I don’t try to justify anything. I don’t have to. I might advocate what *I* want

I don’t try to justify anything. I don’t have to. I might advocate what *I* want. I might help you advocate what *you* want, and help someone else with what *they* want – we have different needs.

I am perfectly happy if the underclasses engage in mutual reinsurance (socialism). I just don’t want to pay for insurance that I don’t need or want – and which harms me. I am, by my abilities, my own insurance. There is no reason we must possess a monopoly under which we all rely upon the same means of insurance. I think very few of us would rely upon ourselves, and the majority rely upon insurance by others.

But since I want liberty, to obtain liberty without the state, the only means we have of providing a rational means for the resolution of differences is property and property rights, under organically evolving “common” law, I just need to know what is required of the common law to construct a voluntary polity in the absence of the state.

This is an empirical question. It’s not a moral one. I do not argue what people SHOULD want. Since what they ‘should’ want and what they ‘do’ want are almost always accurate reflections of their reproductive strategies. I argue instead that given what any group wants, here is how to achieve it under the common law, cooperatively rather than violently – as the state now does.

That doesn’t mean that you couldn’t replace some sections of that common law with ‘rule-by-man’ institutions within your own group – rather than rule of law under the law. Within your group you’re welcome to. We liberty lovers won’t allow you to force us to participate with you in an ‘involuntary’ organization.

We won’t allow you means that we will use violence to make sure that you cannot. We’re smarter. That’s the thing, you know.