Subreddit Rules:

I want to brush up on my knowledge of U.S. history, so I'm looking for a book that would give a complete and comprehensive, in-depth survey of the Country's history from 1492 to the present. I realize, though, that most U.S. history textbooks used in high school and university courses are full of statist propaganda about how important government power is. Examples include vilifying the Articles of Confederation and calling them a "failure," glorifying Abraham Lincoln and claiming that the civil war was fought over slavery, and in general just praising every way in which government has expanded its influence over society and the economy. Is there a comprehensive survey book that presents a neutral, balanced, unopinionated, unbiased, strictly descriptive account of the past and acknowledges opposing views on major events? Or should I just read a typical statist college U.S. history textbook with a healthy dose of skepticism? Thanks!

Just the title

Hi folks, I hope it will be enough with your topic.
Why don't people in the US start nonprofit mutual health insurance? Like, for example, Firefighters' Mutual Insurance Company when they unionized and started their own insurance company. It seems like a logical thing to do. Are there any laws preventing that or are they all just too selfish and greedy to do so? I know they have many laws tailored to make healthcare more profitable, which targets competition and cheaper alternatives. But is this the same issue?

Figured I'd ask this. Let's chat

Seems like economic pressure and competition was not enough. Would this be what an ancap world looks like or is the state at fault for protecting them from competition?

Context

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna183035

Edit: link was to google summary not an actual article

What is stopping an anarcho-capitaist society from becoming neo-fuedual, then becoming a larger government?

If everyone is allowed to own land, and enforce what they want in their private property, then surely we would in up with people hoarding tons of land and creating their own private city's.

This might not seem bad at first, but they may start enforcing more tyrannical laws in there land, such as banning all private security forces, and making people pay a tax for there community police (essentially recreating the monopolized police)

More people might start doong this also, creating more and more private city states. To the point where there is no truly free land, just tons of small city states.

It gets worse though, the city states would start combining and incorporating eachother till they are large and are just a few of them, then we end up back in square one, with massive nations fighting eachother and enforcing there laws in there land.

To be clear I'm not against anarcho-capitalism, as I am one my self, I dint even have anything against Hoppenism, but we have to admit that there is a certain point when the private community becomes a corrupted state once again.

there is gotta be some way to prevent this, right?

At least I hope so

Figured i'd ask. Lets debate about it. I'd like to say no but anybody who's biased would say so otherwise xD.

It's been a while since i've been back on here but have to say i read up on some political facts and found out that canada doesn't have term limits with their political system. I've been seeing that they've been crazy with all the policies that Justin Trudeau has been doing for a while within 3 terms. Would you say Canada's statism has gone down the path of dictatorship knowing countries of this manner don't respect equality of political power to prevent statist corruption more?

A justification for denying animals rights is that they cannot rationalize, conceptualize anf this advocate for rights (they have no concept of ownership which is necessary for property rights).

With this logic, would humans that are braindead or seriously mentally hindered and cannot conceptualize ownership also not have any rights?

It seems pretty necessary in society.

I think it’s impossible because the government regulates the internet companies and the isp charges customers money making profit. And without a government no one can profit or amass capital so there wouldn’t be any internet. And then cryptocurrency wouldn’t exist.

So why do you guys pretend you don’t want governments when you really do. Also defending personal property is a government if you are An anarcho capitalist but it’s not if you are an anarcho communist so don’t even try to trick me!

Say in Ancapistan there are multiple pharmaceutical manufacturers, they eventually get their prices to $10 per person monthly for insulin, but instead they decide to cooperate and form a cartel to charge $15 due to customers still paying the price due to the demand being inelastic. While you may think other companies will compete, they instead join the cartel because their profits would fall lower through competition between them and the cartel thus incentivizing them to cooperate to raise profits again.

Why wouldn't this happen in Ancapistan?

This is true of all rents, but I’m going to specifically focus my argument on land rents.

Rents are incomes that are derived from exclusionary ownership of access to resources. They are not derived from labor or action, but rather from passive ownership.

Land rents and state taxes are two expressions, then, of the same phenomenon: the coercively-enforced extraction of incomes from people with physical bodies that must occupy space on the surface of the planet.

Rents are not payments for services any more than taxes are. The state and the landlord might both pretend this is the case, and might even redirect your resources to fund services they pretend to provide, but ultimately neither must even pretend to provide services in order to extract income. All they must do is own and promise to hurt you if you don’t pay.

“But you can always move” does not justify rents or taxes.

“But you have a choice of whom to pay” does not justify rents or taxes.

“But they provide you with stuff” does not justify rents or taxes.

“But rents are purely voluntary” then so are taxes.

