• Fox@pawb.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    23
    ·
    1 year ago

    “The state is not going to pay for the use of the security forces; organizations that have legal status will have to pay or individuals will have to bear the cost”

    The state sending invoices to accused protesters is a about the least ancap thing I’ve ever seen. Such a fresh take.

    • Coki91@dormi.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      24
      ·
      1 year ago

      Considering that the security forces will only incur when protesters take away the fundamental right of transiting the streets… which is a crime, an Invoice instead of prison is rather light

      Now is it anarcho capitalist? Well people paying for their actions and its consequences being a law sounds rather anarcho-capitalist to me

        • Coki91@dormi.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          10
          ·
          1 year ago

          The principle of no-agression and respecting the other’s freedom are literally the principles or Anarcho-capitalism

          This measures ensure that those are enforced, how is it against anarcho-capitalism?

            • Coki91@dormi.zone
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              What are you on about?

              Are you confusing principles and ideals of an ideology for an instated regime? Or what’s your point here

                • Coki91@dormi.zone
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  I don’t know who’s interpretation of Anarcho-Capitalism you are following, but since ther has never been an Anarcho Capilist government in the world (which sounds ironical) it’s all just ideas and interpretations, of which seem you are grabbing the worst of the pile.

                  Rothbard’s definition includes in the fundamentals of the Contractual Society being voluntarily approached and free of violence or harm, which is to say that if you do not respect the inalienable rights of the others, you are violating the Contract for being in that society, and you are rightfully gonna be aprehended. There is no contradiction

                  Also, to what you said about “demonstrated” something, mind linking to what you have? There’s nothing around here like that