Jtuxyan on March 20, 2010, 11:26:43 am
I have questions about Anarcho-Capitalist theory, which I hope this board will be able to answer. First, for the purposes of this thread, we assume that AnCap theory is basically correct -- so the less libertarian members of this board (myself included) should refrain from criticizing the basic concept of such a society. The roads get paid for, the fire department gets paid for, etc. This is a question as to one specific aspect of that.

In order to not be conquered by it's Statist neighbors, an AnCap state would need to raise it's own armed forces. Escape from Terra's hilariously incompetent Terran navy aside, modern armed forces are never defeated by informal millita. A resistance could probably drive the invader our sooner or later, but we'll take it as a given that the occupants of our AnCap area would rather not be conquered in the first place, and so raise a private army.

My question then, is this. A military needs many supplies in order to function -- Food, ammo, the right to set up listening posts and defensive structures, etc. So isn't this a distortion of the basic "no coercion" model? As long as a majority of the country supports the military action, they are in a position of being able to use force without responce, thus violating the premise of the AnCap state.

To give an example, suppose I am this armed forces primary supplier of bullets, and I feel the current price they are paying me is insufficient. They insist that as this ammo is a vital strategic resource, I cannot stop shipping it during the negotiations. This is a seemingly minor detail, but it does qualify as coercion -- the military can drag the negotiations out as long as they want, and my only reprive would be to hope that my neighbors feel as strongly about this as I do, since if I tell them to go to hell, they have the force to just take the ammo.

A better example might be imminent domain. The military wants to assemble a SAM battery to protect a given city, and my property (on the outskirts) is the best location. I refuse to sell -- so they just seize it by force. It's possible that the population of the city might rise up to help me, but it's also very possible they might decide that they *like* being protected by a SAM battery, and I should have sold the land for a fair price when they offered me the chance to do so.

While I could give other examples, the basic theory remains. A nation is best defended by a large, well organized, modern military -- but a single large body with access to lots of armed men trained to obey orders without question distorts the basic assumption of an AnCap society, taking on certain government traits by default.

How could an AnCap society avoid this, without violating the premise of the society?

SandySandfort on March 20, 2010, 12:16:00 pm
I continue to invite you all to actually expend some brain cycles to figure out how you would solve the "problems" you pose.

So here is my scenario. Assume that you live in a stateless society and you believe the society should have a military. What would you do to achieve that result without violating the non-aggression principle? Nobody here is stupid. The reason you don't see the obvious answers is that you are unwilling/unable to think outside the box. (I blame government schools, but that's a rant for another time.) As Rand would have said, "check your premises." I think you will see some things that you believe, yet never questioned in the past. Question them now, please.

I have questions about Anarcho-Capitalist theory, which I hope this board will be able to answer. First, for the purposes of this thread, we assume that AnCap theory is basically correct -- so the less libertarian members of this board (myself included) should refrain from criticizing the basic concept of such a society. The roads get paid for, the fire department gets paid for, etc. This is a question as to one specific aspect of that.

In order to not be conquered by it's Statist neighbors, an AnCap state would need to raise it's own armed forces. Escape from Terra's hilariously incompetent Terran navy aside, modern armed forces are never defeated by informal millita. A resistance could probably drive the invader our sooner or later, but we'll take it as a given that the occupants of our AnCap area would rather not be conquered in the first place, and so raise a private army.

My question then, is this. A military needs many supplies in order to function -- Food, ammo, the right to set up listening posts and defensive structures, etc. So isn't this a distortion of the basic "no coercion" model? As long as a majority of the country supports the military action, they are in a position of being able to use force without responce, thus violating the premise of the AnCap state.

To give an example, suppose I am this armed forces primary supplier of bullets, and I feel the current price they are paying me is insufficient. They insist that as this ammo is a vital strategic resource, I cannot stop shipping it during the negotiations. This is a seemingly minor detail, but it does qualify as coercion -- the military can drag the negotiations out as long as they want, and my only reprive would be to hope that my neighbors feel as strongly about this as I do, since if I tell them to go to hell, they have the force to just take the ammo.

