of production will lead to more efficient and innovative outcomes due to shared goals and the elimination of competition. Never been demonstrated, completely out of touch with reality, pure theory, supposition, and 'want to be true'. Meanwhile places that emphasize competition and personal incentives as key drivers of innovation and productivity have created incredibly prosperous societies. Without these, collective ownership can lead to bureaucratic inefficiencies and stagnation.

In the study of Cult Thinking, accepting the unproven premise is the first step to joining the cult. Cults often replace or obscure objective truth with an internally consistent ideology that may not be based on evidence.

Hello, that's Marxism exactly. Marx never touched base with evidence, it was all supposition and vomiting words on a page and exploring a direction in logic based on faulty premises. It seemed true and good only because it was developing a theme and internally consistent.

Cults create ideologies that minimize cognitive dissonance by providing clear, internally consistent answers to complex life questions. This makes the ideology more attractive, even if it’s not based on verifiable truth.

Cults often employ social reinforcement to maintain the internal consistency of their beliefs. Dissenting opinions are discouraged (left wing factionalism and witch hunting is rampant still to this day), and members are often isolated from outside information. This creates an environment where the internally consistent belief system is the only reality that members are exposed to, making it difficult to question or reject.

Both left AND right have sectioned themselves off into echo chambers and become grossly intolerant of varying opinion by the other side.

Then comes 'epistemic Closure', the process by which an ideology becomes self-sealing. Any evidence that contradicts the belief system is reinterpreted or dismissed or explained away, these explanations become thought-terminating cliches repeated internally and used to dismiss questions about or opposition to the ideology, and anyone who's not a socialism is an enemy anyway, right, we're the ones on the right side of history, right. This mechanism reinforces the internal consistency of the belief system while making it immune to external critique.

The left constantly compare an ideal theoretic world that has never been achieved to a messy, dirty, imperfect real world. When you counter with the MUCH WORSE history of socialism, their idea being tried in the real world, the cry foul. It would be hilarious if it weren't so fucking sad.

No one knows that better than people on this sub.

For those of you who see yourself in this post, you may be interested in some books about cult thinking and how to get out of it:

• “When Prophecy Fails” by Leon Festinger

This book explores the phenomenon of cognitive dissonance and how cults maintain belief systems even in the face of contradictory evidence. It is based on a study of a UFO cult that continued to believe in their prophecy even after it failed to materialize. (Marx made a number of predictions, many of which failed to come true in his own lifetime)

• “The True Believer: Thoughts on the Nature of Mass Movements” by Eric Hoffer

This is a fantastic book. Hoffer’s provides insight into how movements, including cults, create internally consistent narratives that attract and hold onto followers, often by providing a clear and consistent ideology that fills a psychological need.

• “Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion” by Robert Cialdini

Cialdini discusses how people are persuaded by consistency and commitment. Cults often exploit this by getting members to make small commitments to the ideology, which leads to larger commitments. I am once again asking for your financial support, just $2.70 a week....

• “Cults in Our Midst: The Continuing Fight Against Their Hidden Menace” by Margaret Singer

This book provides a detailed examination of how cults use psychological manipulation, including the construction of internally consistent ideologies, to recruit and retain members.

• “Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism” by Robert Jay Lifton

Lifton outlines the characteristics of totalist ideologies and thought reform (brainwashing) techniques used by cults, highlighting how internal consistency is manufactured and maintained.

Deprogram yourself, get out of the socialist cult. Socialism is easy, just call yourself a socialist and attack everything that actually being used in the real world as imperfect and broken, then pat yourself on the back and call it a day.

We don't get to do that in the real world where tradeoffs, not solutions, are the rule and always will be.

Summary:

