>>79540753
It's a shitty color scheme.
It's libertarian
Corporation's main goal is maximizing profit above all else and that's a bad approach to many essential services.
Also, name me one place on the world full of millions of people that has existed, stayed peaceful and prosperous for decades without a state holding it together.
You can't, it doesn't exist because it doesn't happen.
>>79540753
its 50% black and 50% yellow
>>79541418
shit wrong image
>>79540753
Misunderstood.
>>79540984
Well, people who believe in ancap ideals can form a community based on such ideals, and if they don't agree with them anymore, they leave it. Same for ancoms. As long as they respect voluntaryism, it could work, I guess.
>>79541782
>As long as they respect voluntaryism, it could work, I guess.
Yeah, but what if they don't?
>>79540823
Other than this it's perfect.
chaos followed by feudalism
>>79543481
In that case The Police™ can shoot them
>>79540753
Money commands social power. A state apparatus will inevitably arise in one form or the other (by state I mean the entity through which the capitalist class legislate their interests into existence). "Ethical consumption" is a fucking dream, given that hundreds of companies are involved in the production of a single pencil and it is impossible for the less wealthy to even opt for more expensive ethical products, let alone know which companies are ethical and which aren't and what companies are involved in the production of what commodity.
Hell, welfare is a tool of the capitalist class to suck out money from the middle class to pay the poor so the bourgeoisie can pay their workers less than living wages. If ancaps wanted to eliminate welfare they would be getting rid of this essential tool.
Anarchists have always been opposed to capitalism anyway. Anarcho-capitalism is an anachronism and a retarded one at that.
>>79544444
Pents wasted on a retard.
What stops the world's armies from teaming up now and taking control of everything?
>>79541651
No, just fucking inane.
>>79546005
Because then they wouldn't be armies and tools of the warmongering imperialist bourgeoisie. They'd just be armed proletarians mostly. And it's probably global revolution that's motivating that.
we need government handouts to prevent monopolies
>>79540984
>corporation's main goal is maximizing profit
>you can't make money or enjoy spending it if you don't do business in a way that maintains a peaceful, prosperous society where you have a good reputation
>>79546771
>corporation is theft
>>79540823
Actually like the color scheme - it's BVB senpai
>>79546005
basic geopolitics
>>79540984
>Corporation's main goal is maximizing profit above all else and that's a bad approach to many essential services.
No because maximizing profit (monetary, societal power, whatever) is the main goal for people of all stripes it has always been. People just believe the state is exempt from this because they just believe shitty age-old rhetoric.
The state is a political tool which people use to control the profit-maximizing of other people, therefore maximizing their own.
The selfishness of people is the most reliable way of making people work together. It has held modern states, non-modern states etc, all the way to hunter gatherer tribes together.
Now because of socio-technologial change people grew out of being hunter gatherers a mere 10000 years ago. What makes you think socio-technological forces (basically manifested human brain power) can't make us abandon the state apparatus, as it has had us abandon many many forms of government before.
Give me an argument not just a reply.
>>79540753
too minimalist
>>79546978
>basic geopolitics
Which disappear magically as states do, right?
>>79540911
No it's ancap. Libertarian has government just not very much.
>>79540753
Private property is theft from everyone.
>>79546458
And how's that really working for us in the modern world?
mainstream media, entertainment industries, military industrial and massive drug companies spring to mind...
>>79549295
I'll bite. Why?
>>79546458
>>79549761
Shit I forgot the food industry and probably many more.
>people are flawed
>I know! lets have flawed people rule over us!
>>79543481
They get expelled from society. In other words no one trades anything with them, because they wouldn't be trusted if they won't play by the same rules. Then they could make their own culture of not respecting property rights, somewhere else, and watch it burn.
>>79540753
Nothing, why do you ask?
>>79549842
Private property is tools and other forms of capital which the bourgeoisie excludes from usage by others. Private property holds the means of production which naturally must exploit the workers for profit to be turned.
>>79541418
>>79550301
So they should become the private property of everyone?
I mean, should everyone have some rights over them? For example in a village of fifty would I own 1/50 of everything in that village? So that if I wanted to do anything I had to ask the permission of 49 people?
>>79550301
>exploit
Did the evil capitalist put a gun to the workers head and said "I'll force you to work for me, in exchange for a wage"? Or did it come from a voluntary transaction?
