/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>15258513
They enable getting rekt by thousands of vulns you were never aware of.
https://www.investopedia.com/news/ethereum-smart-contracts-vulnerable-hacks-4-million-ether-risk/

Only a handful can read the code and understand wtf they're seeing and even those can FUCK UP HUMONGOUSLY and miss vital mistakes (see DAO, PARITY) and cause loss of hundreds of millions. Or you can read the code and think you understand most of it but then there is a backdoor somewhere and you get cucked out of the blue like Oystercels.

It's not an anarcho capitalist society. It's an anarcho dystopia where even some script kiddie from Pakistan can erase dozens and hudreds of millions by doing some idiotic operation that ends in trolling a smart contract and locking up millions or some nerd researcher can by accident erase everyone else's wallets while tinkering with a code (parity, lol). This isn't capitalism. It's not even darwinian. It's absolute chaos that nobody can truly control or understand and results in terrible outcomes that everyone hates. People would never want this, ever and smart contracts will never socially scale. They will remain a niche and cause headaches and neverending anxiety.

>>15258513
trustless DAO contracts could take decades to be reliable.

>>15258863
That's precisely how programming was described in the 60's.

I'm sure glad all the nerds listened, and nobody ever learned to program. It'd be terrible if tens of millions of people got specialized degrees and certifications in a broad range of specific specializations within a programming industry. THEN where would we be?

The post-ancap pill is that our society isn't ready for anarcho-capitalism because every ideology relies on human behaviour and human behaviour is normative. If a society's norms differ from those of a system radically enough, it cannot be implemented.

This isn't the "human nature" critique of communism turned against communism, just that people have in the last 100 years come to accept coercion as a fact of life and hate the idea of property right (with the exception of killing things in wombs).

>>15258892
Thing is, in the normal world things aren't trustless. You can fix mistakes, you can undo fuckups. You can patch things and reverse transactions and activities. You can make a call and discuss how you're gonna roll back some stupid decision. In the trustless world you only have 1 life and you play on hardest difficulty without even knowing what you don't know, forever. You can't call anyone. You can't reverse anything. If someone finds a funny bug that erases everyone's balance in a smart contract or locks everyone's coins it's over. If someone uses fresh new exploit and steals funds it's over. No chargebacks, no fixes, no backsies, everything is gone, forever. Trustlessness enables this kind of conundrum. The lack of trust in some capacity is a bug. It creates uncertainty and doubts. Is this going to be safe? Am I not going to get rekt like last time? It is not socially scalable in a society that can't write a single line of code at large.

The only entity that provably does no fuckups is a programming team that creates code for NASA but then again, I don't think we can afford them to audit every smart contract in existence.

>>15258863
This.
Contracts can only do reliably basic things like basic time lock (hold X amount of bucks until date Y or Z signature), this has many applications but most of agreements between humans are "soft" and would require huge piles of codes that would be exponentially weak.

Complex multi layered SC are science fiction for now, maybe we can train an AI/algorithm to write them in the future but that's it.

>>15258513
No they don't

Be quiet

In a country with a government they can still override the decision by using force.

In an stateless society you don't really need SC, law can be provided privately (read friedman). Reliable SC would make it less costly tho.

>>15259335
pretty sure what OC meant is that smart contracts (if they're allowed to develop, which is probable given their benefit to corporations) act as a direct competitor to the state within a statist framework, which weakens the position of the state

>>15258991
>huge piles of codes that would be exponentially weak
Which is why software systems need a new security architecture: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capability-based_security

This hollows out the attack surface by requiring systems to hold keys (rights) in order to access other systems. Now, not anything can access anything by default anymore. The most secure OS - sel4 - already has these capabilities.

>>15258513
They enable UBI and scarcity driven deflation based on math like this ddex.io/trade/SHOCK-WETH

>>15258964
When a large scale fuckup happens, everyone voluntarily installs patched client and enjoys his reverted history, as it happened with ETH/ETC.

>>15260400
That makes the whole thing pointless. All the DAO fork did was save Vitalil and his rich ICO buddies. The bitcoin fork to fix the value overflow incident was at least done to enforce the monetary policy that everyone already agreed on.

On the contrary is the socialist dream. Everything will be in the blockchain. Food, salaries, taxes, goods, purchases, houses. Everything will be controlled and paired to an owner identity.