A better example might be imminent domain. The military wants to assemble a SAM battery to protect a given city, and my property (on the outskirts) is the best location. I refuse to sell -- so they just seize it by force. It's possible that the population of the city might rise up to help me, but it's also very possible they might decide that they *like* being protected by a SAM battery, and I should have sold the land for a fair price when they offered me the chance to do so.

While I could give other examples, the basic theory remains. A nation is best defended by a large, well organized, modern military -- but a single large body with access to lots of armed men trained to obey orders without question distorts the basic assumption of an AnCap society, taking on certain government traits by default.

How could an AnCap society avoid this, without violating the premise of the society?

Zilabus on March 20, 2010, 05:07:07 pm
I continue to invite you all to actually expend some brain cycles to figure out how you would solve the "problems" you pose.

So here is my scenario. Assume that you live in a stateless society and you believe the society should have a military. What would you do to achieve that result without violating the non-aggression principle? Nobody here is stupid. The reason you don't see the obvious answers is that you are unwilling/unable to think outside the box. (I blame government schools, but that's a rant for another time.) As Rand would have said, "check your premises." I think you will see some things that you believe, yet never questioned in the past. Question them now, please.

So your answer to the question brought up is essentially "You aren't smart enough to think outside the box and figure them out yourself. So I'm going to repost what you posted, and tell you to come to the obvious libertarian solutions present." So if you aren't coming up with all of these easily findable libertarian solutions, you've been brainwashed by public schools? I'm sure you wouldn't repond well if you where told "All of your libertarian solutions or silly and foolish, If you wheren't blinding yourself to see problems with government, you would easily find solutions within government. You're just taking a libertarian stance because you don't want to exist in the reality of today, and want to be outside the mainstream." Are you joking to poke fun at commonly seen circular logic in political discussion today, or are you really seriously presenting that as an answer?
Bring back the funk.

SandySandfort on March 20, 2010, 06:38:01 pm
So your answer to the question brought up is essentially "You aren't smart enough to think outside the box and figure them out yourself.

<Sigh>  Actually, what I wrote was pretty much the opposite of your interpretation. If I thought you weren't smart enough to get it, I wouldn't have brought it up in the first place. What purpose would that have served? But ultimately, you have to get it on your own. And for that to happen, you need to have the courage to question your beliefs. I started out as a conservative who believed that government was good and created for the benefit of the government. Been there, done that. It took me years of reading, thought and introspection to shed all the crap assumptions I was taught in public schools. I got enlightened, so can you.

Sean Roach on March 20, 2010, 06:53:50 pm
He's tired of answering the same questions repeatedly.  He's said as much in another thread.

I'll bite.  Let's start with bullets.  I think I'm paying you what I can afford for bullets, which I need.  You think I'm stiffing you.  Okay, I buy from someone else.
Perhaps we agree that you continue to manufacture on the hopes I'll buy, but not deliver until payment is finalized.

If we're in an actual state of conflict, it'd be in your best interest to give me the lowest possible price that still lets you run the shop tomorrow.  Even if your neighbor refuses to pay, it's still in YOUR best interest to cover him too, just as in the case with fire protection, for the benefit it provides you.  The moment this ceases to be true, you vacate, tell your customers you've moved, and he can cover fire protection, private security, and territorial defense all on his own.
You might RESENT him not paying his fair share, but until it costs you more to cover more of it yourself than it does to back off on your own preparations, you do so anyway.
If the community militia treasurer won't pay you enough to stay in business, you go talk to a competing militia about selling to them instead.  They are convinced they can do the same job with less money overall, and still afford to buy better gear.
If I can't convince you that I CAN'T AFFORD to pay you more for your ammo, I ask a competing manufacturer to sell me some for less, or perhaps I learn new ways to do with less.  Less spray-n-pray, more dry-firing, perhaps MORE practice so every shot in the field counts.
Of course, if you cut off your supply at the bargain basement price, the new bullet factory I just helped my brother-in-law fund will get the contract, and you won't be selling any more bullets to us, ever, at any price.  If the community thinks your prices were too steep, you might not be selling any to anyone else either.

