Give me one reason why AnarchoCapitalism doesn't work.
Btfo
You can't have anarchism without anarchists.
>>72257460
>Give me one reason why AnarchoCapitalism doesn't work.
It's retarded and stupid.
It's basically feudalism with a weird flag
>>72258666
>>72258700
Really good points guys got me thinking hard
>>72258737
I see you posting in the other thread, stop making this nonsensical and unsubstantiated claim. How would such a system come about? How would it be sustainable?
>>72258737
No such thing would ever happen, because why would an owner of land engage in this kind of behavior? Land can be put to more profitable use by engaging in productive behavior rather than simply renting it out to other individuals. As an evil profit seeking corporation you would create some evil factory because there is more money to be made
>>72257460
maybe monopolys, oligopolys, cartels ?
>>72257460
Because the only thing 80%+ of the anarcho-capitalist/libertarians do is either smoking weed or making moral arguments about why smoking weed is the greatest thing in the world. All libertarian politicians do is just circle jerk around with AnCap philosophical arguements instead of caring about actual ongoing issues(like immigration), and on that topic, you would probably self-destruct within years because so much of you retards think Open Borders is such great idea that you will just get taken over by shitskins who will simply force a government into existence once they got enough numbers.
>>72258899
>>72259214
land is a natural monopoly so you can charge whatever you want, and assuming all land is privately owned no one has a choice but to pay you whatever you demand.
Historically this is whatever surplus you made. So all your surplus beyond subsistence goes to the aristocracy to spend on luxury goods, war, etc and you can't do anything about it unless you want to "violate" their property rights by usurping them/revolting/etc
Madmax showed us they lacked roads
>>72259750
>>72259661
this. who cares about muh nap in the middle of a race war.
>muh statist boot to the face
libertarians are out of touch with reality
>>72259782
This is also apply to anarcapshit
>>72257460
Eve Online.
>>72257460
>Anarcho anything
Even if it was ever put into place, it would be just a transitory phase. People would team up and start forming countries and states with their own laws
>>72259896
/thread
everybody can go home now.
>>72259738
Except, you have the choice to pay rent at a competing feudal Lord's land. BTW retarded, you have just reinvented commercial and residential property rental and pretended like you came up with some genius thing. If that's such a great system why is it not in place today, what government regulation prevents what you're describing
>>72259896
Spreadsheeeeets Iiiiiinnnnn Spaaaaaaaaace!
>>72259896
This
In the absence of government monopoly, you create multiple factions who now want control and work together for survival
In other words, you create multiple countries where there was one
>>72257460
>very easy to have culture subverted
>Jews heavily involved
>usually involves open borders
>>72259880
>>72259782
>>72259750
topgato mon ami
because the government mandates what is marketable and what is not. So in an ancap society you would have slavery, organ trade, nuclear arms trade, child prostitution, misleading food products (horse meat, pink slime) wage slavery as well as isolationist communities, monopolies, cartels, mafias and back door trade deals..
>>72257460
>anarchism
All about FUCK THE MAN
>capitalism
All about property rights PROTECTED BY THE MAN.
>>72260294
>you have the choice to pay rent at a competing feudal Lord's land.
You don't really have a choice though you can either pay the tithe (rent), get kicked off the land onto another feudal lord's land where you pay his tithe, or possibly run away out into the wilderness where you hope to find unoccupied land and become your own feudal lord someday.
>government regulation prevents what you're describing
Which is a good thing because I don't think anyone (besides ancaps) 'wants' to go back to feudalism where all land is owned by an aristocracy/monarch.
Having a representative government with a constitution and suffrage is a much better system then being subject to the whims of a tyrant.
>>72259661
Not an argument and with regards to the shitskins, let's play out a little scenario
>300 mil in the US
>1 million shitskins can afford to come to the US before property costs are too high, or travel costs are too high, or jobs are so scarce there is no profit in coming to the US.
One million is a generous estimate. How will one million uneducated and poor shitskins amass enough soldiers, money, and weapons to combat against a 50% armed population
>>72260315
Anarchism doesn't work because there's always someone who strives to become the new boss.
>>72259633
Exactly.
Another nail in the anarchy for the rich, most AnCaps don't have a monetary policy.
>>72260574
Give a single example of a natural (no state intervention) monopoly
>>72260825
land
>>72257460
Adversity makes men and prosperity makes monsters.
Wealth leads to degeneracy and decay.