Even if you had your richness in monero you will not be able to buy shit because all the stuff will be monitored item by item. It wont be possible to escape debt or taxes anymore.

>>15258893
Theres enough people who are ancap at heart left, even now there are small mostly privately owned towns in the US, private roads etc.

>>15260562
yeah but they can so easily be ZAPPED by the chosen ones if they actually start to pose a threat

>>15260530
>not paying homeless children in silver to go pick up your goods for you that you overbought online using 6 VPNs and Monero
>not having multiple different fake identities where you change appearance and wear them to pick up your goods from the homeless kids from varying locations
It's like you dont care about privacy

>>15260400
Also known as The DAO bailout. And it damaged their reputation so bad that they didn't repeat the same mistake again even when presented with much less controversial issue that hit many parties and was a several hundred million disaster (Parity fuckup). Also lol at this
>everyone voluntarily installs patched client
in an environment when getting consensus on non controversial decisions is ludicrously hard. Just ask Parity guys. They BEGGED Vitalik and crew and the whole community multiple times to bail them out and nope. Nobody gives a shit. Fuck you, your fault.
On the other hand if you want smart contract to be patchable (as some are able to be to my knowledge) then you rely on the good old trust in 3rd party again and you throw that immutable, trustless automation out of the window rendering the whole thing pointless.

>>15260607
There wont be fake identities. Your government issued ID will work as a wallet, and every fucking service or good will be attached to one of these ids.

There is no escape from the big brother. This is the tech big brother needed to become real.

>>15258863
>It's absolute chaos that nobody can truly control or understand and results in terrible outcomes that everyone hates
The blockchain and EVM work as intended, always have. All of these issues are caused by mismanagement and bad 2nd (and higher) layer programming, smart contracts, interfaces, etc. That's why we're making a lot of good progress in better practices (auditing everything, automatically and manually), tools (see Vyper for example), and most importantly education. What you're saying is that if a few small villages burned to the ground since one person left the stove on, nobody should build houses next to each other. Society will adapt. Always have.

>be ancapitardian
>get raided by guy with bigger guns
>die

>>15260983
>be statistardian
>get raided by guys with bigger guns
>die

>>15261271
so why aren't you dead yet?

>>15261317
i live in the place with big guns

>>15261329
but you live in a statist society

>>15261337
so? nowhere did i claim that there was an infinite regress of people with bigger guns, nor does anarcho capitalism preclude owning the biggest guns

>>15260665
I still think that the problem will resolve on it's own when better tools for programming smart contracts appear.
And it is possible to program certain smart contracts such that they can be reversed by an oracle. The profit of trustlessness is still there, since using such contracts will be voluntary.

>>15261317
Governments have killed more people than any private organization in the world.

>>15261346
you claimed that you will get raided by guys with bigger guns in a statist society, but you admitted you live in a statist society but haven't been raided, so your statement was false

and no matter how big your guns are, someone with bigger guns will exist and he will murder you and take your house

>>15261373
because private organizations don't have guns. if you gave them guns they would kill as much

>>15261384
Nice evidence you have there.

>>15261408
yes, because people in governments are evil but people in corporations are angels and wouldn't kill you. imagine being this dumb and naive

>>15261377
>and no matter how big your guns are, someone with bigger guns will exist and he will murder you and take your house
well yes, there's your infinite regress theorem. that no matter how protected x is, y will come and take it

why doesn't this apply to states? why does nobody have bigger guns than your country, and why will nobody kill you?


>>15261435
you're so full of shit, stop inventing strawmen and warping arguments
>you claimed that you will get raided by guys with bigger guns in a statist society
no i didn't; stop taking a universalisation of faulty logic as endorsement of the underlying claim, brainlet

>>15261435
Absolute retard. It's possible to fight against private offender, especially if you have the right to own guns and pay for your security. It's literally impossible to escape from the government once it targets you as an enemy (unless you go suck other gov's cock).

>>15261490
>why doesn't this apply to states?
it does apply, thats why wars exist. the difference is you will get raided by everyone daily instead of just foreigners. your entire ideology is fantasyland no different from communism, you assume everyone will be angels and they simply wont kill you because they are good hearted and loving. complete retardation

>>15261542
oh yes moron, because you will always have the biggest guns and always be stronger than your attackers. and ofcourse everyone in ancapistardan will be a billionaire and can afford to buy swat teams to protect them. complete brainlet

>>15261601
>it does apply, thats why wars exist
well then, if violations of property sometimes happen in both statist and ancap societies, then you've proved nothing. nothing you've said suggests magnitude, just possibility.

