and also not violate the NAP

can I please explain my views without 5 people snapping in vetween I can't even answer ;_;

there is so many points I wanna make

protip: use shift+enter for a line break. makes structuring your messages here easier.

panarchist would come quite close man

actually

@ayy lmao my bad m8

yeah I'm a mobile pleb my dude

Please do so then, I wasn't snapping at you, I don't think any of us are, we were criticising your analogies and your arguments, but please go ahead and explain

no shifts here

nonono not snapping in a negative way

sorry man

go on

just because so many messages came I couldn't read and answer all of them

👍

so like, the "state" or firm, don't care how you define it, defends you, in case of a violation of the NAP, and you pay them for it. If you do not pay them for it, you can retaliate kn your own, but there should be some central power who is even capable of helping weak people aginst let's say an entire community agressing against them

without that people wouldn't have anyone to go to if they don't have a lot of big muscular friends

I guess panarchist sounds a lot like what I have in mind

Will competing arbitration/security services be allowed?

I guess as long as they respect the NAP

Then you are a panarchist

^

Then we agree

could very well be

probably a constitutional panarchist, which is pretty based out of the ninimal gov positions

much more than anything else

i'd be down for such a thing. But don't forget the following. If A does something to B, say steals his chest of moneyz. Even if B does not have any subscription or whatever because he can't afford it or straight up doesn't want it. B can still contact a firm to collect and then the firm gets paid out of extracting the cost out of the perpetrator

^^^^ ayy lmao, keep this on you

record it into a text

kinda crucial

Also, If you want a text file that links to lectures, books, and files let me know ayy lmao, I can DM you some stuff

Of course i'd still support your idea on principle to make things easier, Plus insurance companies would like this to make their job easier

yeah that is a very good point @Jeebus I'm just thinking (I know I'm going hella crazy rn) but let's say some ten thousand people decide to build a fascist ethno state or whatever and start forcing people into it

I don't think the market would really deal with that for monetary gain

And replacing the corporation with liability levying via contractual law on a business would be also vitally important

too prevent statism from returning

Criminals don't like operating under a law which makes their crimes legal

unless they convince everyone they are

GG @Jeebus, you just advanced to level 7!

Now some might say, what about the poor people who can't afford this? There are free or low-cost ways people can arbitrate/secure themselves as well. Perhaps could also form contracts with their neighbors for protection, protect themselves with their own firearms, already have security as part of the HOA they're already paying for in a community, or join a mutual aid society that provides an arbitration service. The possibilities are endless here.

but that's another story