>>24298585
>he does not know that cartels exist because drugs are illegal due to the State and therefore criminals fulfill that activity
>he does not know that states are actually the dominant cartels within a specific area

If owning a gym became illegal tomorrow, there would be horrible criminals owning them and providing the service from then on, even if owning a gym isn't a coercitive crime by itself but only a positive crime (positive as in legal positivism). The horrible criminals willing to trespass against that petty law overlap with those who are also willing to commit violent crimes (such as rape and murder), which don't even need a State to be understood and followed (because the State legitimates its existence by guaranteeing protection against those, so those precede the State). Thus, when you talk about muh cartels, you should talk about the reason why those cartels exist, which is a stupid and evil prohibition by the State, the most powerful cartel.

This allows me to link with the next point regarding the origin of the State, namely, the State as a surviving and dominant cartel. As we see today, cartels offer certain protection -against other cartels) in the areas they operate in exchange for money. For example, in Mexico they call it "derecho de piso", and it's funny how the press labels it as a crime when it is only a more cruent and unsophisticated stage of what the State does via taxing, hence proving unintentionally the illegitimate nature of the State. The thing is that the State evolves to be more respectful, because it is the way population is more productive, so that the State can steal as much as possible from such productivity.

Read Antonio Escohotado's Historia General de las Drogas (do not care if you guys don't know Spanish, it is the most authoritative text on the matter) and Charles Tilly's theories on the origin of the State. It boggles my mind how libertarianism (even its more scientific theories, like the ones I have explained) is that widely disregarded because there are some freaks like Curtis Yarvin, when that kind of cyber crackhead philosophy stems from psychoanalytic leftist theory, which fell victim of ridicule with works like Fashionable Nonsense.

Back | Go to board

Board:

/lit/

Thread:

what am I in for? im a few pages in