>you assume everyone will be angels and they simply wont kill you because they are good hearted and loving. complete retardation
then you clearly haven't researched your opposition and a conversation with you is useless. i can make the exact same strawman out of your belief in the state. it proves nothing:

>you assume that A and B will kill one another endlessly unless they both get forced by C to do whatever C wants and C will be a literally benevolent god and that's that

see how arguing with thin air makes for an entirely stimulating exercise

you don't ask what my position is because you don't care, you're just afraid that your underlying belief system has opposition

>>15261640
>you don't ask what my position is
but your position is ancapistan why ask?
>you're just afraid that your underlying belief system has opposition
no it doesn't. ancapistan system is a fallacy and can't exist. I could argue that ancapistan society already exists now. You are the small ancapistan state with the small guns, and government is the big ancapistan state with the big guns that owns you. Thats exactly how it would play in ancapistan society too, except the "government" would call themselves something else

>>15261601
>oh yes moron, because you will always have the biggest guns and always be stronger than your attackers. and ofcourse everyone in ancapistardan will be a billionaire and can afford to buy swat teams to protect them. complete brainlet
How cucked can one be?
1. You don't have to be stronger than everyone else, you just need to be dangerous enough, to make attacking on you not worth it. The richer you are, more dangerous you can let yourself be.
2. You don't have to buy a SWAT team 24/7 for yourself. Insurance is a thing. Private analogs of NATO are completely reasonable: organizations, where participants have to treat attacks on one of the participants as an attack on themselves.

>>15261703
>The richer you are, more dangerous you can let yourself be.
so poor people would get killed and only rich people that can afford big guns will stay alive? and ofcourse you are retarded and delusional enough to fantasize you will be one of the rich ones in ancapistan right? lmao

>>15261702
>You are the small ancapistan state with the small guns, and government is the big ancapistan state with the big guns that owns you.

You could argue that, but so what? You could argue that everything is any given system of norms in action, with the norms simply being violated. But they you simply invalidate any prescriptive morality whatsoever.

The entire of an-cap theory can be summed up as "violations of property rights are bad". Draw what you will from that. We could just as easily say that the idea of an ideal ethical standard as such (something presupposed by any moral behaviour) is fairytale nothingness to be thrown away because in the world it will never be attainable.

Follow your logic through to its absolute if you're going to employ it at all (though bear in mind that absolute logicality is impossible in this world so the universal you are attempting to posit is self-contradictory).

>>15261768
>The entire of an-cap theory can be summed up as "violations of property rights are bad"
and thats as far as your braindead ideology goes. Ok, violations of property are bad, so what then? what are you gonna do about it? I have bigger guns and I steal your property. Who is gonna stop me from doing that?

>>15261794
I see you didn't really read my post past that point and only really read the whole of it as something to refute rather than something to understand.

As I said right at the beginning of this thread
>>15258893
anarcho-capitalism is impossible without a degree of (not to be confused with universal) acceptance of property norms.
Your political ideology requires this exact same presupposition.
If nobody believes in property rights at all, anarcho-capitalism can not work.

By no means does this suggest that there is no such thing as security or defense without the state.

>I have bigger guns and I steal your property. Who is gonna stop me from doing that?
Here's your answer in your terms:
If your guns are so large that nobody can do anything about it, the answer is: nobody will be able to stop you. Any system can be destroyed by a hypothetical power large enough to destroy it.
If your guns aren't large enough to benefit from it (which I would like to believe is the case) then the action won't be advantageous. You'll be taken to a court, lose your customers immediately, incur giant losses, incur civilian retaliation, such things amongst others.

>>15261847
property rights can't exist without a government. you say that property is yours, but where is the proof? you have a piece of paper that says so? I make my own piece of paper that says I own that property. Property exists because a government exists to enforce property laws

your entire ideology is a fallacy. ancap doesn't mean there is no government, it means everyone becomes its own mini government, and the ones that are more stronger than others will conquer smaller ones and annex them, thats literally how countries came to be. your ideology is literally a regression of civilization back to lawless dog eat dog world

>>15261724
>so poor people would get killed and only rich people that can afford big guns will stay alive
We were talking about methods, with which ancaps will treat illegitimate aggression, without relying on the nanny state. Aggression is still a crime in ancap world.