Once every square inch of the world is owned by someone—by some illegitimate state or even (for the sake of argument) some purely legitimate, homesteading property owner, then every owner is absolutely free to collect taxes or rents from you without any recourse by you. You cannot opt out, a violation of your negative liberty to say no to other people.

If we were to imagine a world in which everything was assigned a legitimate, private owner, then anyone born without any property ownership would lack negative liberty.

Anyone born without property, or otherwise lacking it, could survive only with the permission from private owners, and thus could not be said to enjoy negative liberty in any meaningful sense.

Setting aside the fact that all extant private property originated in violent state expropriation, and setting aside any philosophical objections I have to the propertarian ideal of appropriation through homesteading by labor mixing or what have you, we find that a regime of fully private ownership still results in a situation indistinguishable from slavery—a propertyless person absolutely unable to say no to property owners.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=jTYkdEU_B4o&t=2s&pp=2AECkAIB

I like ancaps but I disagree with many of the content.

What about if bad guys make their own protection agency that allows murder? Thye think it's not a big problem.

It is.

Gengish Khan for example head of huge protection Agency that allows mass murdering others. He is doing just fine.

Also what's wrong with competing jurisdiction? We can just shop around and move. Sure we got to move is an inconvenient. But how hard it is? It seems that libertarian bigger problems are that there is no supply for more libertarian jurisdiction.

If there is we just move there and we are done. If the benefits far exceed the cost of moving then fine.

And the reason why there is no libertarian enough jurisdiction is because of libertarianism itself. Without Borders between cities any libertarian cities will have to accept tons of commie refugees that will simply vote or terrorize population to vote communism

Not all terms can be resolved by simply choosing different agencies.

Drugs can't be legal and illegal in the same territory. Age of consent can't be 16 and 18 in the same territory.

Tracy Lord is victim according to most people. I think Tracy Lord is aggressors.

Danny Masterson is a rapist according to most people. I think Danny Masterson is a victim. Why would a guy as handsome as he is would want to have a girlfriend that will press charges for rape latter?

Here, the girl being Danny's girlfriend is not mutually consensual because Danny would never or unlikely to consent having a girlfriend that will latter accuse him of rape.

The fact that this issue can't be resolved by contract or transactions make the whole rape accusation absurd.

How would competing right enforcement agency handle this? Well I suppose Danny can check if her girlfriend belong to feminist right enforcement agency and simply avoid her. Hmmm... Not too bad...

But yea moving to another jurisdiction with laws allowing contracts for sex in exchange of financial support and not enforcing full rape charge against rape victim that sign such contract would work too.

Many things that shopping for right enforcement agency can give cab also already be done like right now.

We can choose our own FDA based on private market certification. It's just that nobody is doing it yet in web3.0

Customers can simply choose not to buy product without correct certification label.

Voting actually works

Voting works.

How do you think commies got welfare?

Because politicians need their votes.

Why you have laws against polygamy?

Because most poor men that can't get many women vote in favor of monogamy. Many ugly women also vote against transactional sex being legal because they envy pretty women that can make money easily.

Why Israel got lots of aids? Because jews vote in blocks and good at lobbying.

And democracy, while not perfect, solves a certain function.

In monarchy the king is paid too well. The peasants can outnumber the one king and just kill the king or feudal Lords like French Revolution. Or we can all obey the law and have that one king oppress the people like free state of Congo.

In democracy the winner is majority (of used to be men). So it's more stable.

Better government can exist. Dubai is very prosperous. But it has state religions to keep people in line.

Liechesten is rich as fuck. But it's a principality. Singapore is dictatorship. Usually the most free and prosperous regions are small territories governed like business with clear shareholders.

I myself favor private cities and turn democratic cities into private cities owned or rented by it's voters.

Private cities can work like Prospera. But there aren't enough shareholders in to fight majority of commies in Honduras. Even though Prospera is awesome it's so easy for hordes of commies to simply outvote Prospera.

Armies and voters get things done. Ideologies that bring prosperity, like capitalism, need support from large number of shareholders for the ideology to be strong.

The fact that large number of communist and religious fundamentalists can influence our life is not necessarily the flaw of democracy. People near you always have power over you. They can commit crime. They can force their will and their unlibertarians sense of moral terrorism and riots.

Right to vote is like a steam hole so the whole kettle don't blow up.

George Floyd kill himself. But it's not voting that destroy cities. It's riots.

If you do not want to be influenced or governed by statists, you either have borders keep statists away, or limit gun ownership to only say freedom loving people. But that's tricky. Having borders and prohibiting guns are in a sense statism too. Also what counts as statist is often vague.

Just be practical. Look at what you can do. Start from your self. Start now. Start small. .