>>72260684
Did you not read what I fucking said, firstly how the fuck can you not leave, like nigfa just get up and walk away, also I said tell me what government regulation prevents the system you propose would happen in AnCap, why isn't this happening today
>>72259633
One example of a natural monopolu
>>72260616
Not about Fuck the man. AnarchoCapitalism would actually look a lot like traditional societies, just because there are a few autistic anarchist shitlords doesn't mean you can strawman us when you obviously haven't read any anarchist literature
>>72260786
It's cool in when flying virtual spaceships but one can literally dominate the world through the power of sheer bucks and minions.
In anarcho-capitalism the people are completly disposable garbage used only and exclusively as stepping stone for those who have a fetish for dominating anything, just something.
See: mittens
>>72257460
Corporate kingdoms would emerge and do whatever they wanted.
You'd turn the amazon into a desert cutting down trees for paper.
Then once the earth is barren you would TRY to fix it after a short war between whoever was left.
Maybe you could live afterwards who knows.
>>72260902
A business that is a monopoly, one example of an industry which is monopolized. What you wrote literally makes no sense.
>>72260972
>like nigfa just get up and walk away
you can
but then you're walking onto another feudal landlords property so you have to follow his rules now so your situation hasn't changed.
>what government regulation prevents the system you propose
The Government has sovereignty over all the territory so all the laws are dictated by representatives and elections.
No one man controls all land absolutely as in a monarchy.
>>72261212
land is the ultimate monopoly and the main reason that ancap ideology can never work.
As long as private landholders control all the land you are just recreating feudalism 2.0
>>72261287
Why don't feudal lords exist today you illiterate fuck thats the last time I will repeat myself. One specific regulation
>>72261370
Give me one example of an industry which was dominate by a monopoly
>>72260616
If someone attempted to steal from you, would you fight back?
There are very few people who do not protect their property. If the government announced tomorrow that they no longer get involved in property disputes, what would change?
People would defend their property themselves instead of calling the police and would go to an arbiter instead of the courts. The free market fixes everything, that's what it does.
>>72257460
>Give me one reason why AnarchoCapitalism doesn't work.
Jews exist. Think about it.
>>72261596
And people recognize the need for collective protection. People would pay for the services of a police force in order to protect their property and life in case of emergency because it is profitable for them.
>>72261193
Not an argument
>>72261192
Not an argument
>>72260956
Not an argument
>>72261464
>Give me one example of an industry which was dominate by a monopoly
government
>>72261941
Good point let's get rid of it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partitions_of_Poland
>>72261464
>Why don't feudal lords exist today
because the Renaissance/enlightenment led to the emancipation of the serfs and the eventual end of feudalism (which you want to bring back)
>One specific regulation
emancipation of the serfs
>>72257460
Who protects individual rights?
>>72262115
Where is that in the US Legal Code? Why doesn't some enterpreunerial evil capitalist implement such a system today, what law stands in his way? Also, again you've made it clear that this nonsensical system you are describing is not AnCap it's a state. If you can't leave and the Lord's can demand whatever they want from you under threat of violence that is a state
>>72261596
>If the government announced tomorrow that they no longer get involved in property disputes, what would change?
The strong would prey on the weak. Total, literal anarchy.
>A recent variant of anarchistic theory, which is befuddling some of the younger advocates of freedom, is a weird absurdity called “competing governments.” Accepting the basic premise of the modern statists—who see no difference between the functions of government and the functions of industry, between force and production, and who advocate government ownership of business—the proponents of “competing governments” take the other side of the same coin and declare that since competition is so beneficial to business, it should also be applied to government. Instead of a single, monopolistic government, they declare, there should be a number of different governments in the same geographical area, competing for the allegiance of individual citizens, with every citizen free to “shop” and to patronize whatever government he chooses.
>Remember that forcible restraint of men is the only service a government has to offer. Ask yourself what a competition in forcible restraint would have to mean.
>One cannot call this theory a contradiction in terms, since it is obviously devoid of any understanding of the terms “competition” and “government.” Nor can one call it a floating abstraction, since it is devoid of any contact with or reference to reality and cannot be concretized at all, not even roughly or approximately. One illustration will be sufficient: suppose Mr. Smith, a customer of Government A, suspects that his next-door neighbor, Mr. Jones, a customer of Government B, has robbed him; a squad of Police A proceeds to Mr. Jones’ house and is met at the door by a squad of Police B, who declare that they do not accept the validity of Mr. Smith’s complaint and do not recognize the authority of Government A. What happens then? You take it from there.