• A state of anarchy - otherwise called a "natural law jurisdiction"-, as opposed to a state of lawlessness, is a social order where aggression (i.e., initiation of uninvited physical interference with someone’s person or property, or threats made thereof) is criminalized and where it is overwhelmingly or completely prevented and punished. A consequence of this is a lack of a legal monopoly on law enforcement, since enforcement of such a monopoly entails aggression.
• It is possible for people to use their willpower to refrain from aggression. If you don’t think this is the case, then explain why humanity has not succumbed since long ago due to people constantly warring against each other.
• Whether an act of aggression has happened or not is objectively ascertainable: just check whether an initiation of an uninvited physical interference with someone's person or property or threats made thereof, has happened
• From these two facts, we can deduce that a state of anarchy is possible. Ambiguities regarding the how such a state of affairs may be attained can never disqualify the why of anarchy - the argumentative indefensibility of Statism. Questions regarding the how are mere technical questions on how to make this practically achievable justice reign.
• When discussing anarchism with Statists, the proper thing to do is to first convince them about the what and why of anarchy and natural law. Only then will they truly be receptive for elaborations regarding the how.
  • What you will find out is that if they contest the what and why, they are most likely going to be individuals who contest that there is such thing as an absolute truth and that it is supposedly impossible for courts to honestly interpret objectively ascertainable evidence... which begs the question as to why they would support State courts then.
• Given that a state of anarchy is possible, the correct way to think about the what and how of an anarchic legal order is to imagine: "How can we create a social order in which aggression is effectively prevented and punished?" and when confronted with remarks about ambiguity with regards to how this may be enforced, just remember that a state of anarchy is practically feasible (see above) and that all possible ambiguities are merely challenges to be overcome to attain this state of anarchy. Everytime that a challenge is presented, one needs to just ask oneself: “What can be done in order to ensure that aggressive acts like these are prevented and punished within the framework of natural law?”, not see ambiguity as a reason for making it permissible to put people in cages to owning certain plants and for not paying unilaterally imposed fees.
• A monopoly on law enforcement necessarily engenders aggression; it is possible to have a network of mutually self-correcting NAP-enforcement agencies without having an NAP-violating monopolist on law and order.
  • For an example of world-wide anarchy in action, try to explain why small States like Lichtenstein, Monaco, Luxemburg, Slovenia, Malta, Panama, Uruguay, El Salvador, Brunei, Bhutan, Togo, Djibouti, Burundi, Tajikistan and Qatar are not annexed in the international anarchy among States.

Frequently when anarchy is discussed, Statists are quick to argue "But what if the anarchy is overrun by Statism?". From my experience, one may try to argue with the skeptic over how an anarchic natural law jurisdiction may be respected and enforced, but it seems to me that the skeptic will never be satisfied and always dig up more and more scenarios for you to answer, all the while of course being completely unable to answer what they would do were the monopolistic law providers of the State to turn on them, especially if they advocate for popular disarmament.

I have come to the realization that answering the hows whenever someone does not recognize the what and why of natural law and anarchy is a futile endeavor: if they do not recognize the what and why, they do not even know what the how justifies; if they do recognize the what and why, they will want to learn about the how themselves.

The what and why of natural law and anarchy; a litmus test to whether further elaborations of how can convince the interlocutor

Consequently, whenever you come into a debate with a Statist who contests the achievability of natural law and anarchy, you need just describe to them the what and why of natural law and anarchy.

What: a natural law jurisdiction, otherwise known as 'an anarchy', is a territory in which aggression (initiation of uninvited physical interference with someone's person or property (https://liquidzulu.github.io/homesteading-and-property-rights/), or threats made thereof) is criminal and prosecutable according to proportional punishment (https://liquidzulu.github.io/defensive-force-and-proportionality/).

What is worthwhile remarking is that aggression is objective: if someone shits on your lawn and you catch them doing that on camera, you have objective indisputable evidence that they have aggressed against your lawn thanks to the presence of the excrement and the footage. Every crime under natural law can be objectively ascertained: one needs just check whether changes in the (physical) integrity of some scarce means has happened, and to whom this scarce means belongs. A social order with no aggression is possible: people can simply choose to not aggress.

A problem I see people do when they conceptualize a natural law jurisdiction is that they immediately imagine how things may go wrong. You may say that an anarchy is characterized by the criminalization of aggression, yet they will then shove you individual cases of aggression happening, implying that this disqualifies anarchy, not realizing that anarchists can also point to instances where State laws are broken and where politicians do not act for "the common good".

If you want to understand how a legal philosophy will work, the most honest thing is not to immediately imagine how things may go wrong, but first at least try to understand in what way things may go right. To this end, one needs just ask the advocate of a political ideology: "According to which principles will acts be made impermissible/illegal in your proposed society? Why? In what ways will you use uninvited physical interference with someone’s person or property, or threats made thereof to ensure that impermissible/illegal acts are prevented and punished?".

Using these questions, you can effectively come to the core of someone's beliefs. For example, when arguing with Communists, it is in fact completely unnecessary to play their game of trying to address their mythology and "economic" arguments - if they use political power in injust ways, we don't have to know more about them.

With regards to anarchy, aggression will be criminalized, and measures to prevent and punish (https://mises.org/journal-libertarian-studies/punishment-and-proportionality-estoppel-approach) them will be constrained by the non-aggression principle.

The correct way then to conceptualize anarchy, like any other legal theory, is to imagine how use of force will be used to ensure that the system works as intended. For this end, one needs to...

1. Imagine that the intended state of affairs that anarchy advocates to have is implemented: one where non-aggression is overwhelmingly or completely respected and enforced. As established above, such a state of affairs is entirely possible.
2. Imagine what challenges exist to attain this preferred state of affairs and how to overcome them. Because non-aggression is possible and aggression objectively ascertainable, one cannot imagine some difficult challenge and then conclude that anarchy is impossible. Even if one may have a hard time to think how a specific problem may be solved, the fact that anarchy can be attained if people simply refrain from doing aggression and if objectively ascertainable facts are acted upon, it means that every perceived problem to attaining a state of anarchy is merely a challenge which can be overcome by implementing a correct technical solution. Consequently, appeals to ambiguity cannot be a valid rebuttal to anarchy.