A poor lady owns a house by the lake. She doesn't have money to hire any kind of security.
In a statist society, if the government decides to take over that house, her only option is doing fucking nothing. Nobody will help her, because nobody has the right to do so.
In ancap society, where private property is respected, if some mob guy tries to do the same thing and appropriate her property, he will sign himself a death certificate, because literally everyone will now have the right to attack him without repercussions.

>>15261939
>property rights can't exist without a government
They're an ethical category, not a physical reality. The government doesn't create ethics.
Perhaps they cannot be enforced without the state; but that's another question.

>you say that property is yours, but where is the proof? you have a piece of paper that says so? I make my own piece of paper that says I own that property.
You can apply all of this to the state...

My ideology is the least toleration of coercion as is possible. That's it. It's possible for states to be worse or to be better, and certain actions of people can help to make them worse or better.

But at this point it's so clear that you're not reading anything I'm typing nor trying to understand my perspective that I'm not going to bother responding anymore.

>>15261964
>people in ancap society are very loving and kind and they will willingly risk their lives to protect someone else
sure buddy sure. just like in anarcho communist society people will willingly give away their possessions to the poor lady too right?
>>15261982
I read what you say but the thing is they only makes sense if you live in a fantasy world where human behaviour doesn't exist. Your ideology only works if everyone would magically respect those laws you set, but reality doesn't work like that, they wont accept those laws and they will murder you because thats how humans work

>>15258513
lol literally the opposite, government will just automate the oppression. said something inflammatory? speech recognition triggers contract and you'll get notified immediately on your smartphone, a drone gets dispatched to track your every move for a week.

>>15262062
>people in ancap society will willingly risk their lives to appropriate someone's wealth because they will have the right to do it
Yeah, sort of. Not everyone of course, but if there will be crimes, there will also be bounty hunters.
And btw they will have to return the house to the old lady, because otherwise they'll become the next target.

>>15262130
yeah that sounds totally plausible. people will just magically protect poor people because you know, people are very kind and loving and thats totally how humans work. and since you are protecting the poor old lady from bad guys, why not just give her some money too? I mean, you can't just leave that poor old lady without some money to buy food right?

>>15262162
>people will just magically protect poor people because you know, people are very kind and loving
No, because they will have a monetary interest in protecting them. Did you read my post?

>>15262184
what monetary benefit you get from saving an old lady exactly?

>>15262219
Many of them.
1) If the old lady's attacker is rich, bounty hunter can appropriate his wealth
2) If the old lady's attacker is a poor nigger, bounty hunter can enslave him

Also, it's only violation of NAP if the lady is against it. So it's not like your life will end if you're an aggressor and you made a mistake. You can try to compensate for the inconvenience and pay the lady, so that she doesn't allow bounty hunters fuck you.

Smart contracts are not for humans with our fat fingers, slow reactions, fragile memory, low APM.
Smart contracts are for the near future where most business is conducted by hordes of AI agents specialised in performing specific tasks and delegating subtasks to the appropriate specialist AIs.
We will die poor, but out children might make it big.
Too bad /biz/ doesn't want any.

>>15262310
>if attacker is rich
he is trying to steal from a poor old lady, he is obviously not rich

and you are a bounty hunter why would you care to protect some poor old lady and not protect some rich fag that can pay you thousands?

>>15262346
>he is trying to steal from a poor old lady, he is obviously not rich
He is trying to appropriate a fucking house, that costs something.

>why would you care to protect some poor old lady and not protect some rich fag that can pay you thousands?
It's not like there is a single BH in whole world. In any case, you're interested in how rich the aggressor is, not the victim.

>>15262402
so if the aggressor is completely poor you just let him murder poor old ladies?

>>15262433
No, you enslave him.

>>15262453
so slavery exists in your ancapistan? and why wont you become a slave too at some point?

>>15262483
You have the right to kill a murderer. That essentially let's you enslave him, since you can threaten him with murder, unless he works for you.

>why wont you become a slave too at some point
I won't because I won't kill nobody :-]

Also, hardly anyone is going to live in a wild west where the only law is NAP. It's just the basic axiom. You can have all kinds of communities with all kinds of rules. Only precondition is that they should be voluntary.