>>72262175
There are a number of proposed systems. The dominant theories propose numerous Private Arbitration Courts and Private Security Services usurping the function of courts and police. I can go more in depth if you have questions but the system will basically mirror our legal system today
I personally prefer Anarcho-Communism, just like I learned at college
It's fucking retarded to mix non aggression anxiom and property rights with law of jungle.
>>72262249
>US Legal Code
The US never had feudalism.
The fact we have a representative democratic government means there are no sovereign landholders by definition. Everyone is beholden to the state, and as such we have things like public land, public services etc so there are no absolute monopolies.
>>72259633
thank god there's no monopolies nor oligarchies in our governments
>>72262346
Police A and Police B in the interest of profit have a number of courses of action. The least profitable of which is to go to court. The least costly and most profitable route by an exponential degree is to agree to some neutral party to resolve the dispute
>>72262511
You are clearly an autistic illiterate moron who has not responded to a single point that's been made. No point on continuing this retarded line of argument.
>Applying our theory to parents and children, this means that a parent does not have the right to aggress against his children, but also that the parent should not have a legal obligation to feed, clothe, or educate his children, since such obligations would entail positive acts coerced upon the parent and depriving the parent of his rights. The parent therefore may not murder or mutilate his child, and the law properly outlaws a parent from doing so. But the parent should have the legal right not to feed the child, i.e., to allow it to die.2 The law, therefore, may not properly compel the parent to feed a child or to keep it alive.3 (Again, whether or not a parent has a moral rather than a legally enforceable obligation to keep his child alive is a completely separate question.) This rule allows us to solve such vexing questions as: should a parent have the right to allow a deformed baby to die (e.g., by not feeding it)?4 The answer is of course yes, following a fortiori from the larger right to allow any baby, whether deformed or not, to die. (Though, as we shall see below, in a libertarian society the existence of a free baby market will bring such "neglect" down to a minimum.)
>>72260744
I am talking about a pre-Ancap Society idiot, America is only 60% white and is further decreasing, almost all shitskins don't give a fuck about Ancap values so it's pretty much impossible to get their votes and AnCaps and libertarians for the overwhelming part don't even mind them coming. And you have millions of indoctrinated white college kids. All of them have a vote just like you do.
From this you can already imagine that democratically electing a AnCap society won't work because by now there's too many people that don't want the abolition of state services and handouts. That leaves you only with the violent overthrow of the government which won't be possible because a army of potheads stands no chance agianst the world's biggest army.
Then you can try to get a populist right-wing authoritarian in power which of course also won't be possible with AnCaps because you people never try to appeal to the common man and the semi-religious NAP would stop most of you in your tracks.
>>72262632
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_profiteering
National conservatism (Nigel Farage) is the ultimate redpill
>authoritarian on morals and.borders
>libertarian in terms of taxes on the middle class and self employed
>corporations pay fair share if tax
>minimal welfare
>insurance healthcare system
>legalise guns
>legalise weed, mushrooms, cocaine and LSD
>mass mutate spending
>fixing marriage laws
>removing liberal arts from campuses
>national service
>men have to be 21+ to vote
>women have to be 30+ to vote
Tell me what's wrong with national conservatism?
It's the closest to utopia we can get
Anarcho capitalism is Somalia tier
>>72262718
you seem to not understand there is a difference between a soverieng land owner and a just a property owner in a state run by a government.
A sovereign land owner can do whatever he wants on his land/property it's "his'
however a property owner can't. I can't just start feudalism whenever I felt like it today because that's illegal in our society.
In an ancap society there is no illegal you can do whatever you want.
>The anarchists are right in everything: in the rejection of the current state of affairs and in the assertion that under contemporary moral conditions there can be nothing worse than governmental violence. However, they are profoundly mistaken in believing that anarchy can be established through a revolution. Anarchy can only be established by the process of people becoming less and less reliant upon governmental authority and by people becoming more and more ashamed of participating in this authority. (May 17, entry four)
>Even if what Marx predicted should happen, the only thing that will happen is that despotism will change hands. Now the capitalists rule, but then the directors of the working class will rule.
>The mistake of the Marxists (and not just them but the whole materialistic school) lies in the fact that they do not see that the life of humanity moves through the growth of consciousness, the movement of religion, an understanding of life becoming clearer and clearer and more universal, meeting all problems, and not by some economic cause.
