1ErViQ…HrpA

I have watched the Hoppe "lecture" and others with similar views and most of his ideas are complete nonsense. His conception of so called private law and how it theoretically could maybe, potentially play out is laughable at best. It's fiction.

Please, you can't be this obtuse. China can't invade the USA or their allies because they have inferior military and weapons technology. As well as the threat of M.A.D. from nuclear weapons. Your hub doesn't have that advantage. Hong Kong neither.

Your ideology literally GUARANTEES that you will be ruled and subjugated by warlords or dictators. You can't even provide defense for your community against hostile adversaries. Or do you concede that you actually do need a military?

I mean that is a non-answer. How can you convince anyone to join you, if you can't even provide basic answers on how to keep yourself safe from hostile actors? It is a problem that you must be able to provide satisfactory solutions to in the real world.

I mean it's reality. Something we all have to deal with at some point.

"You can evade reality, but you cannot evade the consequences of evading reality." - Ayn Rand

How does your community deal with threats of invasion or conquest? From say, China?

"statists" as you call them, which I presume to mean everyone who is not an anarchist, are just ppl smart enough to understand how reality works.

In your little self-governing hub, you are going to need a military by the way, or statists will wipe you out

So this community is already under existing jurisdiction?

I am lacking answers to these concrete problems that I am posing, like the thief, that you seem to be purposely evading. Why?

Getting boring trying to have fruitful discussions with ideologues.

I'm all for it. But I'm not the person you need to convince. You need to convince a lot of people otherwise you don't have the power to exert your will. Millions of people want self-governing ethno-states citing freedom of association. Are you for that?

So she went to court and had the laws changed through a judicial process? Isn't that what courts are for? Interpreting laws and solving disputes between state, federal and constitutional law?

Who "discovered" the Constitution and bill of rights?

Yes. And we have the moral obligation (and a legal one too actually) to institute a new government that better represents our interests. Founding fathers had a lot of things right. We need a revolution against the diseased ulcer that is the current state.

I meant a jurisdiction as a body with granted authority rather than geographic area. But we can also call it a community. Now if someone in your community breaks your rules, let's say starts stealing then what? Someone needs to investigate. And punish.

It's interesting how can you can't seem to separate your dislike for the current administration (which I share by the way) from general arguments about the basic concepts of law, governance and social organization. Makes discussion futile.

No not at all. Current government is a disgusting abomination of corruption and abuse. Been for a long time. But this is not the argument I am making. I am talking about the fundamental principles of law and governance itself and the futility of anarchy.

So a community of similarly minded people agree to which rules they would like to live under, and how/where the necessary application of force would be moral. You have formed a jurisdiction. The rules you make have to be decided on and enforced. How?

If you want to live under "natural law" away from civilized society governed by laws, nobody is stopping you today! You can even bring friends.

Personally I prefer instituting a better government that preserves the interests of me and my community.

Rule me? No, because you are not a king. The President doesn't rule over the citizens. Read the Constitution - it is the law. You get to run the Executive branch which is also ruled by laws.

And you would be wrong. I mean you can try do it alone, but it won't end well. Humans are social beings and if you want a different government you need to convince others that your ideas and your rules are better. That's the hard part.

If enough people don't like a government and refuses to be governed they have a right to overthrow it and institute a new and better one.

Declaration of independence

I fail to see how this has to do with anarchy.

You are making a straw man argument. When congress passes a law, it does have authority over you if there is enforcement behind it. Whether it is a moral law or not is a different question.

I didn't follow the gay marriage debate so how would I known how it in any way pertains to what I've said unless you make an argument? Laws CAN be (and usually are) made by a legislature. They can also be made by a king. What is your point exactly?

What? 😆

Elaborate. The issue of gay marriage invalidates what I've said how exactly? Your previous comment sounds like nonsense. Something about speaking English and rights...?

I will welcome that gladly. In my view, finding ways to expose, eliminate and prosecute corruption and abuse of legitimately vested power is the avenue we should pursue in the quest for superior forms of governance. BSV will help immensely with this.

Our "natural state" is naked in the jungle dying of dysentery, malaria making guttural sounds and hitting each other with rocks.

Luckily we have developed ways to socially organize that is far far superior to that, government of course required.

You haven't proven anything. Who dishes out punishments for Yurok wrongdoers? Whoever makes/enforces the rules becomes the government. Doesn't necessarily have to be a king, it can also be the "authoritative rule makers of adjudication" ;)

I don't understand your example of gay marriage.

We are neither ants nor apes, so how about neither? All advanced human social development has involved government of some sort (and law, but I argue the two are inseparable).

To not have government would be to regress into the primitive domain of beasts.

Primitive societies have primitive rules and primitive types of arbitration. That's why they are primitive. Also who made these authoritative rules of adjudication? Somehow your out of context screenshot conveniently skipped over this.

They were primitive for a reason. Either way someone has to make rules and dole out punishment for breaking them - that entity is defacto a government. There is no way around this.

You are confirming my point. Anarchy is a lie. A silly fantasy. Government is inevitable, so make sure it's a good one. Otherwise you might be ruled by ISIS, a drug cartel or Jeff Bezos private army.