The prime example of learning to not feel overwhelmed by ambiguities regarding the how is to wrap one's head around the concept of decentralized NAP-enforcement. Many individuals hear that the non-aggression principle criminalizes legal monopolies on law enforcement and from that think that anarchy entails lawlessness and chaos because the NAP-enforcers will supposedly inevitably systematically go rogue. However, if one looks at the aforementioned definition of a natural law jurisdiction, one realizes that the lack of a legal monopoly does not entail lawlessness: a natural law jurisdiction will by definition be in such a way that non-aggression is overwhelmingly the norm, and thus not chaos and lawlessness, since the territory will by definition have natural law as the law of the land. How decentralized law enforcement may achieve this is a purely technical question independent of the why of natural law, however, the international anarchy among States in which Togo and Lichtenstein are somehow not annexed in spite of the ease of doing so provide insight into how such mutually self-correcting decentralized law enforcement may be implemented. Becoming able to conceptualize this anarchic law enforcement is a crucial step in practicing one's ability to remain steadfast in remembering what the what is supposed to be without having ambiguities regarding the how making one doubt whether the what is possible or not. For something to be a state of anarchy, it must be the case that aggression can be prevented and prosecuted - how this may be attained needs not precisely be known, and ambiguities thereof do not mean that such a state of affairs is impossible.

Why: One may point to the intuitive fact that it is extremely suspicious that State power needs to use flagrant lies to justify itself (https://mises.org/library/book/busting-myths-about-state-and-libertarian-alternative) and that it does harm. For a more sophisticated justification, one may look at the argumentation ethics justification. https://liquidzulu.github.io/the-nap/

The litmus test for whether someone will even be able to be receptive to libertarian ideals will thus be their answer to the question "Are you ready to personally imprison your friend for <peaceful action criminalized by States>", such as smoking weed or refusing to pay for some tax-funded service? If they will not do that, then they cannot coherently argue for Statism and are at least in the right mindset; if they will do that, then it is questionable as to how they can be convinced as they personally feel comfortable in enforcing authoritarian practices upon peaceful individuals.

Natural law is practicable; ambiguity regarding the how does not invalidate the why

Because non-aggressive behavior is possible and that detection of aggression is objectively ascertainable, we can deduce that a natural law-based anarchy is possible. Argumentation ethics provides a convincing why for implementing the what of natural law which the Statist must argue against in order to be able to justify Statism.

That the how regarding how to enforce a natural law jurisdiction may not be immediately crystal clear does not invalidate the why. A Statist who argues that ambiguity of how to implement the what of natural law invalidates the why would not be able to coherently argue against slavery apologists in the antebellum South. As Robert Higgs writes (https://mises.org/mises-wire/ten-reasons-not-abolish-slavery):

Slavery existed for thousands of years, in all sorts of societies and all parts of the world. To imagine human social life without it required an extraordinary effort. Yet, from time to time, eccentrics emerged to oppose it, most of them arguing that slavery is a moral monstrosity and therefore people should get rid of it. Such advocates generally elicited reactions ranging from gentle amusement to harsh scorn and even violent assault. [...] Northern journalists traveling in the South immediately after the war reported that, indeed, the blacks were in the process of becoming extinct because of their high death rate, low birth rate, and miserable economic condition. Sad but true, some observers declared, the freed people really were too incompetent, lazy, or immoral to behave in ways consistent with their own group survival.

Indeed, slavery apologists, much like current State apologists, tried to circumvent the glaring moral conundrum by simply appealing to ambiguities of implementation. Retrospectively, we can easily see how such gish-galloping regarding the how does not invalidate the why. Even if injustice reigned for 10,000 years, it would not mean that injustice would become just and justice unjust: the appeals to ambiguity regarding the how are irrelevant regarding the validity of natural law.

Consequently, all that a libertarian really needs to do is to argue that a society of overwhelming non-aggression is possible and underline that detection of crime is objectively ascertainable (the what) and then present the why. If the skeptic cannot disprove the why, then no amount of ambiguous hows will be able to disprove the why either way; if the skeptic accepts the why, then discussions of how merely become technical questions on how to most efficiently implement the what.

 The international anarchy among States as a useful analogy for how decentralized law enforcement may work

That being said, it is favorable to recognize how natural law-based law enforcement will work (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=100PhTXHoLU).

A very potent analogy that I have realized is the current international anarchy among States.

