Don't spank your children, otherwise they'll violate the non-aggression principle in the name of the state.
>>1292644
lel anarchocapitalists
How does that even work?
>>1292833
It works by NOT spanking your children.
Not an argument, Anon. You have NO argument.
>>1292644
free will doesn't exist
>the non-aggression principle
How would an AnCap society handle the act of someone assuming ownership over something which had no previous owner? Whoever claims it gets to own it, even if they've never so much as seen it? Do you have to be the one to find it? And what about land? Do you get whatever you can build a fence around? Whatever you set foot on?
And regardless of what system is chosen, how could it be enforces without creating a primitive state and thus bringing an end to the Anarchic state of society?
>>1292644
Nice sweeping generalization, but just another cog in the great Soros propaganda machine.
OP, that IS an argument.
I don't get why Molymeme still gets used as the meme posterboy for ANCAP's
He's so clearly gone hard right as of late
>>1292922
I think Ancaps do recognize homesteading, so in a seemingly unclaimed patch of land in the woods you were to set yourself up AFAIK they would be okay with it.
However it might not actually be unclaimed and you might get shot by private mercenaries for violating the NAP by squatting on property used for logging.
> how could it be enforces without creating a primitive state and thus bringing an end to the Anarchic state of society?
Private security forces.
They aren't really anarchists, even Murray Rothbard explicitly stated this.
>>1293648
reactionary american "libertarians" jolting to the right at the first sense of nationalism
i am shocked :^)
>>1293688
Did you see the lard ass that got naked at the Lib conference? He had a fucking Iron cross on his arm
>>1293688
Libertarianism has always been right-wing.
Euros will never understand freedom.
>>1293823
>le obese american who doesn't know shit about "libertarianism" so he revises history to suit his needs
In every other country in the world, the word means something else. Stop being an arrogant cunt saying that your definition is the right one, especially when it's not.
>>1293648
This.
Why is he shilling Trump so hard recently?
I thought he was a man of brinciple.
>>1294429
>In every other country in the world, the word means something else.
Libertarianism is actually a quintessentially American thing. "Liberal" and "libertarian" are different things, you know.
>Stop being an arrogant cunt saying that your definition is the right one, especially when it's not.
How about your provide some legitimate examples instead of being butthurt?
>>1294780
"Libertarianism" historically referred to left-wing, anarchist type movements in Europe.
The "muh capitalism muh small gurvemint" is a mid-20th century American bastardization.
>>1293635
>>1294803
Sure, in Europe. American libertarianism has always been a distinct tradition that predated the industrial revolution and goes back to the War of Independence, which was fought to get the British government to stop interfering with American mercantile interests. European left libertarianism has almost nothing to do with American libertarianism, which emphasizes the importance of property rights and the right to bear arms in the defense of property claims. Left libertarianism, from what I understand, is a form of socialism, anarchism, or Communism. Libertarianism is not anarcho-capitalism, either, so don't go around equating 'anarchist' movements with libertarian movements. It's highly misleading.
>mid-20th century
You really think that Nozick was the original libertarian?
>>1294780
i bet you self-identify as a libertarian. do you also have autism? those seem to go hand in hand.
American lolbertarians should be curb-stomped.
But that's true. If you commit violence against your children, they are justified in defending themselves. Luckily there is no reason to ever do that.
>>1293648
>Ancaps have never been right wing
>>1294820
I don't see an argument.
I also don't see a source for the claim that there's a correlation between libertarianism and autism.
What do you self-identify as? Genderqueer?
>>1292644
You don't need to be a retarded anarcho-capitalist to not spank your children.
If you can't discipline children without physical abuse then you are just a plain bad parent.
>>1294836
i don't give sources when i troll american libertarians. it's almost pitiful how easily you bit the bait. i almost don't even want to continue. enjoy the autism and MUH LIBERTY, faggot
>>1294854
This is neither an argument nor the high level of discourse that this board is supposed to offer.
Hiroshimoot made a mistake.
/his/ was it.
Reminder that liberty and property are spooks.
>>1293649
So instead of people's property "rights" being decided by the state, they're decided by whoever has enough money to hire a bunch of mercenaries to enforce whatever form of property rights they want on everyone else? Wow, that's so much different and better than how things currently work.