>>15262526
so what if he is just a thief and not a murderer? you enslave him too? and he is too poor to confiscate anything he has, so zero benefits in stopping him

>where the only law is NAP
and why would I want to follow that law? If I accumulate a lot of guns and an army I can subjugate you with force and make you my slave and I dont have to follow your dumb NAP law, I will make my own laws

>>15262526
Oh and they will be anything but voluntary. Just check out what happens in lawless areas in 3rd world countries. You get fuckups like Joseph Kony calling the shots and kidnapping, raping and stealing whatever he likes and making the whole swathes of land his playground because he has an army of thugs behind him or you get talibs/ISIS or some other kind of religious nutjobs that are going to fuck everyone up who doesn't subscribe to their bullshit. And if you try to fight them you will lose because they are insane and they have 100x more motivation and tenacity than any bounty hunter or mercenary you will ever hire and they will have a group of religious nutjobs supporting them and crushing any dissent in their wake. After all they're going to heaven.

Or you get total chaos and slave markets like when Libya fell. Guys who enslave weaker than them. Or even get some fucked up shit like generational slavery in Mauritania. Will you say "haha, you can't enslave me slaver man, I ain't hurt anybody and never violated NAP!" when they nab you?

>>15262588
>so what if he is just a thief and not a murderer? you enslave him too? and he is too poor to confiscate anything he has, so zero benefits in stopping him
In a pure NAP land - yeah, you do whatever you want with a thief. But regular people aren't gonna live in the wild, they will live in communes. By entering a commune, you accept it's rules, including what happens to you if you become a thief, or if someone robs you. Even _voluntary_ imprisonment is an option, if the crime is something defined on commune-level. For example, if homosexuality is outlawed in your commune, you can be given a choice of either going to prison, or leaving the commune if you're a fag.

>>15262644
I'm not saying that once all laws are abolished, we are all gonna live in a libertarian heaven. Of course it's going to be hell if you just shut down all gov agencies at once. It should be a step by step process.

>>15262939
>they will live in communes. By entering a commune, you accept it's rules
are you sure you are an ancap and not an anarcho communist?

>>15258863
>t. Genius programmer.
How about you stick to talking about things you have experience in buddy

>>15258513
i unironically hope all this shit fails.

>>15263006
Yeah, did the word commune trigger you? Commune is just a voluntary organization. And I don't oppose to corporations or free trade.

Ancaps are antisocial people with no technical abilities

>>15263044
I have no experience and am not a programmer and even I can tell that smart contracts aren't going to be loved by the masses. If you can't patch them you can't unfuck them. If you can unfuck them they're not fucking trustless. Any arguments?

>>15263070
there are no communes in ancapistan, commune implies shared possessions and property, communes is the literal opposite of ancap. you don't even know what dumb ideology you follow

>>15263097
>I have no experience
Then stfu and read. Look at tezos protocol. You don't seem to understand that a tested and unfaulty smart contract doesn't need patches. Why do people always like to pretend to know about things they have no understanding of?

>>15263100
>commune implies shared possessions and property
Not necessarily, but even then, how does that contradict to ancap principles? Do you understand that you are free to do whatever you want with your property? Including sharing it with others under some specific conditions?
Even if you don't have any shared property in your commune, there can still be laws, with the most extreme punishment being exclusion and ostracizing from the community. If you can't do business with anyone in the town, you won't stay there for too long.

>>15263145
It doesn't need patches until you get DAO'd or Parity 2 electric boogaloo. Even if what you say is true and we can get 100% unfaulty smart contracts with legit audits (like the Hex guy who actually paid a lot not only for 1 but for 2 audits IIRC) you still fail to understand we're talking in the scope of the OP's premise. As in, the ENTIRE society using smart contracts. Try to keep up okay?

You think you can easily convince regular people that they're safe and sound? A few fuckups like DAO or Parity in a real world (non in crypto world) and smart contracts would have worse PR than nuclear power.
If you can't reliably convince someone who has only blurry understanding how can you convince a bunch of people who have no clue what your stuff does (immutably).
Again, concentrate your braincells, tone down the smug tone and remember we're talking in the entire scope of OP's premises.

>>15263190
private property is the biggest cornerstone of ancap, so no you can't have shared communes and call yourself ancap. you are literally describing anarcho collectivism

>>15263261
>As in, the ENTIRE society using smart contracts
You aren't going to write a new smart contract every time you need to rent a house. There will be a public repository of smart contracts covering all popular usecases.
>>15263269
You can implement any kind of shared property using private property and contracts.

