Alright /his/ let's talk Anarcho-capitalism. I lean libertarian, and I'm interested in the idea of how life could work without any government.
ITT let's chat about ancap theories.
They don't work, because market failures exist, and the social infrastructure necessary to manage externalities effectively is quite large.
Good talk.
But what about the roads?
I'd probably consider calling myself an ancap if you didn't have people like Stefan on your side.
It's kinda funny how he juggles calling himself an 'anarchist' and secretly craving Trump's cock.
>>1011641
>>1011641
what is anarcho-capitalism? how does it even work?
>>1011786
Fuck you, pay me.
>>1011786
Capitalism with guns required at every transaction.
>>1011641
You can't have threads like these.
Without clearly defined topics to discuss on certain parts of ancap theory, reddit or any other mouthbreather will come a shit up the thread with stale memes and half baked arguments that usually have nothing to do with the subject matter which quickly devolves into shitposting. If you want an actual conversation start off with something only those familiar with the topics can participate in so retards from whatever type of persuasion(retarded libertarians too)don't even bother.
;tldr?
Delete this thread you faggot.
>>1011641
private property is obtained through force and capitalism breeds heirarchy m8. anarcho-capitalism is a self-contradictory belief
>>1011641
Anarchy is incoherent. 'the state ' is just going to be the private 'security' forces of the extremely wealthy. There is no such thing as removing conflict, therefor there cannot be a removal of a structured use of force to control/arbitrate that conflict.
roads are literally a communist plot to centralize government.
Proponents say like Medieval Iceland or certain Anabaptist sects.
Which should be all you need to know.
>>1011786
Society controlled almost entirely by Capitalists.
Probably one of the worst political ideologies ever devised.
>>1011800
So basically like the wild west?
>>1012077
hearty wew
>>1012077
Look, anarcho capitalism necessarily leads to feudalism. Private police forces and courts would go to the highest bidder, and that rich group of individuals would begin raiding for more resources, turning conquered people into serfs. Eventuality, kingdoms would be established and society would be divided.
>but the NAP
The nap is a utopian model, and humans wouldn't follow it when they could increase their riches and decrease their energy expenditure by simply raiding. To assume that people would follow nap is asinine and incredibly optimistic.
Not to mention, purchasing of resources from outside the territory would be hell, as every place would have their own currency and there'd be no way to tell exchange rates without a central authority.
So if you're against the creation of feudal states and rich jews owning everybody, you probably wouldn't like anarcho capitalism.
>>1011649
Name a single "market failure" and a Government solution to it. (Protip: you think you can, but if the example you will give is business cycle, monopolies, public goods, or any of those arguments you learned in your high school history class please don't waste my time making me respond to nonsense that has been brought up and addressed time and time again by Austrian and Chicago school economists.
>>1011662
I am an ancap and I despise Stef
>>1012178
Not even him, but natural monopolies are literally unsolvable through market intervention, as they were created through markets. Natural monopolies are also socially inefficient, like all monopolies, and thus are a negative for society.
Every time some lolbertarian whines like a little child that monopolies can only exist through government intervention, asking about natural monopolies makes them move the goalposts every time.
Also
>Chicago/Austrian school
Come back when you've studied economics that's actually been verified empirically using data instead of logic traps designed by senile jews.
Literally just businesses owning every single thing. It's so fucking bad.
>>1012178
>Name a single "market failure" and a Government solution to it.
Unjust distribution of wealth and therefore the creation of an eternal upper class, who's children will have access to all forms of education while children of poorer families have no chance of leaving the lower class. One generation's success defines the future of all their heirs, which would essentially create an estate-based society. This can be solved by introducing state/tax-funded schools, which provide affordable education.
>>1012199
Give me one example of a natural monopoly that has ever existed.
>>1012201
Lmao, you obviously either went to private school or public school in a rich neighborhood because government school is fucking trash, for anyone that's half smart it's a waste of 7 hours, and if you're a moron it's a gateway to drugs and ganvs and minimum-wage loserhood for life. Fucking moron, if the government wasn't stealing 7k from every family for public school low income students would be able to afford quality private education, instead of the waste of time and taxpayeroney that is government education.
>>1012205
I'm not going to Google things for you. The common example given is utilities, but any industry where infrastructure is incredibly cost intensive could be considers a natural monopoly.
The big bad government isn't propping these up. It's very difficult to break into one of these industries due to fixed costs. Thus, a company in a natural monopoly can profit maximize at a price higher than socially optimum, and provide less output than socially optimum.
The free market fix does not work in this case.
And before you say that utilities don't have monopolies, look at the data. In many places, services like electricity or natural gas are serviced by ONE provider. There are no market alternatives, and it's not because the government doesn't allow it.
>>1011641
How the fuck did, say, MindGeek happen, if the free market gets shit done?
>>1012211
>obviously either went to private school or public school in a rich neighborhood
I'm from Europe, our puplic school (everywhere) are pretty much on par with our private schools.
>government school is fucking trash
It may be in America, it certainly isn't in Europe. Also, a crappy public school is still better than no school at all.
>the government wasn't stealing 7k from every family for public school low income students would be able to afford quality private education
This is why you fucking Burgers need to raise taxes for the rich and lower them for the poor. Do you even know what 'Progressive Income Tax' means?