>>79540753
>muh "freedoms" to: pollute the environment, sell meth to kids, sell babies, driving down wages to shit, eliminate competition through cartels, depriving a population of water and then have them pay for it, pretty much do whatever the fuck i want using the masses for my own amusement and if they try to rise put them down with my private army
>>79550212
ayy
>>79550301
Tools and other forms of capital that they legally purchased thus it is there's to do whatever they wish with. They could destroy it right after they purchase it if they'd like. They are under no obligation to relinquish their property to someone else.
>>79540753
Belka is fine. Long live Belka.
Yuktobania is scum.
>>79550812
So.. that's what you would do if would think someone wouldn't put you down for it. That tells so much about you and nothing about a situation where no one, who would think those things immoral, would engage in trade with you, and would rather trade only with the 98% or so of people who respect themselves and others.
>>79551360
see
>>79545976
Have fun finding out who is really the evil guy when he has a 100 front companies each with 100 front companies each with 100 front companies and so on
>>79551541
This simply creates an important incentive to produce and manage good and honest reputation.
>>79551727
How? If dick mc dickerson can just put a million front companies who is going to tell you "hey, the guy that is dumping cancer into the ground water is this guy"? The government? Oh right it doesn't exist in the "libertarian utopia" or it will be so stripped of powers that it would be fucking useless anyway at helping
>>79550552
Yeah, for some reason accepting a low wage is exploiting them when the other alternatives are to get a better job or be unemployed.
>>79545976
Okey try this.
People have practiced:
-civilization: 10000 years old, here you can make the argument that "the entity through which the capitalist class legislate their interests into existence" existed
-hunting and gathering: as homo sapiens at least 200000 years. Here the supposed capitalist class did and could not exist.
Now are you actually claiming that, even though the socio-technological forces (culture and technology) can change human societies this radically, we are stuck with the "capitalist class" forever barring the possibility of a communist utopia?
Or by your argument what prevents that "A state apparatus will inevitably arise in one form or the other" in your proposed communist utopia?
>>79551916
>how?
Do you trust the few monopolistic (achieved through government legislature by preventing free entry into the marketplace btw) companies say in the medical, food, military industry, entertainment and media spheres?
In other words, would you use an alternative to these if you could?
>>79540753
"No roads, no cops, no problem!"
>>79552921
Not
>>79553020
There is a government keeping them in check.
If you want the "liberal utopia" look no further than mainland china were literal nobodies build shitty escalators/lifts out of scrap taken from a nearby junk heap without the slightest hint of safety checks. Result: maiming and death by people falling into the gears or by the elevator not having a functioning door obstructed sensor.
Also gutter oil, MMMMMMMMMMM! Taste like "free market"
>>79552013
They seem to forget that even poor people can be "evil capitalists". Enterpreneurship is the force that moves mankind forward.
>>79553357
>There is a government keeping them in check.
Yeeeah. no.
>what is lobbying?
The state apparatus (concentration of power and a monopoly of jurisdiction, violence and courts) is precisely the way companies can prevent healthy competition in the marketplace.
By having much greater leverage (lobbying) than the small businessmen, they push laws which stop small businesses from competing in a legally level market.
See pic related. Also consider for just a second why the "big business" does not lobby for small government if it would benefit them.. While it is true that some laws stop big businesses from fucking people over more than they do, mostly they are content with fucking with the competition through even more draconian legislature. Ever wonder why?
>>79553357
Doing those things would be against the NAP.
>>79554139
And how are you going to enforce the "NAP"? You and... What private army again?
It couldn't survive. Saying force is immoral doesn't vanquish it from existence.
>>79554071
>a fucking excuse for a propaganda "infographic" that is neither "info" nor "graphic"
What was that thing again with "you really convinced me with those hot opinions"?
>>79554225
I don't know, I guess society would expell them. It would be in the interest of everybody.
>>79554802
Again, how are you going to enforce that?
And you still haven't answered on how will the perpetrator be identified at all when he has front companies up the ass and can throw a bunch of red tape to make any investigation take up 1000000000 years
>>79540753
dude feudalism lmao
>>79554225
Private Police™
>>79554236
That's why you have the Private Police™
>>79554309
Paradise
>>79554965
>Again, how are you going to enforce that?
It's the interest of everybody to expel them
>>79554965
Well, what's stopping him from doing the same thing now?