Now, let's look at that SAM site.  I'm convinced your site gives the best possible coverage against incoming attacks.  Well, it would, you chose a very nice piece of oceanfront property that, due to geography manages to stay dry, (cliffside overlooking the ocean.)
Now, for whatever reason, you've place a, in my opinion, rather high value on that piece of property, but then again, the SAM site wouldn't be protecting you, would it?  Once I bought you out, you'd be without property and possibly moving on.
Well, I prefer your spot, but your neighbor does have a suitable site, and if he won't sell, your other neighbor plus a small patch just north collectively provide good coverage.  After that, I tell everyone their city is in danger, I'm throwing up my hands and leaving.  The property values of that place just went down because it can't be reasonably defended.  You now have a bunch of people who won't talk to you.  Fewer than you did, because quite a few decided they'd rather live down the coast a ways where there is good SAM coverage.

As to who can best defend a nation.  I like being defended by a A. large.  B. well organized, C. modern military, that also happens to be D. all volunteer.  It frees me up from having to carry a rifle.
As to large.  Every able bodied man?
As to well organized.  Corporations are well organized, or at least as well organized as any government agency.
As to modern.  The army regularly "borrows" from civilian tech and methodologies when they need to cover a new angle.  The only reason, I believe, the same isn't true of weapons is the government hasn't let us actually "Play with" weapons outside their careful control for a rather long time.  Guns should be potentially as complex as modern cars.  As it is, we get machining improvements and materials improvements.  Both which are shared with non-weapons.
In absence of government SUPPRESSION of civilian weapons research, the average shooters personal arsenal would be as sophisticated, or more so, than a professional infantry soldiers'.

The points _I_ see are interoperability of equipment.  My neighbor uses 12ga, and I prefer 20ga.  My sidearm is 9mm, but my coworker swears by .40ca.
If any of us runs out of ammo, we aren't borrowing from the other.
The SOLUTION would be as simple.  Join a militia, and to be a member in good standing you'd have to have a gun in a certain caliber, possibly even of a certain manufacture.  The militia voted on this, (probably voted in favor of the elected, or acclaim appointed, armorers' recommendation rather than hashing it out themselves,) about the same time they voted on emergency chain of command.  Hey.  It's a free country.  You can always quit if you don't like the decisions the captain makes in the field.  Unless there's widespread agreement of his ineptitude, though, you can write off visiting any bar, or restaurant, or store, in town from here on out.  They think you decided to quit because it was getting tough.

And before you think THIS is unlikely.  I have been to two auctions where a property owner made the prospective buyers mad.
One the auctioneer caught the consignee bidding on his own tractor, invalidated the current bid and started over.  Then the bidding started much lower than it had been, at what the consignee stated as the minimum he could accept, and NO ONE bought that late model John Deere.
(The lowest it started at the second time was a fraction of what other, older, tractors sold for that same day.  People just weren't willing to buy that tractor after the owner pulled what he did.)
Individuals will hurt their own pocketbooks in order to teach someone else a lesson in fair play.  No one has to coerce them.

Jtuxyan on March 20, 2010, 07:14:57 pm
Quote
I continue to invite you all to actually expend some brain cycles to figure out how you would solve the "problems" you pose.

If I thought AnCap ideas would work, I would be an AnCap. I don't. I have expended considerable brain power on the problem, and my conclusion has been that the solution is a government of some kind -- even if it's a government that exists only to provide for the common defense and enforce contracts. Hence why I'm asking *other people*.

Quote
Now, let's look at that SAM site.  I'm convinced your site gives the best possible coverage against incoming attacks.  Well, it would, you chose a very nice piece of oceanfront property that, due to geography manages to stay dry, (cliffside overlooking the ocean.)
Now, for whatever reason, you've place a, in my opinion, rather high value on that piece of property, but then again, the SAM site wouldn't be protecting you, would it?  Once I bought you out, you'd be without property and possibly moving on.
Well, I prefer your spot, but your neighbor does have a suitable site, and if he won't sell, your other neighbor plus a small patch just north collectively provide good coverage.  After that, I tell everyone their city is in danger, I'm throwing up my hands and leaving.  The property values of that place just went down because it can't be reasonably defended.  You now have a bunch of people who won't talk to you.  Fewer than you did, because quite a few decided they'd rather live down the coast a ways where there is good SAM coverage.

