You mean that they are imagining a phantom republic so resilient that they can live by its “true” laws while most people violate them day and night, and that these “true” laws make functioning of said republic impossible?

Many people believe in rule of law, yet revolutions and forceful changes are a necessity, states recognize facts made against existing law all the time, every state and system in existence has been erected by illegal violence, and with all that many say that another revolution (in hypothetical scenario, not right now) would somehow be less legal than existing systems. There’s a clear contradiction here, the only answer to which is usually that the current situation is in common interest and you can’t do that, because “fuck around and find out”.

There are such contradictions in free speech, of which everyone here certainly knows - one can use free speech to kill free speech. There are such contradictions in property rights, as everyone ridiculing ancaps certainly knows. There are such contradictions in personal freedom. There was another example but I think I’m writing too much. Got this habit while learning English at school.

But you’re also just describing taxes. It sounds like you’ve read up on the modern form of libertarianism. Which is another crock.

I’ve read up on many forms of it. Yes, I’m literally listing ways to make taxes acceptable for a libertarian.

TL;DR: Nobody employs pure ideology. If sovcits were to make their own state, they’d have taxes with the reasoning that these are necessary in practice. Same as NEP in Soviet Russia.

So you want every person to have to pay for a fire subscription? And if they don’t have one their house burns down or they get extorted?

That’s what you have now, only it’s provided by the state. Well, if you don’t have one, you are either an illegal alien or have it free or prosecuted for not paying taxes.

There’s nothing objectively different between Government and Private products, sure the private product may be cheaper sometimes, but there’s also plenty of ways the private service could be more expensive, that’s why every business, including the one I used to run, has conversations about cost vs. benefit of private vs. public for certain services.

I agree, it’s mostly about size and organization, not about ownership.

because not only was it irrelevant, it was also wildly incorrect, government services can compete with eachother, and private companies can have a monopoly even without government intervention.

Well, I’m looking at it and I see it as relevant. Yes, they can, but it’s not necessary for them to be part of the same structure. Yes, they can, but they may be organizations like Mozilla with the supposed goal of delivering the service, not profit. So just like with state services, but separated where no monolithic organization is really required. Also I haven’t said what you are arguing with, so it can’t be wildly incorrect if I haven’t said it, obviously.

Sovcits believe most of the laws are corrupted or something like this, so these things are better as they are simpler and can even be put into constitutional law or something.

I’ve never met one, we have “citizens of USSR” where I live.

The way I understand it, the Sovereign Citizens Movement is a cargo cult. They hear about all the billionaires who barely pay taxes thanks to clever accounting and all the criminals who escape punishment on technicalities, and figure that “if the law can be manipulated - why can’t we manipulate it?”

Ah, there is that, yes. There are people who believe that law is some magic where they can prove anything if they know it well enough and know some secrets.

It’s not a bad belief, frankly. They want to prove something they consider right, so they believe the law would be on their side if they worked hard enough. Just naive, but not worth ridicule.

In the sense that its connection to justice is not 1-to-1 they are right, but there are no secrets that bend it, just raw real power which a sovereign citizen doesn’t possess.

I wouldn’t be surprised if an expert legal team could achieve some of the things SovCits are trying to achieve. But that would require lots of hard work from them, and SovCits have managed to convince themselves that all it takes is a few magic phrases. I leave it to anthropologists to figure out how they came to think they could so easily figure out what these magic phrases are.

Oh, you already said that.

I don’t know what you mean by “figure out” (as in what else there is to figure out), but this is indeed a common enough plot point in fairy tales.

I was talking about the emotional part where right and common sense matter more than the law. The law is supported by force, so it’s morally acceptable to use force to protect right and common sense against it. Oh, well, speaking of USA, that’s in their Constitution anyway, and what’s more important, those founding fathers they like to mention have many times said that this is a natural principle and the Constitution doesn’t create or support it, just mentions it.

You’re gonna sit there on your phone trying to decide which fire service to use while your house is literally burning down?

Why “trying to decide”? One may have some kind of subscription etc. Also finding one quickly, like with taxi and food delivery services, is a demand to be filled. Markets and such.

What about people who rent? It’s not their own private property, are they supposed to pay for the whole building being saved? Does it get put on the landlord? He never consented to having his building saved, his tenants just called the fire station when a fire started. Are the tenants supposed to contact their landlord first so that he can properly consent to having a fire station save his property?