>>15263311
>you can implement shared property using private property
I don't think you know what these words mean

>>15263361
Wow, nice argument man!

>>15263388
and what exactly is your argument? that private property is the same thing with shared property?

yeah, genius insight pal

>>15261408
Pinkertons weren't a private organization?
>By the mid-1850s a few businessmen saw the need for greater control over their employees; their solution was to sponsor a private detective system
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinkerton_(detective_agency)

>>15258893
"when the people learn to reason, everything is lost" - Voltaire. but due to new innovations like the facebook machine and replacing the white population, the masses will again be docile illiterate beasts, allowing for ancap

>>15263311
>You aren't going to write a new smart contract every time you need to rent a house. There will be a public repository of smart contracts covering all popular usecases.

Right. A public repository. Would you like to wager a guess what percentage of population has even a faint idea how to use sites like github? How to pick correct links, versions etc. eg. for wallets and stuff? How to verify GPG signatures of whether the shit they download is even legit? Which sites and parties are trustworthy and which are going to phish them? I don't see it. The most sensible and realistic option I could imagine are trusted 3rd parties knowing wtf they're doing deploying smart contracts on behalf of everyone else and interacting with all the autism on their own while providing a sleek and easy frontend for a regular Joe. But then again if you want to use trusted 3rd party which might fuck up or get hacked or exit scam or go bankrupt or exit scam or whatever why do you need smart contract in the first place? That's my entire point. They don't socially scale, this is difficult stuff that can't really be reasonable expected to be used by inept. Maybe some automated shit for megacorps who can afford armies of autists that can verify wtf they're doing.

>>15261982
>My ideology is the least toleration of coercion as is possible
I think this is a scaling issue. The smaller the community the more coercion is needed, I couldn't imagine how a family would organize itself without "communal" principles but a hypercentralized global goverment would be an unfeasible clusterfuck. The question should be how much coercion at what scale and not the least possible coercion.

>>15263415
No, that ancap theory does not forbid co-ownership. You can't buy a house on your own, so you and your wife share resources and buy one. That house becomes a shared property of you two.

>>15263465
I don't know their history exactly, but they sure have done far less harm than any government, or a mob which came to life because of government regulations.

>>15263509
Smart contracts are still a new medium to do your business, and it greatly lowers the costs for small businesses, because they don't have to hire lawyers and accountants.

>>15263667
thats not what communes are. you don't share ownership of the house with your wife, you are sharing ownership with the entire commume.

and the biggest flaw of your ideology, is that it doesn't forbid anything, because there is no one to enforce anything. you can't forbid people to come together and create a government that will eventually annex all individual ancaps. Your ideology is a fallacious fantasy world that exists only in your brain

>>15258513
>anarcho-capitalism
Enjoy private police robo-cop making your life a living hell until you pay off the mafia.

>>15263747
>thats not what communes are
Orly? Read a dictionary, there are all kinds of communes, it is not necessary for everything to be shared

It forbids violation of NAP :) And yeah, worst case scenario is, we'll end up with another government, which is what we already have today. No point in trying to strive for freedom then, understood!

>>15263832
>read a dictionary
ok pal, here you go

commune1
/ˈkɒmjuːn/
noun

a group of people living together and sharing possessions and responsibilities.

I think you need to invent a new word to explain your fantasy world pal

>It forbids violation of NAP
who exactly forbids it? the theory? and who is gonna enforce the law? the words in the theory will enforce it? without enforcer, there is no law, just guidelines

>>15263912
>ok pal, here you go
commune is an intentional community of people living together, sharing common interests, often having common values and beliefs, as well as shared property, possessions, resources, and, in some communes, work, income or assets

By the way this is retarded, and you should have went on when it was clear that we use different definitions of the word commune.

>who exactly forbids it? the theory? and who is gonna enforce the law? the words in the theory will enforce it? without enforcer, there is no law, just guidelines
And who's gonna enforce the government's rules? Police? But they aren't slaves, they can decide not to work for the government, if they want.

It's almost like government just creates financial incentives to be a law enforcer --- like ancap theory does.

>>15264003
so ancaps want to replace the government and police with... a government and a police? sounds like a great plan

>>15264035
I quit the discussion, you're retarded.

>>15264051
>ran out of dumb arguments
>leaves
classic ancaptard