>>1294870
How is it not?
>>1292922
>How would an AnCap society handle the act of someone assuming ownership over something which had no previous owner?
First to claim it
>>1294839
While I was never really so much of "hit", some of the lasting impressions that have spurred me to be a better person were when my parents really snapped and went off at me. The thing was that they'd hold off until these points of contension, which make them fresher in my memory for it.
I don't necessarily know if open-palmed spanking is that bad in this case, if it's used for emphasis.
>>1294880
So if some guy dies, whoever calls dibs on it first now owns all of it? Wow, that surely won't cause any form of conflict ever.
>>1293648
>He's so clearly gone hard right as of late
>Not knowing about Hoppe
PHYSICAL REMOVAL
>>1294888
> whoever calls dibs on it
it being his property, of course.
>>1294885
What did they spank you for?
>>1294888
Anacap is not true anarchism.The goal of Anacaps would be to create privately owned micronations.
>>1294877
>they're decided by whoever has enough money (i. e. The State) to hire a bunch of mercenaries (the police/army) to enforce whatever form of property rights they want on everyone else
>>1294888
>Wow, that surely won't cause any form of conflict ever.
Why do you assume that anarcho-capitalism is pacifistic, or denies the existence and significance of conflict in human interaction? The entire point is that the state uses the force behind law to scare people into accepting goods and services which, on a free market, would not be desired.
Daily reminder that selling heroin to kids doesnt violate the NAP
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U2Nad1b_3yY
>>1294911
The state doesn't have enough money, though. Governments function when they're trillions of dollars in debt because they have the threat of force to sustain them. In a voluntary economy where human relations are not forced by the state but are entered into via literal (rather than social) contract, no such entity would be seen as legitimate.
>>1294924
Where are children getting the money to buy heroin? Maybe their parents or the other enablers need to be physically removed from the society. Maybe the children do, too.
>>1294924
>the only reason people dont sell heroin to kindergartner prostitutes is because there are laws against it
Yeah its not because most people arent pieces of shit or anything
>>1294940
Yes, physical removal would be needed.Still selling heroin to kids doesnt violate the NAP.
>>1294944
Totally irrelevant the NAP allows it.
>>1294929
>If you're in debt that means you don't have any money
No, it just means you're not paying your debts. You can be a millionaire who refuses to pay a 20$ debt.
>>1294897
Once or twice for hitting my sister. I was a little shit who didn't have the balls to vent on anyone bigger than me. They didn't tolerate it. Now I just don't hit. I understand (as I did) how dumb it is to pick a fight with somebody bigger than you, and how pointless it is to vent through being a bully from firsthand experience. The thing was, they made me think about it. Because they didn't do this for much else, it stood out.
I openly complained about something my nana gave to me in front of her. My dad waited til she was in the car to grab me by the wrist (felt like it could snap) and literally yank me out of her field of view where he told me in hushed tones how much a little shit I was being. I started saying thank you after that one.
I'd been trolled one day, too hard, by some cholo kids(majority hispanic school) and I was griping about it, so I pulled something I don't recall hearing and said "dirty mexicans..." My mom almost swerved out of traffic, and I didn't understand why. But I was confused, the good kind of confused, you know? The kind that makes you think instead of being bitter about shit.
To name a few. Otherwise they were very patient parents. They gave my sister and I a lot room to do shit and be kids until we went a little too far. So I don't think corporal punishment is the issue, in some cases it may be over parenting and not knowing when to turn on the MAD. Cause kids are sensitive to that shit.
>>1294975
The government IS the millionaire in the analogy you retard
Does the NAP applies to gorillas?
>>1294981
It's a bad analogy, then. You should have made that clearer.
In that case, the only reason its creditors don't come to collect on those debts is the fear of what would happen if China demanded all of the money the US owes it. The only reason that money is worth anything is because the US backs it with the threat of force.
A corporation or individual as deep in debt as the US government would be punished in ways that one cannot punish the US government.
>>1294989
>if China demanded all of the money the US owes it.
CHina cannot claim debt like that m8.The US has to pay it back in an estimated time.
>>1295003
>CHina cannot claim debt like that m8.
Why not?
>has to
Or what?