You have not addressed the problem, but I think that's because I framed it badly, let me restate. Right now, people let the state coerce them and take their land. They object, but overall, there's no revolt  brewing against the government even though the government reserves the right to kill you at any time. Right now, if the military seizes your land by force to build a SAM site, people might grumble, but overall, your neighbors will probably tell you to take the money the government is giving you and move on, because it's not worth their time and they do feel safer with the base around. Plus, soldiers will spend money at their businesses.

If the Private military of this AnCap society decides that, for whatever reason, they don't want to deal with your shit, and you can either take the money or they'll take the land and not give you a cent, what's to stop them from con'ing your neighbors in a simliar way to how the government has them con'ed now.

terry_freeman on March 20, 2010, 08:36:42 pm
I challenge the belief that a libertarian militia can't repel an army. Consider Afghanistan and Iraq. On the one side, a huge, well-funded socialist army. On the other, a much smaller, less well-funded organization - which is doing serious damage in spite of its much lower levels of funding.

Let's do some extrapolation. Assume the resources of a wealthy society. Assume zero taxation. Assume a voluntary structure comparable to that of Switzerland. ( Yes, they have a government. Extrapolate; that's what your brain is supposed to be useful for. )

Some people in such a society will have considerable wealth - billions of today's dollars. They'll have a vested interest not only in protecting their own homes, but their customers, who are widely distributed. They'll be able to afford serious hardware - up to and including fighter jets, tanks, etc. In America's past, there were hundreds of privately-owned warships; extrapolate to privately-owned tanks and fighter aircraft and SAM batteries.

The mistake made by most people who don't understand AnCap is that life is going to be a war of all-against-all; that nobody would be interested in cooperating to achieve common ends. That's total nonsense; people choose to cooperate every day, without being mandated to do so by the government. To conflate cooperation with coercion is to be totally confused.

What happens when an ammo supplier feels the price is too low? He finds another buyer or holds on to his stock. If a buyer feels the price is too high, he finds another supplier, or does without. Markets do a much better job of delivering better goods at better prices than any government substitutes. Really, look over the military budget and tell us with a straight face that the government gets the best price and only buys what is needed. If you can do that without a serious ROFLMAO fit, you're made of sterner stuff than I am. During Desert Storm, some families were buying GPS units online and shipping them to their sons in Iraq.

Years ago, I heard of a war which was actually funded by anonymous donations. I'll try to google up a pointer. Donations arrived when they were needed. This is not surprising; when your life is stake, you do what needs to be done.



Sean Roach on March 20, 2010, 08:45:43 pm
The lack of a deliberately defanged populous, who believes in the automatic authority of the state.

Prior to 9/11, I was reading one of the "Worst Case Scenario" books.  It's suggestion for a skyjacking?  Sit tight, be quiet, and don't agitate.  If you need to use the restroom, hold it.  The loudest hostage will be the one killed as an example to others and the outside world.
I don't think anyone thinks that now.  Having 3 airplanes flown into landmarks, because the people onboard sat tight, were quiet, and didn't agitate, while the fourth was forced down in Pennsylvania because the passengers did has changed a lot of behavior.  Now if you show signs of instability on an airplane, you better hope your trachea is still intact when the plane lands.

Of course, if the individual victims had been allowed to bring tools for their own defense in the first place, this wouldn't have come up.  That they weren't and the bad guys won, with token weapons, now we're not allowed to carry 3" pocketknives on flights.

Much of government is there to sell you on a behavior structure that is best for society as a whole, or frequently the security of government or government positions, not necessarily what is best for you as an individual.  This is why I think government should be forbidden from publishing anything, as they frequently publish or commission works, (including studies,) that are designed to support their position, regardless of what may be the truth.

Jtuxyan on March 21, 2010, 01:32:40 am
Quote
I challenge the belief that a libertarian militia can't repel an army. Consider Afghanistan and Iraq. On the one side, a huge, well-funded socialist army. On the other, a much smaller, less well-funded organization - which is doing serious damage in spite of its much lower levels of funding.

