When it comes to libertarians/ancaps etc., is 'physical

>>139670248
no spuun feeeding, lirk mor :)

>>139670401
i'm sorry
i've been here a long time,but i still haven't figured it out.
pls help

>>139670248
Physical removal described the idea of a owner of a private property having the right to decide who enters his property and once entered who is allowed to stay. AnCaps want private gated communities (pretty much voluntary microstates). The people living in there have the right to deny access to people they seem unfit to jon their community and they also have the right to remove people that don't fit in anymore by breaking predetermined rules (they break a contract).So, physical removal describes both the freedom of association and discrimination of a community, that without these both liberties wouldn't be able to function properly.

>>139670567
Don't worry about it Anon, I was just being facetious.

>>139670248
Fascism

File: 1490545007236.jpg (46KB, 398x600px)

46KB, 398x600px

>>139670974
Fascists think otherwise. Though I think if they read some of his stuff, most of /pol/ would come to like Hoppe.

Semi related question that's been plagueing me.

Assume an ideal Ancapistan, in which all people have total ownership over themselves and can voluntarily enter into any contract.
Imagine, for a moment, that some individual billed himself as a Monarch, and other individuals voluntarily surrendered their sovereignity unto him as subordinates.
As per the terms of the contract, the king has absolute sovereignity, and the subjects are absolutely subordinate.

Since they entered into this contract voluntarily (for whatever reason), would they be legally or morally just in defying their king and reasserting their sovereignty?
Again, assume this takes place as a microcosm within an ideal Ancapistan.

>>139671245
So coercive force against non-violent people is *not* fascism now?

>>139670248
Let's say there's a guy shitting in your yard. He's been shitting there all day and the pile of his shit gets bigger and bigger and bigger. He's paid off the local private police and they won't do anything to remove him from your lawn despite your anger at his actions.

What do you do to get him off your property? Physically fucking remove him.

>>139671789
I see no unjustified force. In the case of keeping people out of your community, you just defend your property, them entering anyway would be an agression on their side. And people entering under certain terms but violating them is a act of contract breaking, thus an act of violence aswell. They have to leave, since they are not allowed anymore and if they refuse, they are trespassing and the property owner is allowed to defend himself.

File: 1482876358129.jpg (203KB, 1604x766px)

203KB, 1604x766px

>>139670248
Both meme and serious concept, the idea comes from Hoppe and basically means no tolerance of those who seek to undermine the libertarian community. Pic related
It's also a meme in the sense that it wasn't meant as actually necessarily killing leftists, but rather as excluding them from your communities.

Servitude is a state of duress. Indefinite servitude is obviously impossible to consent to. Temporary servitude only makes sense when well-rewarded; if you ever seem to be looking at unrewarded temporary servitude contracts, you are either unaware of what the actual reward is, or you're looking at poorly concealed activity by organized crime.
Truly consensual servitude doesn't NEED a contract.

>>139671717
HAs the contract a exit clause? If not, they should have thought of that beforehands. Anarchocapitalism enforces people having to deal with consequences of their actions by themselves. Sure, you can live in a community that is conservative and you can work hard and live a decent live. But if you want, you can be a lowlife scum that takes drugs and doesn't work. No community will take your worthless ass in and you'll probably die out in the woods, but is still your decision to make. If you think signing a contract that takes away your rights is a good idea, don't complain afterwards.

>>139672037
So there is no communal property like sidewalks in ANCAPistan?

>>139672156
Assuming you're responding to >>139671717

The question doesn't concern itself as to WHY those individuals are subordinating themselves, or even how benevolent or malevolent the king is.
The only assumptions are that the individuals are sufficiently rational, and do some purely voluntarily with no coercion or misdirection on behalf of the monarch.
Since they surrendered their sovereignity, do they have the right to renounce their subordination?

In a more general sense; can a person voluntarily surrender their rights as a person, including the ability to defend or retake those rights that they gave up?

>>139672478
>HAs the contract a exit clause?
Not explicitly; it's classical monarchism as I said: The king has absolute sovereignity, and his subjects are absolutely subordinate.

>>139671717
It would really depend on the contract they enter into. If you're referring to contracting themselves personally to the king then there are different points of view. In Rothbard's opinion one can't contract themselves into slavery because it would be an alienation of their future will which may no longer desire that contract. Others, for example, Walter Block see no reason why one shouldn't have the ability to sell oneself because if you can't sell yourself can you even be said to own yourself. I would tend to go with Block on this, but libertarians are split.

If you're refering to adjoining your property to that of a monarch and making yourself subordinate to him, it would really depend on the contract. I would think most people entering into this relationship would have some clause allowing secession, perhaps with some damages for the king, but idk. If you were, however, to essentially sell your property to the king and have a subordinate title to the property then you could move somewhere else, but the property would still be the monarch's.

>>139672558
That depends on the community and how they organize that I'd say. AnCaps don't promote absolute orderlessness. It's radical decentralization. "States" are brought to a miniature level. If everyone in teh community agrees to organize the property publically and maybe even pay taxes for public services, they can do that, just on an single level, not at a federal level.

>>139672558
No, depending on the structure of society, it'd either be the property of the psuedo-monarch or probably the property of a group of businesses for commercial roads or group of home owners in residential areas.

In all likelihood there would be no restrictions on using them though.

>>139670248
>is /pol/ just memeing or are they serious
in every instance: yes

File: 1487291620233.jpg (160KB, 889x960px)

160KB, 889x960px

>>139670248
>If it's a serious concept, could you help me understand why that idea is rational/moral one and why I should support it
Communists cannot exist in a democratic libertarian society because they will work to destroy it using democracy. (see: America)
As for morality, communists by nature are seeking to remove your rights, and based on their history kill you as well. In my mind there is no difference between being a communist activist and seriously saying "I'm going to murder you and starve your family" to my face.
There is no other option besides physical removal.

>>139670248
How does inheritance work in ancap land?
What happens if someone dies without a will?

>>139670248

>nigger enters your property without your permission
>you physically remove the nigger

Now replace "your property" with "private, covenant-based community"

File: basedhoppe.jpg (10KB, 275x183px)

10KB, 275x183px

>>139670248

File: 1502313403183.jpg (46KB, 639x363px)

46KB, 639x363px

>>139670248

>>139679439

Rothbard isn't a libertarian.

>>139679439
>non arguments
Ok, then explain Hoppe, he isn't jewish. Come on, use a fucking argument for once. You're on the same level as a fucking nigger.

Capitalism is entirely amoral. If a community decides to not do business with a person/group/another community, then what does morality have to do with it?