>>1012227
>public utilities
>natural monopoly
Lmao
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_utilities_commission
>>1012077
did not expect to laugh in this thread
>>1012249
Do you know that in America the bottom 40% pay 0 in income taxes? Do you k ow that the top 10% pay 70% of our taxes? How is that for "fair share" moron, sorry that you live a sad life and are unsuccessful so you feel the need to steal money from smarter people who make all the nice things in your life possible
>>1012211
not everywhere is America you insular piece of shit
>>1012261
Yeah dude public education is great
>anon Sat scores don't mean anything though
Don't even make me respond to that bs pls
>>1012261
Yeah and everywhere that is not America is fucking pathetic in comparison. We dominate global culture, we dominate academia producing more PHD's than all other countries combined, we dominate technology and have produced all the major innovations of the past century. What did Europe come up with? Publix Healthcare and a stagnant economy? Good job losers
>>1012257
Jesus, you're really fucking retarded, aren't you? The lowest tax bracket one can pay in the US is 10%. The highest is 39.6%.
You said that the gov takes 7k away from poor families, but now you claim that they don't pay taxes at all.
I'm just gonna ignore your Ad Hominem bullshit, sorry.
>>1012269
>Not everywhere is America;
>Responds by pulling out american stats with 'murican SAT scores.
Here, private schools are considered money-guzzling thrash and are the subject of jokes;
I think it's a great idea but would never work IRL. Unfortunatly not everyone wants to be an AnCap or follow the NAP.
I'll just stick with libertarianism/minarchism for now.
>>1012284
Here, Europe is considered money-guzzling thrash and is the subject of jokes.
>>1012277
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/model-estimates/tax-units-zero-or-negative-income-tax/tax-units-zero-or-negative-income-tax
http://www.heritage.org/federalbudget/top10-percent-income-earners
Lmao moron, not only do you not know or understand what an ad hominem is but you are also illiterate. I didn't say the top 10% paid 70 percent of their income, I said they paid for 70 percent of the income tax revenue.
Also, income tax is not the only way the government steals, school funds usually come from property taxes, which poor people are not immune from.
>>1012296
how old are you
>>1012284
where the fuck do you live ? Africa ?
>>1012301
Thanks for the confirmation of victory. I'm 11 btw
>>1012296
>Here, Europe is considered money-guzzling thrash and is the subject of jokes.
Which is funny, since you pay twice the money we pay in taxes, for a healthcare service that is considered "the worst among industrialized nations for the fifth time, despite being the most expensive".
And yes, we have private alternatives for everything as well, in which we could invest the difference you pay in money, if we considered the system so suck-ish.
Congrats.
USA! USA! USA!
>>1012302
Europe.
You really don't want a private diploma on your CV here.
>>1012309
>11
My sides!
Come talk once you get pubes.
>>1012296
>ad hominem is but you are also illiterate
>'lol ur just poor n wanna steal from da perfect rich ppl' is not an ad hominem attack
Lel
>I said they paid for 70 percent of the income tax revenue.
Yes, which makes sense because they make the most money. And that is, believe it or not, fair. You also claimed that the bottom 40% contributed 0%, which obviously is bullshit because they still pay at least 10% income tax.
>property taxes, which poor people are not immune from
Indeed, and that's why this tax should also be progressive.
>>1012316
Lmao u truly are a retard if you believe he's 11.
Great job with the healthcare system buddy. Too bad your economy is stagnant as a result while America literally dominates every sector of the world exonomy, culture, and academia :// have fun in Ur little country though :)
>>1012318
Did you not read the link I sent you? You obviously know literally know nothing about federal income tax. The bottom 40 percent of Americans pay 0 in income taxes
>>1011641
doesn't work because cartels can easily form and enforce oligopolies through price dumping for example
>>1012318
Just keep asking for more and more you poorfag loser.
>>1012323
>Too bad your economy is stagnant
Nah, mediteraneean europe is, but the rest is equal or higher to yours.
>>1012355
growth rate, that is.
>>1012156
>if you're against the creation of feudal states and rich jews owning everybody
Sounds great actually
Friendly reminder that 'Anarcho'-Capitalism is not a form of Anarchism. Anarchism as a movement has always been about creating a society without political, social or economic hierarchy. The Anarchist movement seeks to bring about a society in which individual freedom and equality are maximised so that people can live to their fullest potential as fulfilled individuals. Anarchists want to abolish the state, capitalism and private property because they are the basis for authoritarian hierarchies.
'Anarcho'-Capitalists are ardent defenders of private property (as opposed to legitimate personal property), wage labour, profit, unearned income (rent) and authoritarian social relationships like the boss/worker hierarchy and patriarchy.
Capitalism needs a state in order to function and can never be anarchistic.
>>1011641
What about currency? How you will fight with inflation and deflation, and how you will do printing new money bank notes?
>>1011641
>without any government.
So, only a gang with guns might own many things? And pensions will be same as booty?
What about taxes? No government mean no tax, right?
>>1012269
Why are you posting a scoring system for American public schools when you were literally just told not everywhere is America?
>>1012178
Why would you open a bracket and not close it? Thats awful writing style.
>>1012077
Yes.
The colloquial "wild west" has come to inherit a pejorative meaning, but crime was actually quite minor on the Oregon trail and in early western settlements.
More on this: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0804748543/ref=as_li_qf_sp_asin_il_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=0804748543&linkCode=as2&tag=thomacom-20
>>1013056
>bracket
>>1011641
As a minarchist libertarian I can honestly say that I don't want to be associated with anarchists in any shape way or form, and the fact that anarchists so often are lumped in together with people who are for minimal government, and the fact that minarchists seamingly welcome this association because of some bullshit strength in numbers reasoning, is the main reason libertarianism isn't being taken seriously. The last thing we need is people who when our critics say "your policies will lead to anarchy" respond with "good, that's exactly what we want".
The fact is, minarchists are for a market without violence. Anarch-capitalists, on the other hand, are for a market full of violence. It's the exact opposite of libertarian principles.
Now, Ancaps will often say that they are more consequent libertarians because they oppose the government's monopoly on violence, but they seemingly also forget that there is no right to incite violence. The governemnt's monopoly on vioelnce does not infringe on any individual rights that libertarians support, and does only, when used in a morally justifiable manner, serve to protect them.