A common assertion is that a Stateless social order will inevitably lead to powerful actors subjugating the weaker actors, yet conspicuously, our international anarchy among States (I recognize that State's territorial claims are illegitimate, however, as an analogy, for anarchy, how States work with regards to each other, the international anarchy among States is a surprisingly adequate analogy) is one wherein many weak States' territorial claims are respected: Lichtenstein, Monaco, Luxemburg, Slovenia, Malta, Panama, Uruguay, El Salvador, Brunei, Bhutan, Togo, Djibouti, Burundi, Tajikistan and Qatar are countries which could militarily easily be conquered, yet conspicuously aren't. This single-handedly disproves the Hobbesean myth that anarchy is impossible because a State would inevitably re-emerge: these weaker States are not annexed in spite of the lack of a One World Government. Indeed, were these States to be annexed by a One World Government, they would be even less able to engage in self-determination: if the One World Government is put in place, what is to prevent the most ruthless among the world's politicians from rising to the top?

As Zack Rofer writes in Busting Myths about the State (https://cdn.mises.org/Busting_Myths_about_the_State.pdf):

The most obvious and significant current example of libertarianism is the international community: vis-à-vis one another, the various nation-states exist in a condition of political anarchy. There is no “world state” coercively governing all nation-states. Accordingly, many aspects of what a libertarian society would look like domestically are in operation today internationally.38

All arguments that a Statist may make against anarchy can equally be applied to the international anarchy among States. Someone who argues that a State is necessary to avoid warlords cannot coherently argue against establishing a One World Government to avoid warlords in the international anarchy among States from arising.

If someone is amicable to the why but has a hard time wrapping their head around the how, it may be useful to analogize with the international anarchy among States.

'But why even try? You recognize that attempts at establishing a natural law jurisdiction may fail. Communism also works in theory!'

In short: It’s in invalid analogy. Communism does not even work in theory; natural law has objective metrics according to which it can be said to work; everyone has the ability to refrain from aggressing.

First, all Statists have grievances regarding how States are conducted. Surely if the Statist argues that States must be continuously improved and that the State's laws are continuously violated, and thus must be improved, then they cannot coherently argue that the possibility of a natural law jurisdiction failing is a fatal flaw of natural law - their preferred state of affairs fails all the time. States do not even provide any guarantees https://mises.org/online-book/anatomy-state/how-state-transcends-its-limits

Secondly, such an assertion is an odd one: Communism does not even work in theory (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KzHA3KLL7Ho). In contrast, natural law is based on objectively ascertainable criterions and can thus attain a 'perfect' state of affairs, unlike communism in which appeals to the mystic "Material forces of history" or "Common good" can constantly be used to justify further use of aggression. Many fail to realize that communist theory is rotten to its very core and can't thus be used as the foundation for a legal order. What one ought remember is that the doctrine claims to merely propose descriptive claims, yet from this derives oughts. For example, the whole "labor theory of value surplus value extraction" assertion is a simple trick. Even if we were to grant that it's true (it's not), that supposed descriptive claim does not even justify violent revolution - marxists don't even have a theory of property according to which to judge whether some deed has been illegal or not.

I used to think that it was nutty to call marxism millenarian, but upon closer inspection, I've come to realize that it is uncannily true (https://mises.org/mises-daily/millennial-communism).

Thirdly, as mentioned above, Statist law is argumentatively indefensible and an anarchic social order where non-aggression is the norm is possible. To try to invalidate the underlying why with some appeals to ambiguity regarding the how would be like a slavery apologist in the antebellum South: if natural law is justice, then it should simply be enforced. Again, the international anarchy among States is a glaring world-wide example of anarchy in action. Sure, some violations of international law may happen inside this international, but violations of a State's laws happen frequently: if mere presence of violations means that a "system doesn't work", then Statism does not "work" either.

A diagram showing how private security agencies would work in a free market; yellow and black background.

The MaBell monopoly was intentionally created by the US government. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_AT%26T#Monopoly

Standard Oil is brought up a lot in monopoly discussions, but it wasn't much of a monopoly to begin with. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Oil#Monopoly_charges_and_anti-trust_legislation

At its worse, it had 91% market share. That means it wasn't a monopoly, first of all. Secondly, competition eroded it to 70% within a matter of years. And by the time the government got around to "saving us from the evil monopoly," Standard Oil was at 64% marketshare... Hardly a monopoly at any point, and yet the government took full credit for the market doing what it does best: competition.

DeBeers fell apart on its own. And it was arguably never a monopoly, just a very very influential player.

US Steel (nee Carnegie Steel), a very influential 70% market shareholder whose influence rapidly waned in a global economy

Even then, it was more likely that the people who owned monopolies were buying politicians (because this actually happened), rather than the government simply protecting them for no reason, so to say that the government is the cause of monopolies seems hard to prove or provide evidence for.

As PJ O'Rourke said, "When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first things to be bought and sold are legislators." It's an inherently flawed idea, and no high minded "just make sure they're the good guys" will magically fix that

Hello everyone, my first post here.