>The error of the theory of Marx is in the supposition that capital will pass from the hands of private people into the hands of the government, and from the government, representing the people, into the hands of the workers.
>The transition from state violence to a free, rational life cannot happen instantly. Just as the life of the state took thousands of years to take shape, so it will take thousands of years to disintegrate. (Diary, December 9, 1905)
The rich are corrupt and only work against you. Years of social progress has brought us to the point to where we all arent working in coal mines for 5 pennies a week, why do edgy teenagers on /pol/ want to undo it so much?
>>72262893
And the only reason this works is because the person buying the arms is actually stealing someone else's money. What's your point?
>>72262855
AnarchoCapitalism is inevitable. The market and technology are growing in complexity and it is becoming g clearer and clearer the government cannot address the things it is supposed to. The internet and cryptocurrencies are showing that the state is not necessary and slowly usurping it's "necessary functions". Besides, shitskins are far more dangerous now then in AnCap. 1 million shitskins is enough to decide what the multitrillion dollar army enforces with a vote, the same is not true of ancap
>>72262763
Its not a parent-kid relationship, its an attempt to create a systtem that will make survival and civilization possoble/easier
The abarchy part also implies that the gov should not be on your face like in the sobiet union/murca/mexico
I give you 2 reasons that are related.
1)
People are dumb as shit and don't understand the ideas of liberty and responsibility for their own actions.
Which leads to reason 2):
There will always be someone trying to form governments, or there will be hostile people who don't care about the NAP. The only way to combat this imo is by constantly being vigilant but the majority of people probably wants to be governed.
So ancapism isn't really sustainable.
I think libertarianism is more practicable irl, with a strong constitution and a small state for defense.
But then again it depends on what you call a state and what kind of defense you need. If your only enemies are Bob and Cletus you don't need an army or state. But if there exists nations that are hostile you kinda need to counter that... its way too theoretical with way too many factors at this point.
Realistically, ancapism right now would not work because 90+% of people don't even know wtf it is and because the world is filled with big ass governments who don't care about rights or NAP and who are armed to the teeth.
>>7226306
You don't understand AnarchoCapitalism. Please atleast read the intro to the Wikipedia article before you try arguing about something
>>72263293
That progress is not brought about by the state but by the market. We're it not for the market, instead of working harsh conditions in a mine for 10 hours a day they are working 18 hours on a hot field, starving to death, and dying of heat exhaustoon
>>72257460
I would tell you in person how well anarcho capitalism works but my car doesnt do well on dirt
>>72261464
>Give me one example of an industry which was dominate by a monopoly
Aluminum production.
Telephones.
OSes.
How about cartels?
Oil
Steel
Pineapples
Diamonds
>>72263705
It's a good thing that instead of paying 10% of the cost of gas for roads we are just paying tolls for the profit of these private companies
>I HEARTILY ACCEPT the motto, — "That government is best which governs least";(1) and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically. Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which also I believe, — "That government is best which governs not at all"; and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have. Government is at best but an expedient; but most governments are usually, and all governments are sometimes, inexpedient. The objections which have been brought against a standing army, and they are many and weighty, and deserve to prevail, may also at last be brought against a standing government. The standing army is only an arm of the standing government. The government itself, which is only the mode which the people have chosen to execute their will, is equally liable to be abused and perverted before the people can act through it. Witness the present Mexican war,(2) the work of comparatively a few individuals using the standing government as their tool; for, in the outset, the people would not have consented to this measure.
>>72257460
Human nature
>>72257460
A free market which doesn't regulate the formation of monopolies isn't free at all
>b-but if you regulate the market it isn't free!
That's right, free market is a meme phrase
>>72263828
>OSes
Where is the problem here? What exploitation of consumers has occurred? What market need hasn't been addressed?
>telephones
State enforced monopoly, utilities act + telecom act of the 70's, you cannot legally start a telecom company
What cartels own and operate the oil, steel, diamond, or aluminum industries?
>>72264104
One example of a natural monopoly that has exploited consumers pls and thnx
>>72264173
Comcast
>>72264104
>le free market leads to monopolies meme
When has this ever happened ?
>>72257460
Give me one reason why "MUH NAP" would somehow magically stop people from being scumbags and criminals.
Protip:
You can('t).