>>1295007
>Why not?
Because the US bonds are due to an especific date, like 10 years laters.China can't just break a contract like that.
>>1295007
>Or what?
The US would have to declare bankruptcy or a default, and things like social security would run out of funds, and credit would be nigh impossible to get
>>1295011
>Because the US bonds are due to an especific date, like 10 years laters.
How do we know that the US will have the money to pay off the debts? What happens if it can't?
>>1295020
>and credit would be nigh impossible to get
And would China just accept that it was going to lose all of that value and let the issue go?
>>1295043
>but the US goverment could rise taxes or just print the money any time,
Which corporations could do the same if they were in a similar situation?
>>1294877
If its ok for some rich guy to hire a group of mercenaries to enforce his idea of property rights, then it's ok for him to say that "property rights" means everything belongs to him but you can keep using it as long as you follow a set of rules or until he decides that he wants it back.
>>1295049
Are we talking about corporations in an Ancap society or one that is ruled by a state?
>>1295064
Why are you assuming that only one person is going to hire mercenaries in this system? The entire point is that people are defending their property claims by force of arms against the other people who try to take them by force of arms.
Anarcho-capitalism is the go-to idealogy for edgy hipsters
>>1295069
You're completely missing the point.
I'm talking about governments' ability to print money and tax people. This separates them from corporations, this and the involuntary nature of state-based association.
Corporations do not tax people, although they could print money if they wanted to. Of course, this money would have to be backed by something that has market value if it's going to be taken seriously.
My point was that governments use the threat of force and legally enforced regulation of markets in ways that corporations do not and cannot. They do not because governments do these things and maintain their monopolies by threat of force; they cannot because a free market would not allow a corporation behaving like a government to sustain itself.
>>1295049
How could corporations print money?
>>1295097
>replacing one spook with another
>>1295096
>governments use the threat of force and legally enforced regulation of markets in ways that corporations do not and cannot.
Except that they COULD do it in an AnCap society because there would be no higher power stopping them from hiring a bunch of mercenaries and using them as a threat of force, unlike in a society that is ruled by a state where the state itself prevents this from happening.
>>1295100
They can't, which is my point.
They might be able to provide currency that has value within the corporation's context, but this would basically just be like tickets at Chuck E. Chesse's or a good-boy-points system. This is different from printing money backed by something that has real market value. It isn't very different from the fiat currency we all use today.
>But we all accept the dollar as a valid form of currency!
Yes, because the government backs its value with the threat of force and the force of law.
>>1295107
There's nothing stopping you from using force yourself to resist the mercenaries, or from hiring your own mercenaries.
This really isn't hard to understand.
>>1295107
Corporations could never rise to the amounts of power that state could m8.The State has control over millions of people, no corporatio could achieve China's or US level of power
>>1295103
>"There can be no tolerance toward democrats and communists in a libertarian social order. They will have to be physically separated and expelled from society. Likewise, in a covenant founded for the purpose of protecting family and kin, there can be no tolerance toward those habitually promoting lifestyles incompatible with this goal. They–the advocates of alternative, non-family and kin-centred lifestyles such as, for instance, individual hedonism, parasitism, nature-environment worship, homosexuality, or communism–will have to be physically removed from society, too, if one is to maintain a libertarian order."
BTFO
>>1295115
>the mercenaries are successful and manage to take all your property by force of arms
>now you have nothing to defend yourself with or with which to hire other people to defend you
A society which is ruled by a state is nothing more than a society where the corporation won. the fact that you can't see this is mind-boggling.
>>1295115
There's nothing stopping you from resisting the government either
>>1295113
Still I dnt get what you are trying to prove, the current debt system is based and backed by the goverment.Without the state, loans would have higher interest, way higher, which could probably be positive, as wages would have to go up and overall PPP would rise,but that would be another debate
>>1295120
The East India Company had control over India for decades
>>1295133
>>1295153
It was backed by the goverment, and it was mainly a trading agency..I wouldnt compare it to corporations as we know it
>>1295134
>>the mercenaries are successful and manage to take all your property by force of arms
>>now you have nothing to defend yourself with or with which to hire other people to defend you
How do you have nothing to defend yourself with? Did you surrender to the mercenaries and give up your weapons? Sounds like a voluntary action. You weren't coerced, you decided to abandon your property and let someone else seize it from you. You were just too weak or too cowardly to defend your property.
