Defending Ancapiland (National defense)

I thought that it was prettymuch universally accepted that the anarchist utopia was called Ancapistan? I think it rolls of the tongue a lot more than Ancapiland...

I'd rather live somewhere called Fruitopia or Burger World to be honest.

Rothbardigrad.

What about Volunville?

We already know its up to private road companies to name their streets.

Volunville sounds gay.

I was wondering what the responses would be to that. It sounds like the name of some town in The Three Stooges.

I GOT IT - Volungrad. Sounds Soviet, but...isn't! Get it?

@Neodoxy

Unfortunately I'm not able to understand what you meant by much of your post... :( But I'm either confused or your mistaken if I'm understanding that you think I deny objective value, at least in one sense. Given that brains define their own algorithms of cost:benefit, all values are objectively as a matter of fact as opposed to opinion, justified and right according to each individuals brain.

What do you accept as good and evil?

I deny that concept. People always invoke rape as the ultimate moral concept. But it's just used for manipulation, because the human mind is vulnerable to psychological manipulation. In so many species of living beings, the males rape females. But suddenly if your DNA is that of homo sapiens, it becomes "morally wrong" whatever the **** that means.

I would personally not rape anyone because of my environment. And I wouldn't wish that anyone in my environment suffer rape. But I wouldn't say the rapist should be punished, because I'm not him, I don't know what circumstances he experienced that caused him to have such a cost:benefit decision. I can say that if he grew up in an environment like mine (i.e. suburban white america) then I'm infinitely sad for the state of mind he must experience that causes him to be so desperate for pleasure at the cost of human suffering.

And what sort of world do you want to see?

I think it's a trick question. It's another way of saying "how should the world be". I want to see the world the way it was meant to be—exactly the way it is. That way has allowed us to exist and to progress. Nature has no morals. If I had to change anything I would be the most powerful person in the world. That's what the human mind fundamentally wants. All other moral baggage is precisely that: baggage, designed to limit the desire for and thus the competition for that position. Yes, humans are both brilliantly dominant and ruthless and simultaneously vulnerable to psychological manipulation.

When we say "value is subjective" we mean that "values are subject-dependent." no one denies the objective realness of people's value judgments, or the fact that they derived those value judgments through human thought processes. Youre actually trying to bridge the fact-value crevasse yourself by insisting that other people's value judgments must be respected simply because they thought them up like humans do. You have reified a truism into a moral dictate.

other people's value judgments must be respected

That's precisely the opposite of what I'm saying. My entire point is that there is no saying anyone's values should be respected. They will or won't be respected, based on countless factors beyond the grasp of anyone's conscious, but that isn't to say that they should or shouldn't be respected. Of course, as we agree, each individual can decide for himself as a matter of objective fact whether he will or won't respect someone's values, and whatever decision he makes is by definition the correct one since his brain defines it's own equation and answer (the output).