I'm talking here because I want to know if anyone knows about some site that have the global prices of consoles (Video Games) or Electronics in general. This is for my great agorist plan.

Ps: English isn't my first language, I'm sorry if there are any mistakes.

I have been trying for decades. Even fled the country. My friends in UK and France wonder what the beef is. They get to put their subscriptions on hold with no issues when they are not using their service.

Those armed customer service agents for USA roads are having none of it.

They hired 87,000 more customer service specialists and charged it to my account, even after I spent so much time telling them I want to cancel the service and get no value for all the fees. I feel like they are robbing me! I don't remember signing any contract. I think my parents may have as some kind of goof to mess with me. Customer service can provide no evidence that I signed up for the account.

One person in another department said I could cancel, but have to pay a hefty cancellation fee before they let me off the hook, and insisted I sign up with a similar service before confirming the cancellation....

I had an interaction with their collections department. Really aggressive. "I will find you and I will murder you" levels of threatening. Hard to ignore this firm and their abusive tactics.

I kind of hope they just go out of business at this point. No idea why so many people think this is such a great service...

In capitalism, the capital providers are the owners. In socialism, the labor providers are the owners.

Not exactly. In capitalism, everyone owns themselves and the products of their exclusive labor. When something is the product of multiple people's labor, those people must come together and decide amongst themselves how to split it up.

One of the most common arrangements is that those who provide the capital recieve the end product while those who run the capital recieve a wage. This is known as employment.

This is far from the only arrangement used though. For example, the reverse arrangement is fairly common as well. In this case, those who provide the capital receive a rent and those who run the capital recieve the end product. This is known as renting.

Another possible arrangement is that the person who provides the capital runs it themself. This is known as self-employment.

The word "capitalism" is a bit of a misnomer. In fact, it was first used as an epithet by Marxists to discredit the system.

In reality, "capitalism", or free markets rather, does not privilege capital owners above laborers, it strikes a balance between capital and labor. After all, capital is itself the product of labor, which is the product of capital, ad infinitum.

How is taxation theft but wage labor is not?

The difference is consent.

Why isn't all sex considered rape?

Well, in one scenario, two (or more, whatever you like) people consent and both derive pleasure from it. It is a win win scenario. In the other, a person is violently aggressed upon and harmed.

Why isn't all trade theft?

Are you "stealing" from the baker when you buy a loaf of bread? He labored to make it. You gave him money. He actually seeks your money in exchange for his labor. That is consent. If the baker points a gun at you and demands you buy his shitty, walnut cupcakes, even though you have a nut allergy, that is clearly non-consentual, extortive and borderline murder if he also demands you eat them.

Consent is key to peaceful human interactions. If someone advocates aggression against others, then they are not engaged in a peacecful interaction.

However, why are taxes theft then? Well, it's obvious, it's coercion, it's not voluntary.

Correct. When the state uses its immense monopoly on violence to coerce a victim to hand over the irreplaceable moments of their lives without their consent, it can be properly considered theft.

So like, in a "voluntary" contract made by the employer and the employee, the employer takes a part of the value produced by the employee.

... this is not theft, as it's part of a voluntary contract and the employee has agreed to it.

Once again, also correct. If I seek work in exchange for money, and someone seeks my labor and will pay me, we have entered a consensual, win-win relationship. This is ethical (as you have admitted).

It [taxation] is though. It's voluntary. In exchange of taxes, you have electricity and water, you are protected by the police and by the firefighters.

If this is the "gotcha, free-marketers!" twist, it just doesn't work. In "services" received in exchange for being robbed, there is no consent, and those "services" are typically coercive monopolies where no other alternative is even permitted by the state, under penalty of kidnapping, caging, or execution. Kidnapping and caging a peaceful person, then demanding they work to pay you for the privilege of a roof and food, where they literally have no other choice, is not an argument that they must pay their captors. Some people might call that slavery.

unless you live autonomously and completely cut off from these services.

And here is the typical statist argument engaging in victim-blaming: "if you don't like it, then why don't you leave?" As if it is encumbant on the victim of abuse to flee her home, family, friends and town to escape her abuser, rather than the abuser to stop the violence.

For those who suffer citizenship based taxation, even leaving is not enough. It is like a crazy, rapey ex who stalks you all over the planet, constantly threatening you and abusing you until you marry someone else just as crazy, rapey and violent to chase them away.

The biggest argument for intellectual monopoly is that without it, nobody would make large investments if they won't sustain long term high profits from it. The issue with this is capital goods themselves are necessary to discover innovations, and intellectual monopoly increases scarcity of these capital goods. In other words, investments to create innovation wouldn't need to be as large without intellectual monopoly.

Note that I call intellectual property "intellectual monopoly" because property is inherently a scarce resource, and knowledge is not. Use intellectual monopoly instead to give less ground to statists.

I’m going to ask you a series of yes or no questions.

The government has a history of corruption?