Addressed in the opening post. This is assuming that the society in question doesn't want to be conquered in the first place, rather than being happy with eventually driving an invader out.

Quote
Let's do some extrapolation. Assume the resources of a wealthy society. Assume zero taxation. Assume a voluntary structure comparable to that of Switzerland. ( Yes, they have a government. Extrapolate; that's what your brain is supposed to be useful for. )

Some people in such a society will have considerable wealth - billions of today's dollars. They'll have a vested interest not only in protecting their own homes, but their customers, who are widely distributed. They'll be able to afford serious hardware - up to and including fighter jets, tanks, etc. In America's past, there were hundreds of privately-owned warships; extrapolate to privately-owned tanks and fighter aircraft and SAM batteries.

The mistake made by most people who don't understand AnCap is that life is going to be a war of all-against-all; that nobody would be interested in cooperating to achieve common ends. That's total nonsense; people choose to cooperate every day, without being mandated to do so by the government. To conflate cooperation with coercion is to be totally confused.

What happens when an ammo supplier feels the price is too low? He finds another buyer or holds on to his stock. If a buyer feels the price is too high, he finds another supplier, or does without. Markets do a much better job of delivering better goods at better prices than any government substitutes. Really, look over the military budget and tell us with a straight face that the government gets the best price and only buys what is needed. If you can do that without a serious ROFLMAO fit, you're made of sterner stuff than I am. During Desert Storm, some families were buying GPS units online and shipping them to their sons in Iraq.

Let me put this another way: People are stupid, and occasionally jerks.

"X is not in this persons rational self interest." Only means *most* people in that position won't do it. Some people are just having a bad day, or hate your guts, or maybe they just somehow rose to a position of power despite being a sociopath, whatever. Yes, probably, the military in this AnCap example could find a site where the owner is just willing to sell. Likewise, the government today can probably find sites where the owners are just willing to sell. They don't because they can't for some unusual reasons, or more likely, juts don't want too and don't care.

In this example, that would be the mercenary leader of this AnCap army just going, "Fuck it! If that dipshit doesn't want to take good money for his crap land, he dosn't have too. Throw him off, it, explain to everyone that his stubbornness put them in danger from the Statists, and tell them that if we have to build it somewhere else, we're jacking up their rates."

It's obviously not a perfect story, but people can be conned or persuaded into believing far more ludicrous things -- and according to AnCap beliefs, are conned into that on a daily basis. You can't say "No one would ever believe that!" because people believe and put up with worse right now. It seems like an AnCap area with a private military could only work if the vast majority of the people in it fervently belief in AnCap ideals and are willing to make sacrifices to keep it working.

Jtuxyan on March 21, 2010, 01:47:24 am
Quote
Much of government is there to sell you on a behavior structure that is best for society as a whole, or frequently the security of government or government positions, not necessarily what is best for you as an individual.  This is why I think government should be forbidden from publishing anything, as they frequently publish or commission works, (including studies,) that are designed to support their position, regardless of what may be the truth.

Because Tobacco companies *never* published rigged studies showing that cigarettes were actually healthy for you.  ::)

That's really your argument? Really? "The government tries to push stuff on you that isn't good for you?" Do you know who else does that? Corporations, large business, small business, everyone on earth trying to sell you something, churches (if you're an atheist), atheists (if you're religious), private interest groups, foreign nations, political parties and beauty contests.

Do we ban all of them? Cause that could get extensive.


Heinlein Libertarian on March 21, 2010, 07:27:03 am
Imagine that a hypothetical enemy has launched a surprise attack on your AnCap nation. In particular, there happens to be a rapidly approaching with a previously unsuspected column of tanks. You, being the head of your local militia, have three choices:

1) Ruin your neighbor's property without their permission by laying a minefield to stop and/or slow the armor. Given that you are flagrantly violating his property rights, you are also putting your supply line at risk.

2) Die in place, killing a few bad guys, but only holding them up for a few minutes.

3) Withdraw, and let the bad guys have the neighborhood.

What are you going to do?

A lot of people would pick option #3, and I can't blame them. The residents who are killed or enslaved when the bad guy's tanks roll through die because of one jerk's obstinacy. Who can blame the militia for not wanting to die for zero gain?

