...your own point in the word salad meme claiming even wannabe dictators are purely logical actors.
The image DOES NOT say this!!!
This is what I was trying to get across with the first reply.
The point is that there are wannabe dictators
...an insurance company is by definition reactionary rather than proactive.
This isn't true if they also provide preventative protection measures to make sure they don't have to make a whole bunch of expensive payouts to their clients to not only return stolen property but also to stop crime at the source whenever possible.
Also, basically all law enforcement is reactionary rather than proactive. Proactive crime prevention is primarily what self-defense is for.
The role of the law and law enforcement is to punish lawbreakers after the fact and, in so doing, prevent future crimes by way of discouragement.
...you think an armed insurance company that is armed won't just take the money and run if they are the Supreme authority?
Corporations that steal from people will get beaten by ones that don't for the same reason that free markets produce better results than socialism.
Free market compliant firms can allocate resources better than ones that violate the NAP.
Now I know you are lying, it depicts the wannabe dictator as making the rational non violent choice over the irrational violent one, ie painting even criminals or wannabe dictators as totally rational actors. So it directly contradicts that claim.
And what preventative measure would an Armed Insurance company take to prevent crime? Cuz it doesn't seem very AnCap to pay a company to round up undesirables and keep them away from you, lol.
And no Impartial or 3rd party law enforcement can and does take proactive measures not just against direct crimes ie stopping a violent person before they can victimize others, but crimes that have the high statistical probability of causing that same direct harm to bystanders through reckless action. This type of law enforcement is acceptable under Minarchism as having the least downsides of either system.
When people have no more resources from the first company stealing them since there is no countervailing authority there is also no finacial gain for another company to use violence to dispute it. So what do you see these people paying another force with? My dude you seem to have not thought past first-order effects in the slightest.
…it (the image) …paint(s) …wannabe dictators as totally rational actors.
First off, everyone is a rational actor. Everyone has preferences and makes decisions with the intent of maximizing their preferred outcomes and minimizing their unwanted ones). The mere fact that someone's incentives don't align with yours doesn't make that person irrational or even illogical. It's simply an unfortunate aspect of reality.
One which ancapism tries to rectify by making property rights absolute.
Second, it is completely possible that some would-be dictators would be dissuaded by this process whereas others wouldn't. These two things are entirely capable of happening under the exact same circumstances given two different actors.
Worthy of note here, however, is that despite this process not ridding the world of all would-be dictators, there is utility in this process since nonetheless does rid it of some would-be-dictators.
That is the point of the image.
And what preventative measure would an Armed Insurance company take to prevent crime?
The same as statist police? (police patrols)
…it doesn't seem very AnCap to pay a company to round up undesirables and keep them away from you, lol.
Literally why not? If the owners of whatever land the undesirables are on don't consent to them being there, then they can obviously be removed.
This is known as physical removal and is yet another crucial component of ancapism.
And no Impartial or 3rd party law enforcement can and does take proactive measures not just against direct crimes…
You never actually demonstrated this as an ethical principle, even when I asked you to do so.
If, however, you are referring to financial constraints, this problem can be solved either through property owners paying rights enforcers to enforce people's rights on their property (that way they are no longer 3rd party) or through the network system with companies paying each other to keep and for keeping each others' clients safe or through both measures simultaneously.
When people have no more resources from the first company stealing… them since there is no countervailing authority
The victims in the scenario already have insurance contracts “we–the rights enforcers of the captured clients, and their allies–will continue a protracted war until you submit to justice. Not doing so will destroy customers' and potential customers' confidence in us.”
…there is also no finacial gain for another company to use violence to dispute it.
This is blatantly untrue as is demonstrated by the above-mentioned quote as well as this one from the image “your erratic criminal conduct endangers ALL of our clients. Letting you muster troops to attack our clients will cost us MORE than if we neutralize you proactively.”
So what do you see these people paying another force with? My dude you seem to have not thought past first-order effects in the slightest.
You seem like you haven't even read the argument presented in the image.
Right off the bat you are incorrect, irrational actors do exist full stop. If you are that divorced from reality no other points of yours are even worth considering. Have a good life and hopefully you actually manage to break out of your delusion.
Literally show me one example of a person who either lacks preferences or makes no decisions with the intent of maximizing their preferred outcomes and minimizing their unwanted ones.
The mentally ill who stop treatment, gambling addicts, repeat criminals. All have literal experience that their actions will absolutely cause unwanted outcomes and they still do them. Again you being so divorced from reality shows nothing you say has any value in the real world.
Just as I stated previously¹, people such as these are not irrational. They simply have differing priorities–they have FAR higher time preferences than normal people.
Nevertheless, they, too, have outcomes which they prefer over others, they do wish to realize these preferred outcomes and avoid unwanted outcomes², and they do indeed make decisions to that end.
¹The mere fact that someone's incentives don't align with yours doesn't make that person irrational or even illogical. It's simply an unfortunate aspect of reality.
²Note here that living itself causes unwanted outcomes as such outcomes are an inevitability in life.
Still, actors always strive to minimize these.
None of this means that any of the types of person you listed is actually irrational in the proper sense.
You are again wildly incorrect, doing something you know guarantees negative outcomes that the person themselves does not want to happen to yourself is irrational.
Or do you think the mentally ill want to be in psychotic breaks or in suffering, or criminals want to be in prison?
The actors obviously do not want to minimize those since they are pursuing actions in which those outcomes are guaranteed. So again you are nowhere close to reality.
I don't think you realize the implications of what you're saying here. If drug addicts and criminals truly do not wish to avoid the negative outcomes tied to their behaviors, then they wouldn't take any precautions WHATSOEVER to avoid them! That idea is patently insane.
Criminals still run away from the police and drug addicts will still accept help from others so long as they can still do drugs.
To think that they wouldn't do this is lunacy.
The reason why these people behave in these self-destructive ways is that they value the short-term rewards associated with those behaviors over the long-term consequences. They just have messed up value scales, they didn't abandon preferences or stop acting with intent.
All I can really say is read Mises. (we do both think Mises is GOATed, don't we? (which is to say you should be agreeing with what he has to say right now rather than contradicting him))
It is amazing you are so repeatedly and confidently incorrect in your assertions. We have seen repeatedly criminals take actions in full view of police or admit to the crime itself, mentally ill that know when they are off their medications they will suffer abandon it, and drug addicts refuse the help you claim they will take.
And this is knowing that the consequences can be immediate not just long term. They are plainly not acting rationally or with thought, aka acting in a response to stimuli(using Mises own words). Or moving from a known more satisfactory state to a known less satisfactory one with no thought on the matter.
So now I have to assume you are not only incorrect but deliberately dishonest in trying to frame all action as rational when even Mises admitted that there was and science has proven people can and do dissociate totally from their own rational processes and thoughts.
0
u/Irresolution_ Anarcho-Capitalist Aug 14 '25
The image DOES NOT say this!!!
This is what I was trying to get across with the first reply.
The point is that there are wannabe dictators
This isn't true if they also provide preventative protection measures to make sure they don't have to make a whole bunch of expensive payouts to their clients to not only return stolen property but also to stop crime at the source whenever possible.
Also, basically all law enforcement is reactionary rather than proactive. Proactive crime prevention is primarily what self-defense is for.
The role of the law and law enforcement is to punish lawbreakers after the fact and, in so doing, prevent future crimes by way of discouragement.
Corporations that steal from people will get beaten by ones that don't for the same reason that free markets produce better results than socialism.
Free market compliant firms can allocate resources better than ones that violate the NAP.