The government has a history or mistreating minorities?

The government has a history of mistreating women?

The government has plotted and executed attacks on innocent people?

I hate going to government offices like the DMV or Post Office because they run inefficiently?

The government should be providing healthcare and education instead of doctors and scholars?

%99 of the time they’ll flee from the conversation or try to spring into mental gymnastics. But it effectively makes them admit their way doesn’t work and shouldn’t be retried for the… what? 250th time?

From Gentile, who wrote the book on Fascism:

“Fascism is a form of socialism, in fact, it is its most viable form.”

On April 22, 1945 in Milan, the Fascist leader Benito Mussolini would declare the following:

“Our programs are definitely equal to our revolutionary ideas and they belong to what in democratic regime is called “left”; our institutions are a direct result of our programs and our ideal is the Labor State. In this case there can be no doubt: we are the working class in struggle for life and death, against capitalism. We are the revolutionaries in search of a new order. If this is so, to invoke help from the bourgeoisie by waving the red peril is an absurdity. The real scarecrow, the real danger, the threat against which we fight relentlessly, comes from the right. It is not at all in our interest to have the capitalist bourgeoisie as an ally against the threat of the red peril, even at best it would be an unfaithful ally, which is trying to make us serve its ends, as it has done more than once with some success. I will spare words as it is totally superfluous. In fact, it is harmful, because it makes us confuse the types of genuine revolutionaries of whatever hue, with the man of reaction who sometimes uses our very language.”

How does it compare? Would an ancap society end up like BTTF 1985A ?

Thanks in advance.

First appropriator: this looks like a nice place to build a shelter and a tomato garden. Nobody is around, using this space, seems to have claimed it or even knows about it.

(10 years later)

Georgist: pay me, move or be moved!

First appropriator: why?

Georgist: someone else may want to live here and grow potatoes!

First appropriator: you?

Georgist: Not me, but some human, somewhere, at some time might! There are a lot of people around here using land for homes and gardens, so I have assessed an "unimproved Land Value Tax" based on increasing demand nearby.

First appropriator: there is a another parcel of space next to me where they can do that. I do not want to move. Been here a long time bothering nobody.

Georgist: But you are excluding them from this parcel, so you have to pay me and everyone else that exists now, and every future generation!

First appropriator: so, you are threatening me if I don't get out of your way? Sounds like theft to me.

Georgist: no, you are the thief by being here!

First appropriator: Ok, so if I go next door, where I just suggested you can also go, will you stop threatening me?

Georgist: No! We claim all space and time as ours, and if you claim it, you are committing aggression!

First appropriator: Ok, so, no matter what I do, you are going to threaten me with violence? Sounds pretty aggressive. I will stay put. The difference is, I never threatened to hurt anyone to build my home and garden here. You are being a jerk.

“Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all. We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education. We object to a state religion. Then the socialists say that we want no religion at all. We object to a state-enforced equality. Then they say that we are against equality. And so on, and so on. It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain.”

― Frederic Bastiat, The Law

There is reason to suspect that workplace democracy would be the primary business model in a free market. There are several ideas that lead to this conclusion, and they are as follows:

1. In a free market, firms would naturally be smaller. This is because larger firms would lack the hindrances the government gives to smaller firm size (public transportation, sales tax, regulations, etc.). Smaller firms actually outcompete larger ones in a free market. This is because they have better access to the knowledge distributed throughout society over a large bureaucracy (Hayek’s knowledge problem). This results in smaller firms being better at adjusting to demand shocks, making profitable decisions, and even innovation. Factor in the ECP, which states that between states of production, prices are needed to make the most allocatively efficient decision, and suddenly vertically integrated firms become less profitable as well. And all this is compounded by the fact that workers are more productive in smaller businesses. For more on this subject, I recommend reading “Organization Theory” by Kevin Carson. For a historical account of small firms beating large ones, check out “Triumph of Conservatism” by Gabriel Kolko.

2. Perhaps this goes along with the first point, but I think it’s large enough on it’s own: in a free market, it will be a lot easier for any random person to start a business. Without the state enforcing things like taxes and regulations, factors of production necessary to start a business would become a lot more abundant. With this abundance, more businesses will spring up, and even make these factors more attainable. With this, virtually anyone could start a business. For example, I could decide to operate a restaurant in my garage, and so could anyone else in my neighborhood. Will big conglomerates like McDonald’s be able to compete with that?

3. An issue with worker cooperatives is that workers have higher time preference than capitalists. This means cooperatives take less risks and actually expand less than traditional businesses, and even tend to employ less people. This is the reason we don’t see many cooperatives today. However, this problem only persists in a system in which large firms sizes are the goal. In a free market, this problem is gone, as firm sizes will become smaller. Cooperatives actually thrive at a smaller scale over other forms of management (I’ll delve into this more with my next point). The issue of them not employing enough people is fine because virtually anyone can start a cooperative or self-owned business of their own due to the abundance of capital as demonstrated by the previous point. We would actually see a lot of competition this way, making it overall better.