>>1012959
How will you abolish hierarchies without using a state?
Anarchism is not about hierarchies or coercion moron it's about force.
>>1013056
>>1013460
You're implying that forms of authoritarian hierarchy are natural. The absence of a state would greatly reduce their ability to be formed.
>>1012205
>Give me one example of a natural monopoly that has ever existed.
Any kind of electrical energy distribution.
You can privatise national companies doing it(many countries did it) you can split them so they would compete(again, enormous amount of countries did it) but nothing would change.
Likewise they can be private from the ground-up(with the only regulations being keeping standards like voltage and frequency levels along with tolerance for them etc.) but they'll still be very centralised and there will be natural cartel if not monopoly because it's bound to distribution networks, and nobody's going to fund a HV line across the country just because kWh is $0,05 cheaper in the other company, unless we're talking about very, very big consumers(which negotiate prices individually either way).
And I'm not even mentioning additional headache if those companies would want to expand the grid in some way, build new power plant or do anything that has an effect across the whole network. Energo-electronic systems would be much more popular to regulate the power flow between different company's zones but it also means that the cost of maintaining and building the system would rise enormously, so nah, you either go private monopoly, public monopoly or cartelised oligopoly.
That generally applies to any kind of business with outrageously high entry costs.
>>1012269
Niggers can't afford private schools, that's why they score higher, raw statistical data without interpretation by semi intelligent human being is useless.
>>1012156
Private police forces and courts would go to the highest bidder, and that rich group of individuals would begin raiding for more resources, turning conquered people into serfs. Eventuality, kingdoms would be established and society would be divided.
You just described 2016 mate
>>1011641
Well, what happens first jimmy, is we set you in the corner. These are your blocks! They are your "property"!
Oh, sorry? You want to play on the playground? Sorry, you don't own that!
Now there, Jimmy, that's okay! We'll end pretend time in just a few minutes and return to the real world :-).
>>1011786
What we have today except everything is a toll road and you have no rights.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NajQTN9qhXg
>inb4 muh chomsky supports communist regimes
>inb4 these criticisms aren't valid
>inb4 I get launched a million completely off-the-wall defenses of "muh property autism fun time" politics
It will be a massive failure because everyone knows renting is better than selling.
If I own a good portion of housing, I won't sell it to people who need it for just anything, I want the best shit. Still owning while making rent profit is vastly superior to selling in every regard.
You guys ready for a future where a few private people own everything and you only rent stuff at extreme prices? Why not throw in a little labor then, you know, to cover the costs?
Daily reminder that every anarcho capitalism society that has been attempted was 1,000x worse than the socialist ones, and that sharecropping/serfdom is it's inevitable outcome.
>>1013978
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debt_bondage_in_India
"You fucking immoral person! Those debtors signed the contract willingly! It's immoral to even SUGGEST anyone violate any capitalist contract!"
In the 19th century, capitalists invented a product: baby formula mixed with opium. Poor mothers would feed the formula to their baby, the baby would sleep all day while the mother worked a twelve hour shift. When she'd get home she'd be so tired she'd feed him another bottle.
Some children spent the first 3-4 years of their lives high on opium.
Sane people: "that's horrible!"
Anarcho-capitalists: "what enterprising capitalists! And what a perfect feminist solution! Now women can work AND be housewives!"
>>1013918
Yeah, exactly. The biggest problems we have in America today is that we have less and less publically available/equal goods. The hysteria about government is nonsense, anyone who says government is "all bad" is a nutjob. Government is one of the few avenues that Americans have access to.
Ancap is classcuckoldry for white men who "aren't racist" but have opinions remarkably similar to racist ones
http://www.infoshop.org/AnarchistFAQIntro
An introduction and general FAQ on real anarchism.
>>1011641
I would like to LARP fallout IRL so I am for it.
>>1012269
>begging people not to point out say means nothing
>the organization was literally court ordered to change the name from the "scholastic aptitude test" to the "sat", no acronym
>why?
>they couldn't prove it measures aptitude
>>1012181
Same the guy is an idiot and makes us look bad
>>1012323
>Too bad your economy is stagnant
My country is growing faster than the US
>America literally dominates every sector of the world exonomy, culture, and academia
Having a big population isn't some great achievement.
> have fun in Ur little country though :)
Little countries are objectively better, so I will.
>>1012156
>Look, anarcho capitalism necessarily leads to feudalism. Private police forces and courts would go to the highest bidder, and that rich group of individuals would begin raiding for more resources, turning conquered people into serfs. Eventuality, kingdoms would be established and society would be divided.
You assume that the people who are being raided don't have protection of their own, which is a foolish assumption.
>>1012253
"In small countries like New Zealand, electricity transmission is a natural monopoly. Due to large fixed costs and a small market size, one seller can serve the entire market at the downward-sloping section of its average cost curve."
Natural monopolies exist and some are utilities.
>>1012967
bitcoin
ancaps hate fiat money apparently
>>1014282
You assume that people focused on raiding won't be better armed and organized than a couple chucklefucks who hate the very idea of organization.
>>1013385
violence is theoretically (and practically in many cases) not profitable
>>1013806
The proposition that hierarchies are not natural is questionable.
Many animals establish complex hierarchies.
>>1013903
From a pragmatic perspective, electricity, specifically, is becoming less of an issue as a natural monopoly because of solar. People can literally disconnect from the grid.
Water is a better example of a natural monopoly.
>>1014306
Violence would necessarily be profitable in the ancap society.
>unitedstatesians ITT
>>1013934
Ancaps propose that rights don't come from the state and rather from human agency.
A stateless society would have more rights, not less. According to them.