>>72264282
See
>>72264123
Comcast and the Us telecom industry is a state-enforced oligopoly
>>72263294
>AnarchoCapitalism is inevitable
Haha, no it's not. America becoming a socialist shithole like Brazil is inevitable. The increasing complexity of technology and the market only makes the government and the big corporations supporting it stronger because it's harder for individuals and small groups to compete. The American government just keeps expanding it's power and therefore saying that Anarcho Capitalism is inevitable is completely ridiculous.
>>72257460
because YOU think it works
>>72264396
It doesn't. Guns and armed security do.
>>72263552
The market needs the state to keep it in check so it youre in neither of those situations
>>72264433
The US government like all socialist States is panicking but it's fine. Businesses are becoming more and more efficient every day while the state lags behind and drags everyone down. As technology and quality of life improves the fact that the state no longer serves a useful function will be quite apparent
>>72264597
Yeah, and how did the state keep industrial revolution in check? By passing child labor laws after child labor haqd already become an uncommon practice? Try again doofus, not an argument
>>72262983
>authoritarian on morals and.borders
like what? he literally just talks about the eu and romanians. sees no problem with immigration from the commonwealth (india and africa), when does he ever talk about "morals"?
>legalise guns
retarded. do you really want muslims and chavs to have guns like american blacks do?
>legalise weed, mushrooms, cocaine and LSD
contradicts your first point
>removing liberal arts from campuses
source?
>men have to be 21+ to vote
>women have to be 30+ to vote
UKIP would never do this
>>72264123
Aluminum was a monopoly not a cartel.
>State enforced monopoly, utilities act + telecom act of the 70's, you cannot legally start a telecom company
That's a nice bit of historical revisionism and isn't true for all the telephone monopolies that formed in most nations before they were forced into being a common carrier. Also prior to 1970 you might have heard of Bell which was a monopoly that was broken up.
>Where is the problem here? What exploitation of consumers has occurred? What market need hasn't been addressed?
I was asked to list a monopoly. I don't know why I was I just gave the information. Microsoft was a monopoly for a time in the world of OS.
>What cartels own and operate the oil, steel, diamond, or aluminum industries?
Diamonds are DeBeers, oil is OPEC and prior BP and Standard Oil. Steel was a US based agreement between US Steel Corporation, Carnegie and Bethlehem Steel.
Why am I the one providing you the facts?
>The American Letter Mail Company was started by Lysander Spooner in 1844, competing with the legal monopoly of the United States Post Office (USPO, now the USPS) in violation of the Private Express Statutes. It succeeded in delivering mail for lower prices, but the U.S. Government challenged Spooner with legal measures, eventually forcing him to cease operations in 1851.[1]
>>72257460
>Give me one reason why AnarchoCapitalism doesn't work.
Because there are people like me that support you being shot :^)
Iceland used to have AnarchoCapitalism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism#Medieval_Iceland
>>72264497
>It doesn't. Guns and armed security do.
And what stops people with guns and armed security from violating the NAP and taking over?
Oh that's right fucking nothing. Welcome to warlordism and warring city states.
>>72264757
You're simply saying that the USA will become an oligarchy. Pretty sure oligarchies and AnCap societies aren't the same thing.
>>72264497
Unless the free market makes tanks and attack choppers affordable to the poor, I'm not sure how any of those things will stop people from being douchebags and criminals. If you can always outspend the enemy, then there's nothing stopping you from being an asshole and pillaging entire cities.
>>72264911
Which one of these 'monopolies' was broken up by the state?
>Universal experience attests that government establishments cannot keep pace with private enterprize in matters of business — (and the transmission of letters is a mere matter of business.) Private enterprise has always the most active physical powers, and the most ingenious mental ones. It is constantly increasing its speed, and simplifying and cheapening its operations. But government functionaries, secure in the enjoyment of warm nests, large salaries, official honors and power, and presidential smiles — all of which they are sure of so long as they are the partisans of the President — feel few quickening impulses to labor, and are altogether too independent and dignified personages to move at the speed that commercial interests require. They take office to enjoy its honors and emoluments, not to get their living by the sweat of their brows.
