I agree.

Wow, that bad.. Ok, I'm looking forward to that.

"'m sure some of them stayed in caves some of the time, but it couldn't have been a widespread practice " Clearly, the Plains Indian Tribes in mid-America had no caves and were forced to invent Teepees.

Your ideas as expressed above are not grounded in logic nor reality. When I free up some time, I'll review them.

give me liberty or give me death or let me live away from aggressive people somewhere

I'm sure some of them stayed in caves some of the time, but it couldn't have been a widespread practice because of the reasons I brought up earlier. Calling hunter-gatherers "cave-dwellers" is a bit of a stretch.

I guess it doesn't matter for my point of view what to call these hunter-gatherers. I would be more interested in you attempting to disprove my ideas about statism.

Last reply on this thread. Please do some reading.

https://www.sciencealert.com/we-have-...

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-...

https://www.science.org/content/artic...

https://www.sciencealert.com/8000-yea...

Our ancestors were Cave-Dwelling Hunter-Gatherers for a really long time before they figured out how to farm crops and become ranchers

The wars would be costly, so, these agencies will need to raise their prices to pay for them. That will cause most people switch providers to someone not at war. Attack is always costlier than defense, so, maybe there is a case to be made that the attacker will suffer greater losses and their prices will need to go higher. So the attackers will lose more customers. Although, sometimes you have to attack to defend, so maybe this isn't going to work every time.

If the masses are too lazy to vote with their dollar and would not care about the corruption going on with their service provider then lord have mercy on us all.

However, I don't think the masses will act this way in my scenario. Trading freedom would not even going to be a choice. Any law would have to be formally proved first, which isn't going to happen because giving up freedom (becoming a slave) is not something that is even allowed by logic, at least by the line of reasoning that I imagine would back the whole thing. So, I don't think they would even be presented with the option. There is no voting in my system, so, a majority can't simply vote to push anything on the minority. Still, any attempt to force the loss of freedom would result in the unwilling customers switching providers. The new provider will go to war against the former one if they continue their shenanigans.

One additional protection would possibly be the fact that there are going to be more behaving security providers than the occasional non-behaving one. So, if a war was to break out between a couple of them, the behaving ones are going to join the right side and try to make money by bringing the misbehaving agency to 'justice'. The misbehaving one is probably not going to have too many friends just because of the questionable nature of their actions. So, the result would be a humiliating defeat of the misbehaving organization. Unless everybody suddenly becomes corrupt and conspires, which I guess is possible... In that case we are going to be fucked... and we would actually be in the same situation we are now (states preying on humanity). Though it is hard to see how corruption on such a great scale can all the sudden occur if these agencies would continue going around putting it down all the time.

Free market stops conspiring by allowing new competitors to appear and bust the cartels. However, if the three branches conspire against the people, a fourth branch would be prevented from being created by independent parties, hence the cartel would not be busted.

Cave paintings don't prove that they stayed in one spot. They could have stayed there for a while, painted the paintings and left.

If you don't grow food yourself, the availability of wild food is low (especially farther from the equator). So, you have to move once you deplete the local area. Caves can't be moved so you have to leave the cave.

Caves don't exist everywhere, only in some places. So, how could they have been cave dwellers if caves are rare and far apart?

They probably made movable structures of tree branches and animal skins (as modern nomadic tribes do in Siberia for example).

"...By the way, they were not cave dwelling, that's made up nonsense..." Nonsense like the cave paintings at Altamira Spain https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/310 and
Lascaux in southern France https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/310 ? Both made up nonsense. Really, Did they live in Condos?

I would like to accuse you of the same thing (being confused by statist propaganda).

I am not against cooperation on equal terms. I am against 'fake' cooperation where one party has more privileges than the other, which is slavery.

The history of government from my point of view is this:
1. Agriculture and animal husbandry required that human nomadic hunter-gatherer tribes settle down. By the way, they were not cave dwelling, that's made up nonsense.
2. Settling down made them sitting ducks for predation, whereas before that was not possible due to them moving randomly across vast distances.
3. Criminal gangs appeared that started to prey on the settled tribes (out of tribes themselves and other tribes).
4. Warlords appeared that controlled areas and kicked out competing warlords.
5. These warlords later came up with excuses for their behavior, this is where statist propaganda started to appear, with warlords calling themselves kings and such.
6. There were rebellions, which caused the warlords to come up with more ingenious ways to control their subjects, such as brainwashing, etc.
7. Eventually new more efficient systems of organization of the state appeared, such as democracy, etc.

Of course I have thought about the society I would want to live in. I would love to share, but there are a couple of problems:
1. I did not yet finish fully developing all the aspects of it
2. There is not enough space in this post to explain it in great detail

In summary, the society would be voluntarist, no violence or fraud would be allowed except in defense against such. There would be no voting. Laws would be derived logically by academia or something similar (possibly financially supported by security companies). There would be no made up laws but only those that can be proven to follow from basic universally accepted axioms. Laws would be directly tied to damage caused by one party to another. Laws would be considered universal and eternal, except when discovered and proven to be incorrectly derived. Security services/law enforcement would be provided by private companies. Some cost of enforcement would be paid by law violators (as is reasonable). The security services will want to go after criminals because they would be paid for doing so by the criminals themselves (after capture). There would be no prisons, only labor camps, no punishment but repayment of damage. There would be no death penalty. Judges would be arbiters, there would be no case law. There would be no borders, except where reasonable, such as around your property. There would be no war except between security companies when irreconcilable disagreement occurs regarding law proof. Such things would be rare and only occur when a security company goes rogue, which would be highly unlikely. There would be no taxes, only insurance-type payments to your favorite security provider/etc, unless you can do that yourself and don't need the service or you like living life on the edge.