>>1013385
>Minarchist
>Wants to preserve gov't monopoly on violence
What in the flying fuck is 'minimal' about that?
>>1014303
No, I assume that companies would respect contracts which is a very valid assumption.
If I pay company A to protect me, and then person B pays them to attack me, they wouldn't, as that would give them the reputation of contract breakers, which would cause people to not hire them. Which would lose them buissness, which would lose them money, which they do not want.
Therefore they would respect the contract.
>>1014306
Violence is inefficient to society at large, but sure as shit it's profitable to those who practice it.
>>1014335
>Ancaps propose that rights don't come from the state and rather from human agency
Which is also what the US is based on.
>>1014332
People don't want to buy from a company that is violent.
Companies can't hide effectively because private oversight, investigative journalism, etc.
Companies that engage in violence suffer from loss of profit.
>>1014345
>what's minimal about a night watchman state?
Really?
>>1014349
Why should company A use its assets to defend you in the first place when it could just raid you, or even better, subjugate you so you keep paying them without them needing further contracts?
Historically, mercs did exactly that when hired by defenseless people.
>>1012296
Stop this meme. The income of the rich gets taxed a lot, but that's not the problem. The problem is capital gains, which unrealized gains are untaxed. If you have 1bn in stocks, and use your 2% return to fund a 1mn/year lifestyle, you're effectively paying less than 1% tax. Which is fitting.
That's why corporations have massive stores of wealth they don't reinvest. They're savings accounts for the criminally rich.
>>1014360
>People don't want to buy from a company that is violent.
Top kek, big ass assumption here.
>Companies can't hide effectively because private oversight, investigative journalism, etc.
Investigative journalism is not gonna be a thing without a government protecting the incolumity of journalists.
>Companies that engage in violence suffer from loss of profit.
Prove it.
>>1014354
Most US citizens don't really understand this and its gotten to the point that it basically doesn't work that way.
Average voter thinks rights come from constitution.
Ancaps want broader and unlimited rights. Specifically self ownership and property which they derive from self ownership.
Not defending simply explaining, used to be really into Y and B anarchism.
>>1014360
>People don't want to buy from a company that is violent.
People would have to. Private police forces are companies that make a profit from violence. If you're saying that people wouldn't pay for "protection" from robbers and other peoples' "police forces" then the people who hire a personal army will have a hay day.
>>1014360
NOT EVERY PURCHASE IS AN OPTION
Not everything is a luxury good!
People have to eat good NO MATTER WHAT. Today most people have only one or two options to purchase food (no, really), there's no "free market" and removing government won't fix that. Markets provide false choices and even limit choices.
>>1014349
>which is a very valid assumption
No, it really isn't. You can't expect rule of law without law enforcement.
>let's destroy all instutions that evolved over time, go back to square one, and redo it again
>oh right an we'll add NAP and pretend that makes sense
Ancaps=escapist autists. That's all there is behind that ideology.
>>1014335
So, they're delusional?
>>1014377
>Top kek, big ass assumption here.
Ya it is, but I really don't think that it's unreasonable to think that households won't buy from overtly violent entities. It's not as ridiculous as you might think.
Example, people would rather buy pot from dispensaries because they don't run the possibility of being mugged and they aren't funding gang wars.
>Investigative journalism is not gonna be a thing without a government protecting the incolumity of journalists.
Investigative journalism may become extremely profitable when people can't just rely on companies telling the truth about their business. Journalism can then protect itself or operate in areas that afford it protection and freedom.
>Prove it.
I can't, thats just the theory. As an outside observer, it makes sense, nobody wants to give money to a company that doesn't have a good relationship with the community.
The issue, I think, is that this whole system assumes that people are operating as perfect agents and don't just do stupid shit that will harm them in the long run because the packaging is a brighter colour.
Also I don't believe that human agency is as decisive as ancaps think it is but thats a bigger discussion.
>>1012257
>Capital
>gains
It's people like you who think all sources of income are wages and salaries that are the idiots
>>1014327
>From a pragmatic perspective, electricity, specifically, is becoming less of an issue as a natural monopoly because of solar. People can literally disconnect from the grid.
Solar energy is a scam that doesn't work.
There is NO SINGLE country that substitutes its energy production with solars but without subsidies. Which basically means that solar energy is too expensive for coal-burner EU members like Poland or Lithuania(as in kWh produced by solar power is more expensive than kWh produced by coal power plant). Think about it for a while.
For average consumer it's AGAIN, too expensive. The upkeep of batteries alone costs a lot and then you need inverters(not even to get AC, just to stabilise the DC voltage so you won't blow-up your batteries) and get DC devices for most uses because you don't want to use AC when it's so fucking distorted as it is after going through high-efficiency inverters(aka. the ones without filters to reduce harmonic distortion), which no surprise - is more expensive because AC is used basically everywhere.
Nuclear and(in the future) thermonuclear energy simply gives you cheaper, better quality energy than solar and all you can do is to rave about "MUH INDEPENDENCE" when paying more per kWh than stupid statists subhumans, and suffer from various inconveniences because you have to replace batteries, upper harmonics screw up your AC devices faster and so on and so on.
>>1014405
Ancaps, and libertarians in general, propose that human beings have natural rights. After all, if you're alone on an island you can say and do whatever you want. If there suddenly turns up another person there all both of you have to do to not infringe on those rights is to leave each other alone.
>>1014354
>rights come from human agency
How does that work? The very idea of human agency kinda implies that I can acknowledge a right or not.
>>1014435
>one pot shop is super violent and takes all of the rest
>now every pot shop is owned by this one organization
>no more markets
What's to stop this?
>>1014370
Basic Universalizability.
They could do that, but they would set the precedent for the same thing being done to them.
They would not want this, at least one would assume, so they would not set the precedent and thus not conquer and raid the people.
