[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
If you get pulled over, you were driving on state controlled roads and, by your mere presence, consented to their authority. If you don't want to submit to police authority on the road, get off it.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, fine. I'm sitting at home and a cop knocks on my door. Better? Am I consenting to the authority of the state merely by existing? Is the status quo automatically legitimate merely by the fact that it is the status quo?

[ QUOTE ]
You’re hypothetical situation presupposes something illegal. The state has provided protections against such searches. So this seems rather asinine to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yet this happens all the time. Police search vehicles without probable cause by either intimidating people into waiving their rights or by outright violation of them.

[ QUOTE ]
Regardless, would anarcho-capitalism provide such protections?

[/ QUOTE ]

First of all, in a stateless society, there won't be any public roads to be on. Your argument that by being on a state-owned road, I consent to the authority of the state is not quite the same because the state-sanctioned police force has "authority" everywhere in their jurisdiction, on private or public land.

Second of all, there's much less incentive for a private police force to search your property. What would they be looking for? Since there's no "contraband" in a stateless society, what could you have that they'd be looking for?

Thirdly, there's stronger disincentives to violate your property by force. A state-sanctioned police officer might get a slap on the wrist, but they might break a big case, so the downside risk is small and the upside gain is large. A private police force has virtually zero upside to search, and a huge downside, since they depend on private interests to fund them and being seen as a thug is bad for business.

[ QUOTE ]
It sounds to me as if, in an anarcho-capitalist society, to prevent such searches, you would need your own cadre of protectors. You would still be susceptible to those with a larger cadre of protectors, though. I fail to how such a society descends into anything other than warlord-ism.

[/ QUOTE ]

Organized crime, whether it's a street gang or a warlord, only exists where there is profit to be made. How does a warlord profit in a stateless society? What can the warlord offer that "legitimate" businesses can't provide when there's no state to create black markets in contraband? Who's going to do business with a warlord? Without cashflow, from where will the warlord draw his power?

Anarchro-capitalism cannot *eliminate* warlordism, but it can make it unprofitable, which is better than any government can do.


[ QUOTE ]
Let's not insult those who are actually living under harsh oppression right now in numerous places around the world by claiming that Americans are somehow oppressed.

[/ QUOTE ]

So any amount of oppression is OK as long as there is somewhere where it's worse?