I would probably pick Option #1, with one caveat. I would shoot that idiot neighbor before they went whining to anybody in the rear, and putting my supply line at risk. Am I a crazy, murdering madman? Or am I dealing realistically with the fog of war? Your suppliers, hearing this poor man's story (told with subtle, self-serving manipulations added, of course,) might decide not to sell you any mines until you paid him off and vowed never to do such a thing again. Will you have the time to set them straight and fight a war while you do it?  Can you afford to do anything other than shooting an objector, given the possibility of having your supply line cut by your own side, rather than enemy action?

Even worse, what if your enemy seeds agents in the rear of the lines to spread lies about the behavior of front-line units, and suppliers start cutting-off supplies or eating up the valuable time of militia commanders and troops with investigations into fake incidents that took place on territory no longer held by your side?

Stubborn idiots and enemy agents are just two sources of difficulties for armed forces trying to defend AnCap's territories. Arms dealers in a time of war pretty-much define "good negotiating position." People who are in a good negotiating position will tend to take advantage of it in any way they can. Sudden suspicious "production delays" that require a lot of cash to fix are a great way to get away with holding militia units over a barrel without being held accountable by the community at-large. Most of the people with the incentive to investigate and discover the truth are probably either a) too busy getting shot at to do so or b) getting a cut of the barrel-bucks. A government-sponsored armed force, with an Inspector-General's office, subpoena and enforcement power can give these people the cigarette, blindfold, and 7.62mm reward they deserve. A militia unit can only appeal to the Board of Directors' sense of patriotism. Cash can buy a lot of "Citizen of the World"-style feelings.

A Third Way might be to adopt a system similar to that discussed in the Roswell, Texas story available on this website. A VERY limited government that could do things like indemnify militia units against property damage claims, require arms dealers sell at agreed-upon prices, etc. could mitigate a lot of the potential damage to the war effort from idiots, saboteurs and shifty arms dealers.

SandySandfort on March 21, 2010, 02:04:23 pm
Imagine that a hypothetical enemy has launched a surprise attack on your AnCap nation. In particular, there happens to be a rapidly approaching with a previously unsuspected column of tanks. You, being the head of your local militia, have three choices:

1) Ruin your neighbor's property without their permission by laying a minefield to stop and/or slow the armor. Given that you are flagrantly violating his property rights, you are also putting your supply line at risk.

2) Die in place, killing a few bad guys, but only holding them up for a few minutes.

3) Withdraw, and let the bad guys have the neighborhood.

Option #1 is addressed in the common law under the doctrine of "necessity." Of course, you are liable for any damage you cause. I see no difference in a stateless society.

If you shoot the owner, because you are afraid he will exercise free speech, you are a murderer not matter what you think he might say. He has a right to live unless he initiates force. He has a right to speak, whether you like it or not.

You may call yourself anything you want. However, calling yourself Heinlein Libertarian, is a disgraceful lie and an insult to a great man. So, are you a troll, an agent provocateur or just clueless? Your beliefs are an anathema to everything EFT stands for.  What the hell are you doing here?

I am an agorist/libertarian and I believe in individual freedom and the ZAP/NAP. I find your rationalization for murder, pathetic, immoral and truly offensive. I will no longer respond to your flame baiting. Live in darkness.

Jtuxyan on March 21, 2010, 03:55:00 pm
Quote
Option #1 is addressed in the common law under the doctrine of "necessity." Of course, you are liable for any damage you cause. I see no difference in a stateless society.

I consider the placement of a SAM battery on his property a "necessity" to prevent the loss of life. I build one there, without his approval and pay damages in the form of a fair market price for the land and any buildings I destroyed.

This is exactly the same as how Imminent Domain presently works.

Sean Roach on March 21, 2010, 06:36:03 pm
Who says?  Where do you draw the line?
Let's say I come to you and inform you I need your land for a new military facility.  I take your store, by force, paying you what _I_ decide it's worth, and turn it into a PX, which I then hand over to a monopoly contractor.  I take your farm, again by force, and turn it into an extra 9 holes for the officers club golf course.  Naturally, your farm is worth far less than a golf course for Our Fine Officers.  (I had a co-worker who actually lost her farm for this very reason.)