>>1014385
It's not always about whether or not you buy something, but rather whther or not you are willing to pay a little, or a lot, more to achieve a wholly desirable outcome. When buying expensive food from the fair trader you're buying food and a little security as well.
>>1014403
You don't need a government to enforce laws or even create them.
>>1014435
Literally market forces, people buy broadly and judiciously.
It's idealistic and theoretical but its not as insane as people make it sound.
Verily its not more idealistic than any other Utopian shit.
>>1014440
>research and development
We want to subsidize solar industry so they can fund R&D you delusional twat
Also look up what an "externality" is, you don't price it into your overly simplified view of markets but burning fossil fuels has plenty of externalities that people price into the market
>>1014475
People do not buy broadly and they are injudicious.
>>1014435
>Ya it is, but I really don't think that it's unreasonable to think that households won't buy from overtly violent entities. It's not as ridiculous as you might think.
>Example, people would rather buy pot from dispensaries because they don't run the possibility of being mugged and they aren't funding gang wars.
I don't think it's reasonable to expect non violent entities to even exist without law enforcement. Who stops the gangs from burning down the dispensaries? And if you say private security, what stops private security from taking over and subduing you?
>Investigative journalism may become extremely profitable when people can't just rely on companies telling the truth about their business.
The idea of a customer base outbidding big time corporations makes me chuckle.
>this whole system assumes that people are operating as perfect agents and don't just do stupid shit that will harm them in the long run because the packaging is a brighter colour
Then basically this isn't a system meant for humans?
>>1014473
You do if you want laws enforced fairly.
>>1014473
One would argue that whomever enforces the law is in fact the government.
>>1014489
>socialism actually worked in the USSR
>ancap has never worked anywhere
You actually have a worse track record than Marxism.
>this entire thread
>>1014486
Shhh, ancaps are secretly all cucks that want armed forced to come and rape them/their wives and take their stuff. They get off to the idea.
>>1014478
>We want to subsidize solar industry so they can fund R&D you delusional twat
>implications
EU subsidizes solar panels being mounted in almost every single member-country. When there are subsidies in given region, people install them because then it pays off before panels, inverters or batteries die, when there are not subsided, nobody uses them.
If they were so hot cool and stuffies they would install them without subsidies.
>Also look up what an "externality" is, you don't price it into your overly simplified view of markets but burning fossil fuels has plenty of externalities that people price into the market
Yes, fossil fuel is bad that's why we should pursue nuclear energy, which is clean and basically harmless(especially thermonuclear energy) if you handle it properly but NAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH can't have it. Idiots believe in solar because the sun is free like freedom which means you just install it and forget about it... except you don't.
>>1014486
>I don't think it's reasonable to expect non violent entities to even exist without law enforcement. Who stops the gangs from burning down the dispensaries? And if you say private security, what stops private security from taking over and subduing you?
Private security is a part of the community. They have the same incentive for a stable peaceful society as everybody else. If a private security force takes over just one business then they will never be hired as private security again.
>The idea of a customer base outbidding big time corporations makes me chuckle.
Major corporation? How about just the one private security company I mentioned above. What if a paper publishes an article talking about how they take bribes or swindle business owners. Good for business?
>Then basically this isn't a system meant for humans?
As opposed to what?
>>1014457
That's retarded.
Just because they don't wanna be taken out doesn't mean they aren't gonna try it on someone weaker. If you're hiring them to defend you, it means they're strong enough to take out others, so who exactly do they fear? And even if there is someone to fear, what makes you think it's gonna wait for you to misbehave before attacking?
>>1014494
Firstly
>implying laws are enforced fairly under governments
Look around you and see that isn't true.
Also, as I stated here
>>1014457
Private companies would enforce laws failry because if they didn't then they risk being the victim of the same unfair treatment.
>>1014499
One certainly could.
Though in this case I would define government as an entity which has a monoply on force, whcih private companies would not.
Mostly semantics though.
>>1014536
>If a private security force takes over just one business then they will never be hired as private security again.
>one business
Nigger they're gonna take over every business. They're the ones with power, not you. How are you gonna stop them? With other private security? It's just gonna devolve into a resource war between the two, with you as the prize.
>As opposed to what?
What we actually use right now?
>>1014473
Let's say that there's a woman named Erica. Erica is really big on Libertarian ideals and live in an a cap society. She looks over the options for protection agencies in her area and decide that Freedom Inc. is her jam. They promise to protect her rights as a free and thinking individual.
In the same city there lives a young man named Mohammad. Mohammad is real big on fundamentalist Islam and decides that Sharia Inc. is what suits him best. They promise to uphold sharia laws in Mohammad's life and punish those that break them in front of him.
When Mohammad meats Erica he tells Sharia Inc. about her and asks them to punish her for him. Erica, undrstandably, asks of Freedom Inc. that they protect her from Sharia Inc. and suddenly we have a turf war.
>>1014507
Socialism in the USSR failed to produce a Utopia and many socialist say that it isn't pure socialism.
Nevertheless it did work.
Capitalism fails to produce a Utopia and many capitalists say that it isn't pure capitalism.
Nevertheless it has produced some "good" societies.
Utopian socialism doesn't have a stellar track record either.
The point is that Utopianism is shit but recognizing some good, pragmatic aspects of capitalism and agorism is better than scoffing at them.
>>1014543
It is in no way retarded and is completely logical.
It is not logical to go against that, but if one does not follow logic then why should they govern? And if they shouldn't govern then why would you support the state?
>>1014349
Oh Ayn Rand, thinking in de tiny box again.
>>1014528
Nuclear energy is one of the most subsidized projects in history. Thanks for confirming my point.