>>1295156
>Implying that physically removing degenerrates is not the purest form of egoism
>>1295170
>degeneracy
Anclaps unironically shill for feudalism, it's amazing.
>>1295100
>How could corporations print money?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Company_scrip
Company scrip is scrip (a substitute for government-issued legal tender or currency) issued by a company to pay its employees. It can only be exchanged in company stores owned by the employers.[1][2][3] In the UK, such truck systems have long been formally outlawed under the Truck Acts.
In the United States, mining and logging camps were typically created, owned and operated by a single company.[4] These locations, some quite remote, were often cash poor;[1][2][3] even in ones that were not, workers paid in scrip had little choice but to purchase goods at a company store, as exchange into currency, if even available, would exhaust some of the value via the exchange fee. With this economic monopoly, the employer could place large markups on goods, making workers dependent on the company, thus enforcing employee "loyalty".[4][5]
>>1295120
Corporation hires a bunch of mercenaries to attack some town
>town may or may not have mercenaries to defend itself
>Corporation is successful, takes all the town's weapons and money, imposes a system of rules for its own benefit
>Now the town can't defend itself from the corporation
>corporation uses its loot to hire more mercenaries and tackle bigger towns
>is successful again
>Corporation's power keeps snowballing until it rules millions of square miles of land, hundreds of towns and cities
>>1295133
>libertarian
>order
choose one you retarded muh freedoms subhuman
This thread has cemented in my mind the notion that ancucks are completely and utterly delusional edeglords who don't understand how the world works.
>>1295142
You're pretty much right. I would rather pay taxes than go to prison, and I don't want to initiate the use of force against the state because it wouldn't have a positive outcome for me. Why would I benefit from attacking cops?
>>1295147
I'm just pointing out that governments and corporations function differently. Corporations and individuals use the bourgeois state to defend their property interests; the bourgeois state uses the threat of force to maintain its own legitimacy in the eyes of its subjects and allies; without the bourgeois state, corporations and individuals would not have legal recourse for property defense and would have to use their own force, or hire people to use force for them.
>>1295178
>Greentext
>Not a spook
>>1295188
>>Corporation's power keeps snowballing until it rules millions of square miles of land, hundreds of towns and cities
Are there no other similar entities doing similar things?
>>1295191
How does it feel to have no arguments?
>>1295184
>In the United States, mining and logging camps were typically created, owned and operated by a single company.[4] These locations, some quite remote, were often cash poor;[1][2][3] even in ones that were not, workers paid in scrip had little choice but to purchase goods at a company store, as exchange into currency, if even available, would exhaust some of the value via the exchange fee. With this economic monopoly, the employer could place large markups on goods, making workers dependent on the company, thus enforcing employee "loyalty".[4][5]
Yeah, but companies do this for example with coupons.But the debtors,wouldnt loan money that the company could manipulate,as its power is relatively low,so debts would usually be done on neutral currencies like bitcoin or gold.
>>1295191
>Switzerland
>No order
There is nothing as organized as a market society inside a private city.
>>1295188
That would be pretty unrealistic, and quite costly.Merc armies based empires havent been able to expand very far.Only civil or proffesional armies could perform that kind of conquest and make it sustainable. Besides, there are things like coalitions and the like
>>1295188
I'm pretty sure that's the history of the mongolian empire.
>>1295196
>are there no similar entities doing similar things?
I think his point was, given that there is no monopoly on force, or other hurdles in a business firm's way; it might see it in its best interest to start acting more like it is a state than that it is operating inside one.
Who's to stop them but other "companies"? I think there's a good point in keeping in mind how indistinguishable hierarchies that allocate power( of any sort, like capital and agency) can be from one-another at times.
>>1295191
Guess which city is privatly owned and which one is publicly owned
>>1295225
>Impose an educational system on conquered towns that encourages feelings of loyalty to the corporations and participation in the army
>hire the mercenaries permanently, have them train themselves and any new civilian recruits.
>>1295086
Edgy hipsters are the go-to scapegoat for salty conservatives with skin in the game.
