The Necessity of Government

[brimstoneSalad]

But trade is the collective power without forcing anyone to actually be a part of a collective. I benefit from you while you benefit from me, but neither of us are forced.

It's very inefficient to deal with shared resources in this way. Not saying it's impossible. But, for example, roads existing on a house by house basis, each person independently managing their road and charging toll by market forces to those who pass. It's possible, but very inefficient.
Or having dozens of road companies buying up land, and multiple routes to the same destination from competing companies... Again, it's possible, but inefficient.

If you never close the argument until there are no people left to talk, then they'll never stop talking like an endless debate lol. Someone has to have that authority, which means someone can be bribed to end the debate before the real advocate for one side can even speak.

A jury of some kind can decide to tell people to shut up and let the next one talk, or even issue punishment to bad behavior as a judge would conventionally do.

It's not a form of assault for the same reason poisoning food that you don't own is not a form of assault...

Poisoning food you own is assault if you then put the food out there where other people are likely to eat it. And even more so, if other people don't have a choice but to eat it- just as we don't have a choice but to breathe polluted air and experience the effects of climate change.
If you keep all of the poisoned food responsibly sequestered, then it's not assault.

You can say that everyone owns the air, but then no one can agree on how much CO2 is ok.

The amount of CO2 that stabilizes the climate and prevents further climate change and sea level rising. This is an empirical number, not based on opinion. Likewise, don't add to particulate count. If you create pollution, then clean up some pollution so it balances out.

I prefer to say that it's no one's, that way anyone can do anything with it

That's the worst possible way to treat it. And also why many people hate libertarians- because bad libertarians want to do that.
It's assault, plain and simple. I don't have a choice but to breathe air and drink water, and be affected by extreme weather. Communal resources are owned by everybody, and must be respected because of it.

and if enough people care about the environment, market forces will force the change.

No, it won't. Because it only takes one person being irresponsible and irrational to ruin it for everybody.
It's not expensive to destroy the environment- it's expensive to protect it.

But if not enough people care, then democracy won't fix it either.

It doesn't work like that. If 51% of companies stop polluting because 51% of consumers want to protect the environment, that only cuts the rate of pollution by 51%, which means the consumers who are paying more for a non-polluting product are still breathing the same 49% polluted air as the 49% of polluters, who are saving money.
On the other hand, if 51% of voters want pollution to stop, it will. 100% of people get to breathe 100% unpolluted air. And 49% of people have to pay more for products than they wanted to- but it wasn't the right of the 49% of people to force everybody else to breathe their pollution because they didn't want to take responsibility for their own actions.

Nobody can be completely happy in either case, but the latter case is better for the majority, and it's better for everyone in the sense that now the air isn't polluted.

The reason I prefer air to be unowned as opposed to collectively owned is because a collective 51% of the people can say "I don't want any CO2 from industries!" and the 49% who want some industry will be forced to live in the stone age.

It's not a question of living in the stone age. It's a question of carbon capture and sequestration. Which makes products cost slightly more.
No industry has to be stopped, or even scaled down. Instead, a new industry needs to be built up. Market forces will also encourage, since the TRUE price of polluting energy sources is now being reflected, a migration to less polluting energy sources like nuclear, solar, wind, ethanol, etc.

Without a collective, you'll have the same 51% living in the stone age, happily;

No, you have the 51% paying more for products, and yet still living miserably in 49% polluted air.

while the 49% get some industry, happily; and the resulting CO2 output will be the collective wants of the people.

No it wouldn't. Nobody wants climate change and air pollution. Everybody would be unhappy with the quality of the environment. Only, the 49% of people who preferred to save money on products would still be paying less. Everybody would be miserable though.

the point still stands for what the proper price for energy should be.

No, the proper price of energy is the price that includes the cost of cleaning up after itself.

This is the same issue as with government subsidies.
We think coal is cheap, because we're forcing somebody else to spend money cleaning up the mess it produces.

This is the opposite of Libertarianism. Libertarianism requires people to take full responsibility for themselves- which means cleaning up after themselves too. Without that, it's a non-starter.
Just as democracy doesn't work without education, Libertarianism doesn't work without responsibility.

If you classify pollution as assault, then the system starts to work, because you hold people responsible for their actions against others. Without that, it's completely non-viable.

If a system were in place where pollution were ignored and unregulated, then I would just pollute too. Up-wind of the companies doing the polluting. So they have to breathe my pollution. And I might pollute with Chlorine gas. I'll find some excuse of a manufacturing process that outputs that. Everybody in the factory down wind of me dies. No more polluters- and it's all completely legal because I'm allowed to put poisons in the air.
Sound good?
Because that's what will happen.