By the way, I actually don't like the term 'anarcho-capitalist'. I would prefer other terms, such as 'free market absolutist' or 'somebody not wanting to be a slave'.

"Checks and balances idea is crap." On the contrary, as it seems to me that is precisely how a free market works. The question most people I have discussed these issues with worry about the question of "warring" law enforcement agencies. I argue that that is not a problem since people will soon learn not to trust those that "initiate the war" and not purchase their services. They quickly point out that the history of the world indicates otherwise, that most people are sheep, and are perfectly willing to trade freedom for "safety" (thereby gaining neither). With this point I must agree -- witness the behavior of the vast majority of American's during covid.

You are very confused. Our cave-dwelling hunter-gather ancestors understood the benefits of mutual cooperation in hunting, fishing, and defense against other wild animals (lions, hyenas, etc.)

That mutual cooperation is what led to the concept and formation of governments.

Have you thought out what an anarcho-capitalist society would look like? If so, would you care to share?

We can put our foot down and face the consequences, come what may.
Or we shut our pie hole and and resign ourselves to slavery, both economic and physical if the election is stolen a second time.

'attempt to control my thinking'

I guess I did try to give you guys a bit of your own medicine, didn't I? lol.

Although maybe not. It depends on what reasonable actually turns out to be... I meant to point out that, assuming my reasoning is correct, another person that invests the time into following the same reasoning will eventually reach the same conclusion: that what is really going on at the root of government/state is enslavement and that the state brainwashes its subjects into willingly obeying.

I would be interested in discussing and debating the details, if anyone cares.

I believe anarcho-capitalist is the more correct designation, although, I deviate a little bit from the main line ancaps.

By the way, I take offense at that definition. Such garbage statist propaganda. Just because there is no criminal gang running everything doesn't mean the result is 'disorder', 'confusion', etc.

Checks and balances idea is crap. There is nothing stopping the 3 branches from conspiring against 'the people'.

There is a solution: allow the people needing the service to select their provider and to pay for it voluntarily.

Any other way to do it requires the application of violence (to enforce the thing) and that's not kosher in my view. Just stop the violence and all these problems you speak of go away.

First of all, there should not be any apprehending going on, except for one specific purpose: to force someone to pay back the damage that they caused to someone else.

Why does it have to be a guy with special privileges? Why can't it be anyone that is willing and able to do it, provided that the law is followed? Most people wouldn't want to do it but would be more than willing to pay someone to do it. This is where you let the free market determine the price for such a service and allow it to weed out corruption, fraud, etc.

Quote by Benjamin Franklin? Extremely true.

This is the heart of the matter. The Declaration of Independence states that the answer to your question is "yes" and that we delegate that power to a "government". The real problem I think is that we tend to delegate power that must not be delegated. As a result we create a government "power magnet" that over time attracts the "thugs" that are willing to abuse that same power to serve their own interests at the expense of the rest of us. Even the functions of courts, police, and military can (and are) subject to this corruption. I think we need some sort of competition mechanism such that the watchers watch the watchers (the 3 branches of the US government was a brilliant and valiant attempt to provide such checks and balances -- sadly we are now seeing how that has been eroded since the beginning of our republic. Perhaps government should be chosen by lot AND that person must be able to pass some sort of qualifying test that is randomly created (for each lottery winner? looser?)
from a huge (really huge) set of questions? Keep the terms in office short so that the official returns to live in the societal environment he helped create. However "lobbying" for such a system does worry me. Just some thoughts -- one could spend a lifetime thinking about these issues. I read many interesting ideas here in the Gulch.

Sad to say, I think you are right. But one can hope.
There is the possibility that he will realize that if he does choose a "former Democrat socialist female" it will embolden the demopublicans to more fiercely attack him -- a "reverse" KH effect -- chuckle!

I'll be very surprised if Trump picks someone with a functioning brain like VR.
More likely he'll choose a former Democrat socialist female from ultra-socialist Hawaii
(that will gain nothing in electoral votes at all and who will betray Trump's supposed
goals at every opportunity.)
His choice for VP may cause me to vote for NOTA.

Yep.

If there is any authority that can apprehend those who offend others, then that authority must have limited power.
Do you contend that all such power resides in each individual?

No sale. "I am sure if you are a reasonable person, you would eventually agree with me." Bullshit. A reasonable person may not agree with you, either. Don't blow smoke up my ass in an attempt to control my thinking. Far better to use facts than condescending pap. You're coming off like a control freak yourself. It seems the state isn't the only expert at gaslighting.