It seems you haven’t read the paragraph about separation.

Well other than now having to pay for double the amount of infrastructure, you now also probably have people who own and profit off the stations, which introduces every normal market pressure, positive and corrupting.

You’ll pay less, that’s for sure, ask anyone who’ve worked with state services and big organizations. At their job, I mean. I have.

“Pay our massive fee or your house burns down” certainly sounds coercive. You’ve also not established anything to guarantee that a fire station doesn’t develop a monopoly.

It seems you haven’t read the paragraph about separation.

If your solution to serious and urgent emergencies like “Oh my god, my house is on fire” or “Oh my god, I’m having a heart attack” is several paragraphs long, you’ve not actually developed a solution, just a hypothetical which shows painfully obviously why we stopped running society like this millenia ago.

It seems you haven’t read the paragraph about separation. Which is one (1) paragraph, not several. Also no, it doesn’t show anything, because you haven’t read it and can’t make such claims.

The paragraph about separation:

This all is unimportant, though, since it ignores the fact that something like a state fire service, only one separate from police, military and others and with administration formed separately from them is still allowable for ancap. Where membership would be like citizenship in our world, and a member gets the service on usual conditions (but pays something like taxes), while a non-member will pay a lot that one time. It’s similar to state healthcare being free for citizens, but not for foreign nationals in some countries.

Now what I don’t understand is why you all refuse to read before commenting.

One line in a list

Imagine being the first person to answer without insults or smug stupidity since I first commented under this post, and I wasn’t insulting others then.

Did you really choose which firestation was gonna send a truck?? That’s the problem with using a “free market” argument for emergencies, yeah sure it’s great to choose between different emergency providers when there’s nothing happening.

Yes. You need to have at least twice as many firestations to have a choice, if you want to choose between fire services, though.

Or if we are talking only about choosing between insurance companies, then there’s no problem, but with only one fire service and some imagined jungle capitalism you’ll have a problem, because it’ll be very expensive as a monopolist.

I don’t see a problem with having twice as many firestations, as in two parallel services. They don’t have only one landline at the firestation after all. They have HA in any mass service system.

This all is unimportant, though, since it ignores the fact that something like a state fire service, only one separate from police, military and others and with administration formed separately from them is still allowable for ancap. Where membership would be like citizenship in our world, and a member gets the service on usual conditions (but pays something like taxes), while a non-member will pay a lot that one time. It’s similar to state healthcare being free for citizens, but not for foreign nationals in some countries.

Notice how it requires no coercion or monopoly, so perfectly acceptable for ancap.

But when a fire starts or you have a heart attack?

See my solution.

The difference is that you choose the insurance company.

Wrong post. All things mentioned are about one centralized state.

The reason for them instead of usual taxes is to make it harder to embezzle taxes and reduce motivation to corrupt the state apparatus. You’ve heard that before, it was the usual republican shit.

No, you’ve literally screenshotted the comment I meant. What I said about FP. End

A company may not be able to afford prolonging contracts without raising prices, but otherwise be able to fulfill this role.

Maybe people shouldn’t settle in places too prone to fires.

Maybe there’s some regulation involved in the first sentence which won’t be in ancap.

Whatever. Ancap being worse than alternative in some criterion doesn’t mean defeat of ancap, ancap being better in some other criterion doesn’t mean victory of ancap.

“And” doesn’t mean causality.

Archimedes designed siege devices and died at Siracuse. Him designing siege devices is not the reason for him dying.

I agree that nobody owes me respect (I actually like it, because it removes the balancing part) and I’d not want respect from you. The latter is not a consequence of the former.

Also “I’d not want respect from you” in natural languages can mean “I want no respect from you” or literal meaning, I meant the latter.

“And” doesn’t mean causality.

Your argument is in the wrong context -> it’s invalid -> shot down.

You’re simply denying things you don’t like and pretend to be winning something somewhere. Go away

Oh, half the time of therapy I’m being told that things I perceive as problems with my behavior are not.

But then fighting windmills or ignorami is definitely that. Thx for a good thought

An irrelevant question after your argument has been shot down

I don’t think scolding morons is indicative of any of these

What’s so special about me?

You being the author of the comment I was answering, maybe.

No, it’s not, the article is obviously not in ancap context, it’s in USA, California, 2024 context.

Humanity is doomed.

Answered elsewhere - I’m fine with that, and in your case I’d never want it.