WHERE do you draw the line?  Better to draw it right at the edge of your nose.

I, too, noticed the disconnect in the name.  I'm thinking agent provocateur.  I guess we should count ourselves successful that outsiders consider us enough of a threat to seed our discussions with naysayers.  I suppose next we'll get a few trying to convince us to buy into a gun laundering scheme.  All the better to take us down.

And as to government and misleading studies.  The government funds those studies, papers, and articles, used to "prove" and promote government positions, on the taxes of the very people they are attempting to dupe.  They steal from us in order to lie to us.  I consider it a violation of the 1st amendment in principal, if not in fact.  The 1st amendment barred the government from supporting a church as it protected the individuals right to free speech.  It should have barred the government from editorializing in the same breath.

Heinlein Libertarian on March 22, 2010, 01:23:22 am

I am, however, not a fan of government involvement in our lives. In general, I think that the only time government action is legitimate is when an individual is being deprived of their rights without their express or implied informed consent.

Under this system:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-Murder and rape deprive individuals of their rights to their own body. Physician-assisted suicide and prostitution are legal because they both involve consent.
-The FDA could legitimately inspect food and drug manufacturers to ensure that their products contain what they say, and are not being packed with rat feces or sugar pills. They could not legitimately tell you what food or drugs you are allowed to ingest.
-Welfare, or depriving one person of their property to give it to another who has no claim on it, would be illegal. Charity is perfectly acceptable.
-Air and water pollution are legitimate areas for the government to intervene. So long as that pollution can be demonstrated to actually be harmful and the government only sets safe levels, rather than the means by which it is reduced to those levels.
-Quarantine and vaccination are also legitimate governmental functions. In times of widespread disease, some force is needed to keep those who are infected away from others who are not. Unvaccinated people put others at risk of disease. Spreading disease may not be intentional murder, but it is certainly reckless indifference.
-Police forces are a legitimate expenditure. Somebody who violates the rights of another by violence should be arrested and jailed for it, after forcing them to make recompense to whatever degree possible to their victims.
-Defense of the nation against foreign invasion is the primary responsibility of any government, and perfectly legitimate.

Why this system, rather than AnCap? Much of my difficulty with AnCap comes from my difficulty with the concept of shunning. I just don't think it will work. Why not?

-Will every business owner universally agree that what was done was shunable? If not, what is the point? Will shopkeepers start shunning other shopkeepers over differences in opinion on a shun/no shun argument?
-Will family members shun other family members? If not, how do you actually shun those responsible? If you shun entire family units, are you willing to starve kids for a parent's mistake?
-Will people deny food to a shunned child? If not, how do we stop kids from robbing, raping and murdering all they want? Criminals do not commit crimes expecting to be caught, so penalties frequently do not deter them.
-Dumb or crazy people will not be deterred by the threat of shunning, since they will not be able to truly understand the scope of the penalty or the reasons for it.
-People who are being shunned cannot be shunned twice, so why obey any rules? Go ahead and shoot the guy who runs the hot dog cart for a hot dog, what are people going to do about it?
-Shunned people will tend to organize themselves for mutual assistance and increased firepower. These groups could eventually become powerful enough to threaten the AnCap system itself, as they have in every other nation with an anarchical power vacuum in the past.
-The AnCap equivalent of smugglers will appear to sell goods to the shunned.

Finally, people are irrational and reckless. Take the recent scare over a Peter Pan plant filled to the brim with rat droppings and other unsanitary conditions. This was irrational and reckless on the part of everybody from the workers to the CEO. However, this factory operated like this for quite some time before it was discovered. This, despite the inevitable crippling lawsuits that would result from it. Inspections and periodic testing to verify purity on drugs are perfectly legitimate if only because there are so many stupid people out there who will try to get away with this nonsense, and endanger the lives of their fellow human beings in the process.

So, to sum it all up, why do I call myself Heinlein Libertarian? I believe in a strong national defense, like RAH. I believe that some government is necessary, but that it should be strictly limited. There is nothing inconsistent with my name, or my philosophy.