The problem with nuclear energy is there isn't enough fuel. If the entire world converted, we'd run out of decent sources of uranium in something like ten years. It's not a viable choice.
That's why we need R&D. Capitalists will just keep burning oil.
You also massively discount how effective propaganda is. You act like people will influence markets, but propaganda influences how people influence markets, which means power controls markets.
>>1014544
>Though in this case I would define government as an entity which has a monoply on force, whcih private companies would not.
How do you even expect enforce the law without a monopoly on force? Why would a private company not manage a monopoly on force?
Jesus the amount of empty assumptions you people make is staggering.
>>1014582
Try kant, my friend.
>>1014576
>It is in no way retarded and is completely logical.
How is it logical? You keep saying it is but you do not justify it.
>>1014584
>How do you even expect enforce the law without a monopoly on force?
What do you mean? You need force to enforce law, but not a monopoly on it.
>Why would a private company not manage a monopoly on force
because natural monoplies are impossible to sustain.
>>1014571
They may not have the expertise/manpower/understanding to successfully run the business. This is probably pretty broadly true. The business is then more profitable to them as a paymaster.
What if they are stockholders and are content as employees who draw a paycheck?
>>1014457
Except that's not how anything ever has ever worked in history, ever. But in ancap delusional retard-land, we can ignore history.
>>1014571
This. Syndicates of power are much more likely, too, where power will work together to subjugate individuals. Autistic ancaps think people will want to ally with them, in reality people would ally against them.
>>1014572
So you want the future to be the bloods and the crips?
>>1014575
Then stop the utopianism with ancap ideals. They would be a fucking wreck.
>>1014582
Rand was violently opposed to anarchist-capitalism.
>>1014600
>What do you mean?
I mean how are you gonna force Billy and his crew of assholes to respect the law when they have the same amount of firepower as your private security firm?
>natural monoplies are impossible to sustain
Complete monopolies, maybe. For now. Localized monopolies are literally every nation ever.
>>1014435
> Investigative journalism may become extremely profitable when people can't just rely on companies telling the truth about their business.
my sides, as if this is working even in the slightest today.
But sure, t his will work if you have even more aggressive marketing and hired murders. Oh boy
>>1014600
>because natural monoplies are impossible to sustain.
so nobody will even try because this autist says so? history suggests people try time and time again to conquer everything.
>>1014611
>So you want the future to be the bloods and the crips
No, I'm the libertarian fellow arguing against the ancaps.
>>1014625
Yeah, wikileaks is doing exactly what he suggests, and they aren't exactly wallowing in cash.
>>1014631
Libertarian in what sense? Smaller government?
>>1014608
>They may not have the expertise/manpower/understanding to successfully run the business.
Yes they have, they're subjugating the previous management, not murdering them.
>What if they are stockholders and are content as employees who draw a paycheck?
Then your system is relying on its member to be only a very restricted subset of humanity. Good fucking luck when the rest of us come knocking.
>>1014599
It's applying kant's law of universality.
And if you need to understand how kant is logical, then look it up, because that would be far more informative and a better use of your time then having me explain it to you.
Here are pdfs of the books he outlines it in, for your aide:
http://kantwesley.com/Kant/CritiqueOfPracticalReason.pdf
http://www.inp.uw.edu.pl/mdsie/Political_Thought/Kant%20-%20groundwork%20for%20the%20metaphysics%20of%20morals%20with%20essays.pdf
>>1014583
>Nuclear energy is one of the most subsidized projects in history.
And delivers the cheapest and cleanest kWh of all energy sources(bar geothermal energy but unless you're Iceland you can't depend on it).
Which makes both eco-freaks who think that if it's renewable it's clean and lolbertarians who think that state can do no good, factually wrong.
>The problem with nuclear energy is there isn't enough fuel.
That's why we work on thermonuclear energy. You can get Deuterium from WATER and Tritium from lithium which is quite abundant(it's light metal after all, they are in large part, commonly found in lithosphere) and surprisingly these are used for nuclear fusion.
>You also massively discount how effective propaganda is. You act like people will influence markets, but propaganda influences how people influence markets, which means power controls markets.
So we have to fool people into going for an energy choice that will be more expensive for them because reasons.
>>1011805
bingo.
>>1014623
>I mean how are you gonna force Billy and his crew of assholes to respect the law when they have the same amount of firepower as your private security firm
Hire a better PSF that can actually fulfill your needs?
That's like asking what you should do if your current computer can't run what you need it to: the answer is get a better one
>>1014637
Yes. I would prefer a night watchman state, though I also realize that it's not a change that will come over night, or possibly even within my lifetime and as such am happy with movement in that direction. Lower taxes, fewer laws, less government intervention, and in the sectors where a complete retraction of government involvment would be impossible in the short term, such as schools and healthcare, I'm for more efficiency.
>>1014665
>Which makes both eco-freaks who think that if it's renewable it's clean and lolbertarians who think that state can do no good, factually wrong.
What is your stance again?
>That's why we work on thermonuclear energy. You can get Deuterium from WATER and Tritium from lithium which is quite abundant(it's light metal after all, they are in large part, commonly found in lithosphere) and surprisingly these are used for nuclear fusion.
My law of thermodynamics sense is tingling.
>So we have to fool people into going for an energy choice that will be more expensive for them because reasons.
*tips* no, I'm just pointing out that ancap/libertarianism in general is directly linked to corporate propaganda.
>>1014674
If you want efficiency, then you shouldn't be for markets.
>>1014672
Let's ignore the fact that you're automatically assuming a better PSF exists.
Let's just talk of how you're now inviting into your community a law enforcer strong enough to subjugate Billy and the previous company. Said PSF has now achieved monopoly on force, or will as soon as other wielders try to oppose it.
Thanks for playing, you're now a subject of said PSF.