>>1295231
>it might see it in its best interest to start acting more like it is a state than that it is operating inside one.
>Who's to stop them but other "companies"?
That's exactly the point, you know.
>I think there's a good point in keeping in mind how indistinguishable hierarchies that allocate power( of any sort, like capital and agency) can be from one-another at times.
It's hard not to keep that in mind when you people keep making this trivial point.
You're ignoring the significant differences between them. Nobody is denying the existence of mission creep and the power of authority. You're willfully ignoring the fact that corporations and the bourgeois state function differently and have different purposes.
>>1295254
>>Impose an educational system on conquered towns that encourages feelings of loyalty to the corporations and participation in the army
How would they impose this? What's to stop the townspeople from resisting?
>>1295254
>>Impose an educational system on conquered towns that encourages feelings of loyalty to the corporations and participation in the army
Harder than its sounds and pretty cost inneficient.Most companies couldnt sustain that high expending.On top of that, sabotage on their sources of income, products, could be sabotage,destroying the whole economic viability of the thing
>>hire the mercenaries permanently, have them train themselves and any new civilian recruits.
Super costy.Mercenaries are expensive as fuck m8,
>>1295163
Actually, it's the other way around. Much of the power of the empire was derived economically rather than militarily. Having India as one giant tea plantation maintained by the east india company contributed more to british rule than any army did
>>1295352
The East India company was supported by the goverment at first.It was not a corporation in the modern sense, it was more like a megacorporation, which only appear when the goverment intervenes
>>1292644
>they'll violate the non-aggression principle
The children or the parents?
>>1295281
I hadn't actually read the thread, and assumed special snowflake status. So if it's a given then that these functions are distinct, but dynamic?
>>1295096
Isn't rent somewhat similar to taxes? From what little I know, rent can easily be taken for any inelastic good that represents a constant need. Medication and healthcare, insurance, and housing stand out. What others might and how would they compare?
>>1295184
I've heard about small town governments actually printing their own currency to deal with the recession. They seem to be hit by a similar issue where the only means of official participation in the economy, cash, is in short supply. And so labor that would otherwise hum along fine is in waste because nobody has a means to exchange this. In this case, because it's used in multiple businesses that consent to the exchange (as opposed to a singular company store) it actually works. US dollars are used for buying things out of town, and the local currency pads the currency supply in a closed system inside of it. Shit's really interesting.
It's legal to issue your own currency in the states if you prove you aren't trying to subvert or replace the dollar.
>>1295196
I see your point (are you the same as my first reply in this post?) and I actually agree if you mean to say that the bourgeois state is ideally a tool for people to protect their own sovereignty without having to turn to arms and violence.
>>1295197
Companies still do this by offering discounted goods instead of paying the margin in taxable cash. Good or bad, I'm not sure.
I feel sorry for Stephen Molyneux, he was clearly abused as a child then went off the chain with anarchocapitalism.
>>1292644
What's next in his career?
For those who keep suggesting that in an AnCap society, corporations will inevitably hire mercenaries.
Those corporations could either use those mercenaries in a socially accepted manner ie providing security for businesses and people(in which both parties consent), or they could use them to violate property rights and establish a pseudo-state.
In the second scenario, how exactly do the corporations benefit from this use of mercenaries? Training and arming mercenaries is expensive as fuck, and theyre going to demand high salaries because theyre not motivated by nationalism or religious fervor. And then what will they do, kick down doors to rob people? In America, where every other household has a gun? Youre going to have a lot of dead mercenaries if you repeatedly use them to violate property rights. Using violence is inherently unprofitable in the absence of a state.
>>1295254
>impose an educational system
Oh theyre literally going to kidnap children from their parents and force them to school. Surely no one will forcefully resist this.
>>1295615
>how exactly do the corporations benefit from this use of mercenaries?
Perhaps not necessarily corporations, but people will benefit the same way they benefited from states in the first place. State governments repeatedly and independently formed throughout human history, and replaced all non-states every single time.
You want to talk about America, it's not the corporations that will be the source of the new states. It will be the religious people making their own new theocracies.