>>72264911
I do not deny the fact that at times some businesses might dominate industries, Standard Oil had the best oil for the lowest price and consequently dominated the oil industry. But none of these "monopolies" you point out seem to fall under the traditional notion of a monopoly. Our competing the market is not the same as qowning the market. If OPEC truly has cartel control of oil, why are oil prices not higher, in fact why are oil prices dropping to historic lows in the face of this all powerful cartel? The same goes for all the other examples you listed. De Beers had an unsustainable business model and has failed as a result. They own like 15% of the modern Diamond industry now. Same goes for steel, look at the prices as a result of US steel, no problem to be found
>>72265008
Taking over what exactly? There would be no government to take over, so they would have to build one from the ground up, giving absolutely everybody else ample opportunity to fuck them over.
>>72265008
>>72265378
You gain more from trading with them.
Why go to war when you can get comfy?
>>72265008
Guns and Private Security forces prevent that.
>>72265378
What individual will ever be able to have enough money and firepower to pillage a city? Where will he find soldiers who are willing to kill innocents and what price will they demand?
>>72265553
i can enslave them and make 9000 more money than if i were to trade with them
>>72265553
Ideology, religion and overpopulation are several reasons and over the long term, serveral decades probably, it can be more profitable to take over a piece of then to trade with it. It's almost like you're implying that there's hasn't ever been in war.
>>72265532
> But none of these "monopolies" you point out seem to fall under the traditional notion of a monopoly.
I wonder if goal post moving is a monopoly.
Explain how the Aluminum industry wasn't under a monopoly or how Microsoft wasn't. Or how. OPEC wasn't.
>If OPEC truly has cartel control of oil, why are oil prices not higher, in fact why are oil prices dropping to historic lows in the face of this all powerful cartel?
To kill expensive unconventional production and to sucker punch the Russians.
Or do you think that a cartel's only action is to keep prices high?
As for Steel, how in the 1950s was that not a cartel?
You haven't really explained anything.
Also why do you keep saying problem or harm?
The question was to list monopolies. I did so.
What's with all this dodging on your part?
>>72265553
>You gain more from trading with them.
Why can't you trade with something you own?
>>72265592
>Guns and Private Security forces prevent that.
And if they lose?
>>72265795
Rich people?
Can't he just hire a bunch of US soldiers?
not seeing very many arguments in this thread
>>72266338
Only takes one.
What's the An Cap monetary policy?
>In colonial times, the Thirteen Colonies used a militia system for defense. Colonial militia laws—and after independence those of the United States and the various states—required able-bodied males to enroll in the militia, to undergo a minimum of military training, and to serve for limited periods of time in war or emergency. This earliest form of conscription involved selective drafts of militiamen for service in particular campaigns. Following this system in its essentials, the Continental Congress in 1778 recommended that the states draft men from their militias for one year's service in the Continental army; this first national conscription was irregularly applied and failed to fill the Continental ranks.
>For long-term operations, conscription was occasionally used when volunteers or paid substitutes were insufficient to raise the needed manpower. During the American Revolutionary War, the states sometimes drafted men for militia duty or to fill state Continental Army units, but the central government did not have the authority to conscript except for purposes of naval impressment. President James Madison and his Secretary of War James Monroe unsuccessfully attempted to create a national draft of 40,000 men during the War of 1812.[3] This proposal was fiercely criticized on the House floor by antiwar Congressman Daniel Webster of New Hampshire.[4]
>>72266128
They outnumber the attackers exponentially.
>>72266046
If a monopoly exploits consumers they will lose market share. There is implied competition because competitors can take advance of unfair pricing by starting their own business, the point is clearly that OPEC does not have total control of the oil industry and neither do any of the other examples what unjust practicing have they engaged in. What government legislation would one enact in order to prevent monopoly
>"The administration asserts the right to fill the ranks of the regular army by compulsion...Is this, sir, consistent with the character of a free government? Is this civil liberty? Is this the real character of our Constitution? No, sir, indeed it is not...Where is it written in the Constitution, in what article or section is it contained, that you may take children from their parents, and parents from their children, and compel them to fight the battles of any war, in which the folly or the wickedness of government may engage it? Under what concealment has this power lain hidden, which now for the first time comes forth, with a tremendous and baleful aspect, to trample down and destroy the dearest rights of personal liberty?
Daniel Webster (December 9, 1814 House of Representatives Address)
>>72266192
And they will murder innocent US citizens?
>>72265799
No you will just get shot
>>72265977
Well, there will always be the possibility of someone attacking you. That's not a reason why ancapism wouldn't work.
Historically it have been governments who started wars tho, not merchants.
Either way you now risk getting killed and losing literally everything. Doesn't sound like a good deal.
>>72266098
What?