>>1014703
>What is your stance again?
Probably similar to yours except you believe in dumbass ecofreak lies about solar panels being any kind of useful.
>>1014711
It's not just about efficiency, nor is it about making lots of money, though both are certainly nice. For me it's about the freedom to live my life as I choose with the friends I want.
That said, the free market has proven countless times that's it's far more efficient than the alternatives.
>>1014721
oh, uh, okay.
>>1014735
So you're more utopian than a socialist, got it.
>>1014713
>Let's just talk of how you're now inviting into your community a law enforcer strong enough to subjugate Billy and the previous company.
Not subjugate, prevent them from committing their acts of agression.
>Said PSF has now achieved monopoly on force, or will as soon as other wielders try to oppose it.
No, because if they try to weild that power then the new PSF is no different than billy, as is treated as such.
>>1014770
>Not subjugate, prevent them from committing their acts of agression.
If they're strong enough to do one, they're strong enough to do the other, or at the very least destroying them.
>as is treated as such
Meaning what? You're gonna go look for yet another PSF? That's just gonna restart the cycle. And what will you do when you've already called in the strongest one?
>>1014769
I don't know how you reached that conclussion from anything I said, but ok.
>>1014611
>Except that's not how anything ever has ever worked in history, ever. But in ancap delusional retard-land, we can ignore history
>2016
>being an empiricist
>not using reason and reason alone
>>1012156
>as every place would have their own currency and there'd be no way to tell exchange rates without a central authority.
Not if they use, I don't fucking know, GOLD like nearly every human civilization and 100% of the major ones. Whoops, 99%.
>>1014785
the company wouldn't do it because it would be illogical and violate the Law of universalisablity.
>>1014795
>implying that's kant's argument at all
have you even read like, the introduction to the copr?
kant is not an idealist bub
>>1014800
>Not if they use, I don't fucking know, GOLD like nearly every human civilization and 100% of the major ones. Whoops, 99%.
Absolutely and unequivocally false, read a book nigger.
>>1014806
IT WOULD BE ILLOGICAL?
GOOD THINGS HUMANS NEVER DO ANYTHING ILLOGICAL
EVER
>>1014847
If humans aren't logical then why should we be governed by humans?
>>1014854
Because there is ( currently ) no alternative.
And no, you can't just say "no government" because some of those illogical humans will take it upon themselves to have one anyways, and force you to join them. Kinda of like how it is right now .
>>1014854
...is this really how the thought process works in your mind?
>>1011641
Fellow Libertarians, we just need to sort out this road issue and we will be able to debate anyone.
>>1014876
Nah, drawing on Bastiat for that one
>>1011641
In my opinion, I do not believe that a Police Force, National Defense Force, Fire Fighting Service, and Court System can be a fair and impartial service that provides equal protection under the law. Arguments can be made about the corruption within the current system when it comes to police service (there are a lot of WTFs going on, I cannot deny that) and although the voluntary exchange between payer to the service and payee insures (in theory and usually proven in practice) a very high quality product. I do believe that Courts and Police should be publicly provided services as per the states agreement to establish rule of law.
>To provide protection of private property rights
>To honor and enforce contractual law between parties involved
>Provide Defense against foreign invaders who wish to cause harm against the citizens sovereignty rights within the countries boarders.
Classical Liberalism/Minarchism in my opinion is the best for a country.
>>1014892
Private companies.
They won't even have to be toll roads, the advertising space should suffice for funding.
>>1014806
>Law of universalisablity
Top kek. That would actually require for everyone to reason the same way. Which we fucking don't, else we wouldn't have different moralities to begin with.
>>1014904
Wow thanks.
>>1014905
That sounds like a relativist claim.
I seriously hope you aren't a relativist. Even worse than being an utilitarian.
>>1014915
Oh it figures that an anarchist would be deluded enough to be a moral objectivist too.
>>1014899
That's facile and Bastiat is hardly worth reading for any reason.
Because government structures sometimes allow democratic results. For instance, what happened with labor in the 1930's in America. Government has the POTENTIAL to be good. Private tyrannies do not. Bastiat is just "tu quoque ad infinitum", he's a hack.
>>1014925
Relativism is inherently contradictory.
Either the idea that "everything is relative" is an absolute, and thus not all truths are relative, or it is a relative statment and thus does not rule out absolutes.
>>1014902
that image is absolutely retarded. if you believe it's accurate, it's no wonder this discussion is horrible.
>>1014936
>For instance, what happened with labor in the 1930's in America
Was a result of conditions allowed to exist by corporations being taken out of the free market by the government
Also the new deal is shit man.
>>1014937
The logical conclusion of relativism is moral nihilism. Moral objectivism is just idiotic.
>>1014948
>Was a result of conditions allowed to exist by corporations being taken out of the free market by the government
What sort of delusional fairy tale land did this story come out of?
>Also the new deal is shit man.
Alot more happened than just the new deal, but the new deal wasn't shit except under the opinion of corporate propagandists like the National Association of Manufacturers.
>>1014952
Nihilism is based upon the idea that all moral systems are meaningless, correct?
Which is once again, an absolute statment, and thus self contradictory.
>>1014961
>unironically claiming that legislation that created the pyramid scheme of social security wasn't shit.
>>1014937
Paradox is just fucking around with semantics, you cunt.
And the idea isn't "everything is relative", it's "morality is relative"
>>1014987
But if morality is relative, then why should a state be able to enforce it's morality on others?
>>1015009
Will 2 power lad
>>1015009
The same way even though government isn't rational ( according to you), governments happen anyways.