You all seem to underestimate how absurdly expensive it is to impose force on an unwilling population. The only circumstances under which that could be profitable for anyone is where the soldiers are ideologically motivated (and would be thus willing to accept far lower pay and be more willing to commit robbery and murder against their fellow countrymen) and where there is some much larger population which is complicit in providing tax revenue to the corporation/ state.
In an AnCap society(or any other for that matter), you could not invest one million dollars into training and equipping mercenaries with the intent of robbing and killing and somehow expect to make any of that money back, let alone get a return on it.
>>1295636
People outside the state do not benefit from military or war. Even if a country were to consistently win wars and take territory, the taxpayers funding this conquest are not getting their money back. It is only those at the top, whose money and lives are not at stake, who benefit.
>>1295615
nearly every state has solved all those problems and there is nothing stopping corporations from behaving the same way with only meme ancap propaganda for the minority of the population who ever believed in it
>>1295719
And yet states still won over and replaced non-states in every single case in history.
Hide libertarian threads.
Do no engage libertarians.
Leave them to their autistic tendencies.
>>1295685
>You all seem to underestimate how absurdly expensive it is to impose force on an unwilling population.
mugabe never had any trouble with just a bunch of ak 47s and boys from subsistence farming families
If 100% of the population were militarized hardcore ancaps, maybe, but this is utopian thinking.
>>1295821
>if they were militarized hardcore ancaps
Then how would anything get done if everyone focuses on their own self defense?
What if the more embittered fringes of society take to poking at the weaker points, as they do now?
>>1295765
No society yet has rejected the use of force and aggression. You could just as easily say that it is good to own slaves, because societies which owned slaves always replaced societies which didnt.
Simply lacking a state is not sufficient for an AnCap society to sustain itself. There must be a rejection of force and aggression such that any "replacement state" would not be able to take root.
>>1294828
>Luckily there is no reason to ever do that.
How convenient.
>>1295761
You are correct that most states use their resources in "socially acceptable" ways, at least towards the tax-base which funds them. This applies to most democratic western countries, where abuse of state power within state territory is relatively rare and where most people are safe and comfortable on a day to day basis.
The biggest problem with the state in western democracies isnt abusing power so much as it is simply wasting resources. The US military consumes between a third to a half of the federal budget and yet has not succesfully prosecuted a war since 1945. It actually had a far better track record before the military-industrial complex took hold.
Despite this, the United States could be fully defensible without any federal military at all. There are hundreds of millions of privately owned firearms, in addition to the heavily armed national guards of each state.
The previously mentioned US military, the most well funded and well equipped military to have ever existed, could not subdue a country with a population size equivalent to that of California.
>anarchists
good joke
Now go back to /pol/ where your shitty ideas belong.
>>1295685
if the three-hundred million state running relatively smoothly is possible, why is anarcho-clappitalism necessary again?
>>1294888
No, it's whoever legally owns it, which can pass through inheritance.
>>1295479
>So if it's a given then that these functions are distinct, but dynamic?
It's not a given, it's something that everyone from Marxists to libertarians agrees on.
>Isn't rent somewhat similar to taxes?
Why would it be? You sign a lease when you rent something. If you don't sign that lease, you don't have to pay rent. If you don't pay your government taxes, your government uses force against you. I was born an American citizen, which means that if I don't pay taxes I'll go to jail. I wasn't born a renter. I doubt you were, either.
>the bourgeois state is ideally a tool for people to protect their own sovereignty without having to turn to arms and violence.
Soverieignty =/= property. The state is sovereign, not the people it rules over. The people have property; the state is in place to protect property.
>>1296081
>If slavery works, why should we free the slaves?
>>1296122
How is it slavery when the population is willing (seeing as it is not absurdly difficult to gain control over the american population)?
I don't get why there's so much hate against the NAP in this thread.
Everyone in this threat almost to a certainty adheres to some kind of deontological principle.
Like, not having sex with girls under the age of 18 or some other rule, which is completely arbitrary, yet you follow it anyway.
>>1295180
They believe in serf-ownership.
>>1296433
>implying I follow rules
morality is obsolete in the post-hikki era
>>1296433
>Everyone in this threat almost to a certainty adheres to some kind of deontological principle.
>Like, not having sex with girls under the age of 18
Where the fuck do you think you are?
>>1296408
Do you not know how analogies work?