>>72266046
All of those have competition and thus are not monopolies, and for the brief time they might have been monopolies, they existed in a state, not in a free market.
>>72266480
Bitcoin
>>72264858
>All of your replies
You realise that he's using damage control, rigjt?
He may like to sometimes seem "politically correct", but if you aren't an artist, you'll see that he's a closet national conservative.
>>72266531
>If a monopoly exploits consumers they will lose market share.
Not always. It's possible but not in every case.
>the point is clearly that OPEC does not have total control of the oil industry and neither do any of the other examples what unjust practicing have they engaged in.
OPEC had it but lost it. The aluminum industry had it and was broken up by government. Same for the telephone industry in most nations.
They were not all unjust practices but they dominated their industry and no one else could even start to compete with them.
>What government legislation would one enact in order to prevent monopoly
No one law would work for every case.
>>72266651
>What?
If you conquest an area why can't you trade with it?
The point was made that you can't trade with something you have taken by military force. Which is stupid. So explain that statement.
>>72266651
>All of those have competition and thus are not monopolies, and for the brief time they might have been monopolies, they existed in a state, not in a free market.
So you are one of those morons that plays the no true free market games, because every market from more or less the dawn of civilization has happened under a government.
After a year with no police or military it would result in cartels basically taking over, since all you would need to conquer land would be gund and some friends to hold them. Basically result in gangs controlling everything and becoming pseudo governments
You simply can't have no government, or something will come in and fill the void
>>72257460
Typical /pol/, all memes and no arguments. AnCap wins the day.
>>72266651
>Historically it have been governments who started wars tho, not merchants.
Historically those merchants almost always paid someone to protect them to protect them and these organizations fought wars plenty of times. Just take Venice or Genoa for example which were ruled by rich merchant families who constantly fought shit. Then there was for example the First and Second Anglo-Dutch Wars which were trade disputes between merchants of both nations. Pointing to history to say that merchants didn't fight wars is absolutely retarded.
>>72266860
>Bitcoin
How do you meet the computational power requirements if bitcoin was the monetary policy for the whole world in 20 years?
>The CIA has publicly admitted for the first time that it was behind the notorious 1953 coup against Iran's democratically elected prime minister Mohammad Mosaddeq, in documents that also show how the British government tried to block the release of information about its own involvement in his overthrow.
>On the 60th anniversary of an event often invoked by Iranians as evidence of western meddling, the US national security archive at George Washington University published a series of declassified CIA documents.
>"The military coup that overthrew Mosaddeq and his National Front cabinet was carried out under CIA direction as an act of US foreign policy, conceived and approved at the highest levels of government," reads a previously excised section of an internal CIA history titled The Battle for Iran.
>The documents, published on the archive's website under freedom of information laws, describe in detail how the US – with British help – engineered the coup, codenamed TPAJAX by the CIA and Operation Boot by Britain's MI6.
>Britain, and in particular Sir Anthony Eden, the foreign secretary, regarded Mosaddeq as a serious threat to its strategic and economic interests after the Iranian leader nationalised the British Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, latterly known as BP. But the UK needed US support. The Eisenhower administration in Washington was easily persuaded.
>>72267288
How can you trade with yourself?
Of course you can trade the resources of whatever you conquered. But it's not like you can just easily conquer stuff, especially not when it's rich in resources.
If you hate monopolies so much you should be an ancap because what is worse than the monopoly on violence?
>>72267515
>having no state means having no police or military
Just like it means no roads, schools or doctors, right?
>>72262983
So much this
>>72267570
Fair enough. Pointing to history is mostly moot anyway because the ideas of liberty are pretty young.
>>72268032
I'll spell it out for you, if you have no state military, let's say the corporations make their own military and enforce their own law, then congratulations you've gotten rid of the government to replace it with a pseudo government working on identical principals
It is a power vacuum.
Such vacuums are always filled by whoever has the most power in the area or at its borders.
>>72268353
Thank you for spelling out your lack of imagination.
>Coca Cola and Amazon would suddenly build armies to tax people, overhauling their entire corporate structures and infrastructure, instead of simply continuing to sell their shit to people
Why? That's like a mechanic suddenly becoming an accountant because the local accounting firm closed down.
>>72257460
Because there are states everywhere.
>>72257460
>Give me one reason why AnarchoCapitalism doesn't work.