The 51% will just kill the 49%. And they'll do it legally by polluting them to death.

[GPC100s]

The roads don't HAVE to be inefficient, therefore they probably won't be. A road company can manage the roads on your land and centralize the toll booths while keeping track of the general traffic for fund distribution. They might even upkeep the roads for you, probably for a fee... With such a system, it's MORE efficient than now when it comes to who pays for it (not to mention that when governments lease public roads to private companies, they upkeep the roads much better).

Poisoning food you own is assault if you then put the food out there where other people are likely to eat it.

Probabilities again? Lol. People buying the food choose to do so, you can't pretend they don't. With air, you think we all are forced to breathe it, but we're not because we can breathe from air tanks... I don't think that's a good trade for lower energy prices, but values are subjective.

You mention scientific facts about how much CO2 causes climate change, but you can't prove everyone wants it unless you go around asking everyone for signatures. Talk about inefficient lol.

It's not expensive to destroy the environment- it's expensive to protect it.

Yes it is expensive to destroy the environment if your customers don't want it to be. Imagine you're an energy producer who's goal is to destroy the planet. No one pays you for your products. How are you gonna keep that factory burning? Or the drills drilling?

Nobody can be completely happy in either case, but the latter case is better for the majority, and it's better for everyone in the sense that now the air isn't polluted.

Ok, you're right to say that not everyone is happy with the outcome, but they are all happy with their participation... Imagine you're the only person who wanted to cut back on pollution to live a life without air tanks; but you had a magic army of ninja warriors that could force people to do what you wanted. Everyone is gonna be mad at you for making their lives worse. You care about people's wants, right? Then you gotta respect them... The problem is when more than one person owns the same thing while disagreeing how to use it; that's why it makes no sense for that to occur.

[brimstoneSalad]

With air, you think we all are forced to breathe it, but we're not because we can breathe from air tanks... I don't think that's a good trade for lower energy prices, but values are subjective.

People can choose to breathe from air tanks? Is this really the heart of your argument?

If so, I'm done here.
Disappointed, and done.

This is the kind of thing that gives libertarians a bad name.

[EquALLity]

I don't think that you can truly be an anarchist and non-vegan.
Speciesism is hierarchy with non-human beings.

I also think that it is important that we distinguish between anarchists and libertarians.
Anarcho-capitalists aren't anarchists, because capitalism creates hierarchy.

[brimstoneSalad]

I don't think that you can truly be an anarchist and non-vegan.
Speciesism is hierarchy with non-human beings.

Good point.

I also think that it is important that we distinguish between anarchists and libertarians.
Anarcho-capitalists aren't anarchists, because capitalism creates hierarchy.

But can we make such a distinction?

Since there is no apparent way to suppress capitalism without a hierarchy, aren't they pretty much the same in practice?

[EquALLity]

Thank you. =D

On suppressing capitalism, the same could be said about the supression of any other political ideaology, and the less hierarchy the better. So the end result is what really matters.

Sorry for the late reply btw.

[brimstoneSalad]

On suppressing capitalism, the same could be said about the supression of any other political ideaology, and the less hierarchy the better. So the end result is what really matters.

But you need an anarchist hierarchy in order to suppress those things. Like a counsel of anarchy, which passes laws to suppress capitalism. Then it starts to look more like communism, and less like anarchy.

[EquALLity]

Like I said, the same could be said about the suppression of any political ideology, and the less hierarchy the better.

There doesn't need to be a counsel of anarchy, everyone in a community would vote.

[brimstoneSalad]

There doesn't need to be a counsel of anarchy, everyone in a community would vote.

Who collects the votes? Who counts the votes? Who enacts those policies, and who enforces them?

Who protects the minority when the majority vote to oppress them?

[EquALLity]

Who collects the votes? Who counts the votes?

The person could change every time. I don't think that collecting and counting votes equates to a government though. It's a service, not a rule.

Who enacts those policies

The community enacts them by voting them in.

and who enforces them?

In a true anarchist society, I think that the people in a community would look over all of the details in a situation of a rule being broken. They would vote on what to do.

Who protects the minority when the majority vote to oppress them?

A system with economic equality and mutual cooperation would show people that they need to work together in order to live peacefully, so this probably wouldn't happen as often as it does.

Why do you not hold anarcho-capitalism to a similar standard?
Who helps those who are completely poor?