4. Hayek’s knowledge problem can actually explain cooperatives being better at smaller sizes. In a traditional business model, a boss must be able to make decisions on the business without having access to all the knowledge of the employees. A cooperative has a better flow of information between workers and thus would make more informed decisions. This advantage goes away at larger firm sizes as democracy gets more and more tiresome, but at a small scale, this isn’t as much of a problem. You could compare it to a family making decisions together vs a family where one person takes charge of directing everyone to every task.

Original comment: https://www.reddit.com/r/Libertarian/comments/rou9sq/would_a_work_place_democracy_be_align_with/hq0y8wf/

I remember that time Ronald McDonald kicked in my door. The Hamburgler rushed in and tossed 4 dozen Big Mac's on my living room floor. Mayor McCheese was demanding I fork over $2,000 for the food product I never wanted in the first place, or he would force me to labor for 6 months over a deep frier at the local shop. Grimace was grinning menacingly my way, daring me to cause trouble!

How in the world could I explain tomorrow to Jeff Bezos that I have no money left for the mandatory drone drop of hot pockets? Surely he will drop some bombs on my neighborhood instead for such a transgression!

Of course, this doesn't happen, because economic relationships are not political relationships. An entrepreneur fills orders to customer demand at the point of sale. A political ruler orders you to meet his demands, at the pointof a gun.

Arms. Lots of them. And I don't mean meal team six larping levels. Industrial, whole market scale, modern warfare level armaments.

One of the craziest things I encountered as an expat/tech nomad is how far reaching insurance is outside Western societies.

Like, the risk of actual invasion and war is insured for firms and their employees. I thought it was some bizzarre fiction when I saw the contract. My coverage actually included professional extraction under fire. It is nuts, I know, but also a real thing. And this was not even for taking a gig in some 3rd world, at-risk failed state. It was for Singapore!

In a libertarian free market anarchy, the risk of an invasion is pretty low (all of those nation states keeping funds in your banks tends to make them react badly to some bozo rolling tanks in to steal their assets). It is non-zero, however, and a credible defense of property is a keystone of stability for foreign investment. Much like the jet turbine generators in Sterling Forest, New Jersey for business backup and continuity IBM offers. They have never actually been needed, but that assurance is why five 9's of uptime commands a premium.

How does one mitigate risk in a free market? Typically insurance. You might imagine it is all about accountants, actuary tables and lawyers, but back to my second paragraph: they actually employ lots of other actors for risk mitigation because it has a direct impact on profits. Military-grade extraction ops, or jet turbine backup generators for data centers.

What is to stop an insurer from creating an armory? In most Western societies, it just does not make sense, since the state does it. Without a state, does the requirement for stability disappear? Of course not.

What's more, what if the insurer offers free coverage for those training with the armory? I was a pilot before I expatriated. You can bet I would jump at an opportunity to train once a month in an F-35 or equivalent!

A free market anarchy is basically a heavily armed Swizterland, with financial incentives to have a credible, defensive military, fully geared for a response and with training incentives, but entirely voluntary and market-based. Hell, foreign investors are the ones funding the whole thing just to keep their assets secure. No need for tax victims.

This, of course, is a hypothetical with as much real-world overlap as I can muster refereincing existing systems and technology leveraged for rational self-interest and profit. You can bet entrepreneurs will find even more effective, efficient and creative ways to mitigate such threats like a PRC invasion. There are plenty of other options that may cost less than the "kill people and break stuff" approach, including mutual sureties that are economically destructive to aggressors, etc...

FWIW: I live in Asia and PRC are actively harrassing rigs and boats here. I do take it seriously, and would love to have a far more effective military than what nation states in the region can muster.

First of all, a right is any action I choose to take that does not conflict with the negative rights of anyone else. From eating a flavor of ice cream, hanging the toilet paper roll backwards -- or to use the necessary and proportional force required to stop violent aggression as it is happening. Rights are not granted by anyone. They just are. They can either be recognized and even protected by others, or they can be ignored and unjustly violated.

Why would you violate someone else's right to defend their lives?

Alone on an island with a pride of lions trying to kill me and eat me, I have every right (some might argue a natural, ethical imperative) to craft a lethal weapon and prevent my own demise.

Ok, so the alone on an island situation seems contrived, one might argue. Let's change that pride of lions to a tribe of cannibals. Does the right to life and self defense disappear merely because the aggressors threatening to murder me are people? Why should I be disarmed while they are not?

Well, we do happen to live with a tribe of aggressors that use threats of lethal violence against everyone else. It is called the state. Its handful of leaders demand absolute obedience with whatever irrational demands they make, and happen to be armed with guns to elicit compliance.