Because real life is not an Ayn Rand novel
>>72257460
People
>>72268790
You literally implied that just because there is no government doesn't mean there is no military or police, now you are going back and saying hur dur of course there is no military or police
Choose one, gangs and cartels (who already have the guns and the inclination) will become Warlords over the areas and life will fucking suck for anybody outside the gang, or the corporations will have a private police force, which means they have a private system of law, which means they are the government
>>72268932
Ayn Rand did not advocate for anarcho-capitalism.
In fact, she hated the ideology:
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/libertarians.html
What's the point of your joke?
>>72269176
Most people are not gangmembers or warlords and would actively work against them. The reason why criminals work underground is not because of the police, it's because of society. The only people who tolerate criminals are other criminals.
Because you create the same thread everyday. Exactly, is your fault.
>I know, indeed, that some honest men fear that a republican government can not be strong, that this Government is not strong enough; but would the honest patriot, in the full tide of successful experiment, abandon a government which has so far kept us free and firm on the theoretic and visionary fear that this Government, the world's best hope, may by possibility want energy to preserve itself? I trust not. I believe this, on the contrary, the strongest Government on earth. I believe it the only one where every man, at the call of the law, would fly to the standard of the law, and would meet invasions of the public order as his own personal concern. Sometimes it is said that man can not be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the forms of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question.
>>72269461
>the only reason criminals work underground is because of society, not police
That is one of the stupidest things ever heard
>>72269750
Really. The one Police Officer that oversees 100+ people is 100% responsible for preventing and reducing criminal behavior? Society plays no role at all? Keep in mind that many countries have even less police offers per capita.
>>72270305
>Society plays no role at all?
That's highly dependent on particular society in question. Poverty and moral degradation can easily create environment where crime is not only not fought against, but is actually ingrained into local way of life (e.g. nigger hives or gopnik-infested city blocks).
>>72257460
Because Private courts and police will always take the sides of those who have more cash. At least government has to pretend to be bias.
i miss the old /pol/ from a few years ago that was full of threads like this one
literally politics
not NIGGERS AND JEWS AND MUSLIMS AND <insert trendy topic of the day>
so, thanks op
>>72259750
>>72259782
Funny memes aside, AnCaps don't believe in a society where literally everything is privatized (unless they're retards). Most believe in a society where the bare essentials are public, and everything that is possible to privatize, should be privatized, and left to the citizen to choose.
So what is the benefit in this? Well essentially, as a tax-payer, the government is taking your money and deciding how to spend it. AnCaps believe that nobody is a better judge on how to spend your money than you. If you live in a poor region, where schools are underperforming, don't get any grants, is filled with hood rats who are only there because they're forced to be; and has 4-decade-old equipment, you're paying for that. Even if you put your child in a private school for a better standard, you still pay for that woefully-bad public school. Wouldn't you rather just leave that wretched thing to be condemned and put your child in a better environment? Do you want all the roads in the city to be paved by the corrupt mayor's brother's construction company, where they spend 5 years and still haven't finished the job? Wouldn't you rather choose the company that paves your street? And so on. Even issues of charity and public welfare is better dealt with by individuals working together, than some bloated bureaucracy.
The government is basically just a corrupt, inefficient and overpriced company that forces you to use its services.
>>72257460
Housing bubble of 2009
>>72257460
Its an oxymoron. Call it something else and it will work.
>>72274534
caused by government
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=541bajR4k8g
>>72269280
he means that not everyone wants to work
>>72257460
no defence from outside attacks
>>72257460
Force is good.
>>72257460
R O A D S
O
A
D
S
>be me
>live in a anarchocapitalist society
>spend all day fighting niggers who no longer have social security (dumb statists don't know what the NAP is)
>loot their corpses for scrap and bullets so I can get money to pay my electricity packages (each package is for every different appliance I have - the free market will sort things out eventually)
>decide to cook an average dinner (fried raccoon) because its all I can afford after working 12 hours a day (wages are gonna go up any day now, they said so)
>turn on the stove
>due to all the fighting between PMCs for control, power shortages are constant occurrences
>one of them short circuits an electrical outlet
>the fire rises
>realize I ran out of tap water after my bimonthly shower
>try to put out the fire with my drinking water (tap water is not potable)
>its not working
>run outside and go to a neighbors house to call for help
>get shot for invading their personal space and violating their NAP
>>72277074
The poor quality of life you're describing reminds me more of communism than anything
>>72277493
gulags have better conditions than houses in anarchocapitalist societies
Fucking ancaps, absolute retards
