In a discussion recently with a friend, we spoke of the supposed voluntaryness of taxation, which is is his preferred defense of the institution, as opposed to saying that it is involuntary but necessary. On this occasion he proposed that the state is a homesteader of its boarders, and by an individual's observed preference of staying within them, he agrees to be subject to its arbitration. I responded by challenging the legitimacy of the property claim, saying that the state has not put the lands in question to use. He replied that just as a private landowner has not necessarily put every square inch of his property to use, like a lawn or other more or less uncultivated sector that lies within his fence, his claim is as valid as the state's, for it has put some of it's acquired land to use but not all of it, and it is all sequestered behind its fence. At that point I sort of lost and floundered, saying that the state's claim is totally unreasonable by comparison, and financed with robbery, which was the claim under contention. That evening I did some very brief research and it seems something that perhaps I ought to have said was something about use having exclusivity, though I see that coming to the same impasse.

If you all put forth some clarifying arguments about homesteading, the validity of state property claims, and why, "just leave," doesn't make the state a voluntary institution, or resources on this particular attack, that would be helpful.

I haven't been an ancap for terribly long, so I haven't quite had the time to read all of the works I wish to, e.g. I have not yet read Human Action, so sorry if this is a bit elementary.

We have 6 states with 50 50 custody in the united states, and we are seeing millions of fathers no longer paying child support, just like how in 2008 we had 6 states with gay marriage, and Pennsylvania might be joining them soon

That concludes whatever "umad?" and "pay your child support deadbeat" portion of the program in whatever child support debate below. You can shout "umad you would have to pay support if you lived here bro?" and I can should "u mad I can knock up your sister and not pay her a dime in Missori bro? and then if she doesn't pay her 50% of the expenses with her woman earning abilities, we talk about her losing custody and paying me support bro?" and my umad is slightly sweeter, because we might have federal and international 50/50 custody in 20, 30 years

"This is off topic to ancap:" Negative rights violations are relevant to ancap. Child support is a violation (outside of proven abuse or a contract) just like how being taxed to pay for welfare is a violation.

One more time: umad? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uNUHNJHMd4Y

Maga beat a woman for wearing a shirt that said release Epstein files.

I'm becoming increasingly worried about the situation in Iran and what it could lead to. It's plainly obvious that Trump and the admin behind him, and the deep state along with Israel and other interests, aren't going to walk away from it, but it's also obvious the majority of the U.S. population doesn't want to be involved. The last time the U.S. population was largely united behind a military action was after the 9/11 attacks. My fear is the people who want this war know that and will allow another such attack or maybe even push for a false flag to manipulate the U.S. population to support all out war in the region.

Where are all these terrorist sleeper cells in the U.S. we were all supposed to be scared of? From what I understand these supposed groups were not supposed to be Shia and weren't aligned with Iran but largely Sunni, and even if that's correct I don't think it's a detail the U.S. population would let get in their way if there was another massive attack and the government were to direct their desire for revenge against a largely Shia population.

Any thoughts? To me it seems the logical next step for the deep state and the war machine to truly escalate this war. Or, is it possible that they'll be happy with funding a low grade conflict over years because it makes just as much money over more time, and they're not all that concerned about any of the actual goals stated to justify this war?

I know plenty of people who aren't in favor of the war but also aren't very political or engaged, but a massive attack would lead a lot of those types to seek blood and even support the use of nuclear weapons in the region, I fear.

(English isn't My native language)

In a hypothetical scenario where I own 100% of a mineral so important that life on Earth would simply be impossible without it, I don't want to use it, I don't want anyone else to use it either, I don't want to sell it or extract any kind of benefit from that private property, and so all of humanity dies — would that fall within anarcho-capitalist theory? Third parties were harmed by my decision to use my private property as I please, without directly involving third parties

Authoritarianism does not want free markets.

“In truth, in the case of individuals, their actual voting is not to be taken as proof of consent, even for the time being. On the contrary, it is to be considered that, without his consent having ever been asked, a man finds himself environed by a government that he cannot resist; a government that forces him to pay money, render service, and forego the exercise of many of his natural rights, under peril of weighty punishments. He sees, too, that other men practise this tyranny over him by the use of the ballot. He sees further that, if he will but use the ballot himself, he has some chance of relieving himself from this tyranny of others, by subjecting them to his own. In short, he finds himself, without his consent, so situated that, if he use the ballot, he may become a master; if he does not use it, he must become a slave. And he has no other alternative than these two. In self-defence, he attempts the former. His case is analogous to that of a man who has been forced into battle, where he must either kill others, or be killed himself. Because, to save his own life in battle, a man attempts to take the lives of his opponents, it is not to be inferred that the battle is one of his own choosing. Neither in contests with the ballot -- which is a mere substitute for a bullet -- because, as his only chance of self-preservation, a man uses a ballot, is it to be inferred that the contest is one into which he voluntarily entered; that he voluntarily set up all his own natural rights, as a stake against those of others, to be lost or won by the mere power of numbers. On the contrary, it is to be considered that, in an exigency, into which he had been forced by others, and in which no other means of self-defence offered, he, as a matter of necessity, used the only one that was left to him.”

~ Lysander Spooner, No Treason Vol. II

I am not sure how so many people are convinced that the government is really there to help them, and do not understand that these so called "workers rights" actually make things worse.

I believe the government should absolutely be reduced as little as possible but im curious how we would defend our country from foreign countries enforce a border and enforce laws and how a justice system if someone could explain that would help alot

I honestly think Nidal Hasan, who killed 14 people(1 of them a pregnant woman with her baby in the womb) and injured 30+ others, deserves what's coming for him. He killed innocent people in the name of Islam, I don't think he should be given a chance to live since he took away that chance from his victims.

I know it's a execution carried out by the state, and as an Ancap I hate the state, but I also hate terrorists because they are against the NAP. I also don't mind the execution being live-streamed. We saw how Charlie Kirk was assassinated and many leftists made fun of his horrific murder, and now these same leftists oppose to a public execution being live-streamed.

If you're a sensitive person, you have the right not to watch the execution and watch something else while it happens. I honestly believe the execution should be live-streamed by private streaming companies. It'd be great to go on Prime Video and there be able to watch Nidal Hasan's execution. I'd personally watch it.