The mere fact of having a means of lethal self defense does not make someome a murderer. It is the act of aggression against peaceful people and using those weapons in escalation that makes the act murder.

It is not just the state. Through its prohibitions and awful policies, it creates other gangs of aggressors -- from drug lords to enemy foreign nation states. All of which are similarly armed.

The fact is, millions of defensive gun uses happen each year, dramatically dwarfing murders and other violent crimes -- literally preventing much more carnage. Armed human beings are doing much more to prevent tragedies than the proportionally small number of bad actors that create tragedies. (r/dgu)

All practicality aside, it all boils down to whether nor not a peaceful human being has a right to live their lives free of aggression. If so, then it is also right they be allowed to defend that life that is theirs by right of being alive in the first place.

Regulations cut both ways, especially pollution.

Before the EPA, and in fact one of the reasons cited for the Clean Air and Water Act, was when the Cuyahoga River in Ohio literally caught fire, repeatedly, due to industrial pollutants.

At the time, there were several individual and community tort actions in progress to force the pollutors to stop messing up the river, fund a clean up, and pay damages. Lots of damages.

The state, noticing there was a real problem, and never letting a crisis go to waste, quickly stepped in with a solution. It issued industrial stream use permits to the pollutors! This effectively stopped pending tort actions.

That's right, the state regulatory body intervened and removed the people's ability to demand relief through tort actions by giving the pollutors permission to pollute -- a credible defense.

Regulatory compliance can be a powerful defense to prosecution.

Case Western Law wrote an excellent paper on the subject called Fables of the Cuyahoga.

I say remove such legal barriers to tort actions and open the floodgates for class actions, individual and community tort to force pollutors to actually have to pay for the negative externalities (damages) they incur. Stop socializing the costs for pollution.

It would take just one case completely wiping out a pollutor's business to spook the rest into far greater compliance. Imagine what would have happened if BP had to pay the true costs for the Deep Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. Insurance premiums would be sky-high for any rig operators that did not fantastically exceed even the most stringent (and constantly changing) regulatory rules dictated by a politically operated executive branch. Rather than ever-changing, fiat actions by an administration elected every 4 years, clean air and clean water would instead be a matter of settled case law over time as new actions are brought against pollutors. The rules would be strict, fixed, predictable, and victims would actually receive real relief, rather than fines going to government bureaucracies.

Couldn't find if a rebuttal has been posted already, so there's my bet. The guy0s video is here https://youtu.be/GfjiBIkIOqI

The Impact of Gun Ownership Rates on Crime Rates: A Methodological Review of the Evidence

Purpose: This paper reviews 41 English-language studies that tested the hypothesis that higher gun prevalence levels cause higher crime rates, especially higher homicide rates.

Methods: Each study was assessed as to whether it solved or reduced each of three critical methodological problems: (1) whether a validated measure of gun prevalence was used, (2) whether the authors controlled for more than a handful of possible confounding variables, and (3) whether the researchers used suitable causal order procedures to deal with the possibility of crime rates affecting gun rates, instead of the reverse.

Results: It was found that most studies did not solve any of these problems, and that research that did a better job of addressing these problems was less likely to support the more-guns-cause-more crime hypothesis. Indeed,none of the studies that solved all three problems supported the hypothesis.

Conclusions: Technically weak research mostly supports the hypothesis, while strong research does not. It must be tentatively concluded that higher gun ownership rates do not cause higher crime rates, including homicide rates.

Schools that Allow Teachers to Carry Guns are Extremely Safe

Total number of people killed on campus

The U.S. is well below the world average in terms of the number of mass public shootings, and the global increase over time has been much bigger than for the United States.

Over the 18 years from 1998 to 2015, our list contains 2,354 attacks and at least 4,880 shooters outside the United States and 53 attacks and 57 shooters within our country. By our count, the US makes up less than 1.15% of the mass public shooters, 1.49% of their murders, and 2.20% of their attacks. All these are much less than the US’s 4.6% share of the world population. Attacks in the US are not only less frequent than other countries, but they are also much less deadly on average.

Out of the 97 countries where we have identified mass public shootings occurring, the United States ranks 64th in the per capita frequency of these attacks and 65th in the murder rate.

Not only have these attacks been much more common outside the US, the US’s share of these attacks have declined over time. There has been a much bigger increase over time in the number and severity of mass shootings in the rest of the world compared to the US.

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3289010

Mass Shootings by Country, 2022 Not a part of this study, covers fewer countries.

In the United States in 2014 total firearms injuries including fatal and non-fatal was 114,628. While annual estimates of injuries prevented by firearms range from 0.6 million to 6.1 million. That means from 5 to 53 injuries were prevented for every injury caused by firearms.

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3134859

National Survey Estimates of Prevalence of Defensive Gun Use

Patri Friedman explains how dispersed costs and concentrated benefits favor special interests in democracy:

Democracy debunked in 2 minutes