>>1014978
>social security is a pyramid scheme
confirmed for sucking directly from the teet of corporate propaganda.
somehow, your entirely world view has been structured by corporate propaganda. from now on, you must start investigating your sources.
here, i'll give you a head start:
meet peter g peterson: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_George_Peterson
(just found this source but looks legit): http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Peter_Peterson
"From 2007 through 2011, Peterson is reported to have contributed $458 million to the Peter G. Peterson Foundation, to promote the cause of fiscal responsibility, which its opponents regard as unjustified fiscal austerity."
Straight from the source: http://www.pgpf.org/press-release/statement-from-the-peterson-foundation-on-the-2015-social-security-medicare-trustees-reports
""In today’s reports, the Trustees sound a clear warning call that Social Security and Medicare remain on an unsustainable path. The Trustees warn us once again that, without action, the health and retirement security of millions of Americans will be put at risk."
Sorry to be the one to inform you. The reason you believe what you believe is because somebody paid millions of dollars to convince you of it. Now when billionaires start spending money to convince you of things, if you're not skeptical, then you're beyond redemption, if you don't resist it's message, than you're an idiot.
>>1015034
But because it happens doesn't make it right.
>>1015046
Just because it's not right doesn't mean it won't happen.
>>1015054
Doesn't mean we shouldn't seek to change it.
>>1014965
Not really. You don't claim that all moral systems are meaningless, you claim there's no evidence to suggest there are moral truths. This isn't an absolute statement (evidence could come at a later date), it's just a statement about the current state of affairs. There's no external standard upon which to evaluate morality (inb4 God) in any objective sense, so all are equally valid, including "none are valid" which cancels out the others.
>>1015009
Because it has the means to do so.
This is something that has always bugged me about anarchists: the endless moralizing. Your morals don't count for shit on the political scale. Unless you have the means to see your values become a reality, they don't count for shit.
>>1015059
Fair point.
>>1014965
You're conflating meta-ethical and ethical statements, dummy.
>>1015071
>morals don't count for shit
>>1014946
>adding nothing but criticism to a thread
good thing you're improving the discussion at had there chap. Provide useful content instead of being a pretentious negative cunt, this is /his/ not /pol/ discussion actually happens here.
>>1015111
They really don't on a political scale. People don't engage in social organization for moralistic reasons. They do it secure their ability to see to their basic needs such as food and security, and hopefully have a reasonable measure of freedom after those two are dealt with.
>>1011641
History has proven that humans are social creatures that are very capable at working together when it comes to securing their survival and giving them a benefit in opposition towards others. If tomorrow you got rid of all states, it wouldn't take long for state-like structures to emerge and you'd have the exact same result as today.
I don't think anarcho-capitalism is real or can be real, because one could argue pretty persuasively that property in and of itself is positive right; a fiction created by the government.
Unless you use some principle such as homesteading(which has it's own criticisms), there is no way to successfully arbitrate who owns what and where, because an intrinsic claim of property requires some form of authority to make it legitimate.
Another thing that is a problem, is the fact that power systems exist among humans regardless of whether there is government that issues laws, and that power system would be the de facto government itself because of their willingness to use violence to bend people to their will(i.e warlordism).
Most states that exist in the world have come about in history by either some form of power vacuum existing prior to it's foundation, and a certain warlord winning the battle for control and hegemony of the geographic area, or through some kind of legitimization process of religious hierarchical authority.
Even though I consider myself somewhat of a classical Liberal in the vein of Bastiat and Adam Smith, I fail to see how a system like Anarcho-capitalism could function in the real world(At least as a stable society over time).
>>1014441
From what are these "natural rights" derived? Where do they come from and how are they enforced?
>>1014645
This is getting silly
Slave labour is not as efficient as someone who wants to work more to make themselves money, especially when its office work that requires creativity, drive to excel, etc.
Also I can defend myself from enslavement because I own a machine gun.
>>1014625
People don't see oversite as something that they need to put any work into or interact with at all. People know that the government will keep corporations largely in line. Without the government, the need for some oversight body like insurance agencies, consumer advocacy groups and investigative journalists increases dramatically.
>>1015203
>Slave labour is not as efficient as someone who wants to work more to make themselves money, especially when its office work that requires creativity, drive to excel, etc.
Not the guy you're talking to, but it works perfectly fine for menial work. The Nazis relied on slave labour to make a lot of their equipment after all.
>Also I can defend myself from enslavement because I own a machine gun.
Not if the slavers are more than you and are good at capturing people because they made a lucrative business out of it. The professional will always outdo the amateur, and it's not like you can be a home-defence professional.
>>1015136
Not all anarchists believe in markets, for one, and it's dead wrong about thomas jefferson's views. the rest is basically an american thinking they understand widespread and varied poltical views on a radically oversimplified view of "government". It doesn't take refuting.
>>1015153
>People don't engage in social organization for moralistic reasons.
Some do...
Some don't...
Why is everything always and all-or-nothing for people with autistic world views? Some people do engage in the world morally.
>>1015175
Yup, working together under a set of rules and enforcing them, aka governmental structure, works out very well. Right wingers are just idiots and don't see that corporations are manipulating them into being anti-government so they can try to abolish things like worker's rights.
>>1015237
>The professional will always outdo the amateur, and it's not like you can be a home-defence professional.
Not to mention, it's pretty well understood that division of labor vastly increases productivity, so having people be aware of home defense, and all sorts of other things will make them less productive people. It would harm real growth.
ancap delusions btfo
>>1014287
/thread
delusional ancaps please go
>>1015391
>it's pretty well understood that division of labor vastly increases productivity, so having people be aware of home defense
Holy shit you are retarded
>>1011641
>I lean libertarian
Then you should understand that An-Cap is impossible if you agree with most libertarian thought
>>1011641
>"Anarcho"-Capitalism
>Anarcho-anything
enjoy your laughable meme ideology
>>1016891
enjoy being cucked by the state