What do you mean, it's not absurdly difficult to gain control over the American population? Of course it is. That population is under one government because that government is too powerful to be overthrown.
>>1296451
lel, jokes aside though, the point is that I can maybe agree that the NAP is ridiculously impractical across the board, but I think you should be a little more sanguine on the topic of morality in general.
Whether or not you agree with certain moral laws or not, you almost certainly have one, unless you're a psychopath that is.
My question is, if you don't like the country you are in and how it is anti-free market? Why not just move out? That's how capitalism works, it gives you choices on what you are able to do, if you don't like Wal-Mart, just shop somewhere else!
Daily reminder that there's literally nothing wrong with spanking children.
>>1296467
>NAP is ridiculously impractical across the board,
Not even that, it's actually totally irrelevant. Property can't be owned legitimately as Libbies insist because every piece of land on Earth has been taken from someone by force or trickery at some point, breaking the supposed "chain of legitimacy" represented by a title deed and making a nonsense of the whole NAP by making the "owners" claim to property rights as invalid as the State's claim.
>>1296501
I've never heard anyone arguing that NAP has some sort of "chain of legitimacy" homesteading part implicit in it.
I'm pretty sure you're conflating the moral principle that aggressive force is immoral, and how humans acquire property by self-ownership and homesteading.
>>1296517
The problem is though that because
>because every piece of land on Earth has been taken from someone by force or trickery at some point
it is impossible to know who owns what legitimately.
>>1292644
Why even have /pol/ when you could troll political ideologies in /his/ - History and Humanities
>Lolbergturdian approach:
>"Come on guys...somebody make a road business... we need those roads...there's potholes everywhere"
>Result:
>Lunatic on meth drives by in a dune buggy while screaming "WITNESS ME!" and proceeds to run over the libertarian and then burst into flames after smashing into a wall.
>National Socialist approach:
>"IT HAS BEEN A STRUGGLE, ESPECIALLY AGAINST A CERTAIN PEOPLE THAT SEEM TO HAVE OMNIPOTENT POWER IN OUR NATION. THE STRUGGLE AGAINST THE JEWS! A SATANIC POWER HAS TAKEN OVER OUR WHOLE COUNTRY AND HAS BEEN ABLE TO GRIP KEY POSITIONS OF OUR INTELLECTUAL AND SPIRITUAL LIFE, BUT ALSO OF THE POLITICAL AND ECONOMICAL LIFE. AND FROM THESE KEY POSITIONS THEY WERE ABLE TO CONTROL AND MONITOR THE WHOLE NATION AND PERSECUTE ANYONE WHO ATTEMPTED TO FIGHT AGAINST THIS POWER AND BUILD OUR ROADS! WHEN WE ATTEMPTED TO BUILD THESE ROADS THEN THE ALMIGHTY JUDAISM DECLARED WAR UPON US. NOW THE STRUGGLE AGAINST THE JEW AND THE WAR TO BUILD OUR ROADS HAS FOR THE FIRST TIME EVOLVED INTO A UNITED STRUGGLE! FOR THE FIRST TIME, I ALLOW MYSELF AS AN UNKNOWN MAN TO START A WAR AND NOT REST UNTIL OUR ROADS ARE BUILT AND THIS PLAGUE HAS BEEN REMOVED FROM OUR WAY OF LIFE! OUR ROADS WILL NOT SIMPLY FALL FROM THE SKY, INSTEAD THE PEOPLE MUST BUILD THEM UP! IN OURSELVES LIES THE DESTINY OF OUR PEOPLE AND THE FUTURE OF OUR ROADS! ONLY IF WE RAISE OURSELVES THROUGH OUR OWN LABOR, OUR OWN DETERMINATION, OUR OWN DEFIANCE, AND OUR OWN PERSEVERANCE, ONLY THEN WILL WE BE ABLE TO BUILD OUR ROADS AND DEFEAT THE JEW! JUST LIKE IN THE DAYS OF OUR FATHERS, THEY DID NOT RECEIVE THEIR ROADS AS A GIFT BUT THEY CREATED THEM ON THEIR OWN!"
>Result:
>The roads are built by passionate and motivated workers and the jews "mysteriously" disappear ending up in labour camps.