>>79554225
For example my family and neighborhood with guns, if a private company is out of the question for some reason. No need for armies, unless you are faced by one. And if you are, then you just need other people interested in national (national as in scale) defence. If you don't think people wouldn't invest in self-defence, care to argument for it?
Thing is these tired "but won't warlords take over" scenarios are refuted in a daily basis:
https://mises.org/sites/default/files/longanarchism.pdf
If it truly is fear of warfare you are concerned about, I would point you to look at every war in history and think very hard.
>>79554351
>not answering the post
Nice going there. But if you are only concerned about the infographic, Feel free to refute it.
>>79555254
>private police
>oops i (read: a nth front for dick mc dickerson) accidentally a bunch of thousand dollar bills to the chief, case closed
>Well, what's stopping him from doing the same thing now?
Dunno, a government? You know, the things that have a lot of power and make the laws and enforce them.
>>79554236
Not force, but the initiation of force. pls read on what you are arguing against here, before spouting nonsense.
>buy properties around small town
>build wall on my property trapping them in
>hire guards
>if they try to escape they open fire on them
Literally what can stop me from doing this?
It's fucking slavery: corporations edition.
>>79555690
Sure, the company could buy off that private security force, but what about competing private security forces?
Don't you see the amount of money one could make by winning a lawsuit against the company?
>doesn't matter, the xbox hueg company will be able to buy everyone
This company must be doing really good to bear such an extreme cost. Nah, totally impractical in a free market.
>>79555690
>implying the first case from your post can't be applied to your second case
>implying you can't have watchdogs
>>79540984
Government's main goal is to maximize power above all else
They both have ill motivations, but at least the corporation has to obtain their ends through voluntary means.
>>79545976
Power commands power. Your argument only supports anti-statism by emphasizing that the real issue is the emergence of statism and coercion.
>>79546458
The state is a coercive monopoly which is a tool used by massive corporations to create more monopolies.
>>79556135
>Nah, totally impractical in a free market
>someone tries to compete with corporation in ie:food distribution
>corporation run food distribution at a loss for some time borrowing money from other sources of revenue (ie: car manufacturing)
>guy is out of a job and has no money, possibly ends up working for corporation because competition is stifled
>other people are scared to try to challenge corporation because the guy now is reduced to blow dicks in order to scrape enough to eat
>rinse and repeat with any other potential competition
Wowsohard.jpg
>>79554965
If a guy in your neighborhood opens the trashbags and kicks the trash all over the street, do you need an army or police? No, it's just one guy.
Likewise, there's not many people who would make defective lifts or use gutter oil for cooking, so you wouldn't need an army.
And you can videotape the lift making process and hold everyone responsible with their personal names, not the name of the company.
>>79540753
Sufficiently advanced anarcho-capitalism is indistinguishable from fascism. You need to physically remove democrats, communists, and cultural marxists to prevent the subversion of the society from reverting into a state.
>>79554309
>implying there would be a kindergarten
lmao
>>79555957
Gee I dunno, the people and their guards both inside and outside maybe.
But on a more serious note, why would you do that? to extort the people inside maybe? All you would create is a massive backlash of action.
The better course of action would be to negotiate a deal with the people inside that you would use your wall to defend them, if people agreed you would not only gain some money without a potentially violent backlash but a customer base and trust.
But even this ridiculous scenario is only valid if people would actually need walls outside their towns etc.
So there, co-operation is actually more profitable for everyone on a simple economic basis of risk-management. The state handicaps this principle since it warps markets for most things using violence as it's MO.
Roads.
>>79556525
So you're giving me an example of a very efficient corporation that can drive potential competitors away, not through state intervention, but through consumer satisfaction (lower prices, better products). Exactly what is the problem here?
>>79556535
>Likewise, there's not many people who would make defective lifts or use gutter oil for cooking, so you wouldn't need an army.
If you look around there are .gifs of people being killed by faulty escalators or lifts in china. It is commonplace.
>And you can videotape the lift making process and hold everyone responsible with their personal names, not the name of the company.
You step into private property to film->NAP violation->ded. GREAT PLAN!
>>79555254
>It's the interest of everybody to expel them
But if the collective isn't organised, who is going to look out for them if the individuals that make up the collective only tend to their individual needs? You could also rephrase this question as: Who'd make sure the roads were built?
>>79556880
That you have what is effectively a government providing everything and dictating market law.
>>79556880
>Exactly what is the problem here?
Monopolism and deadweight loss.
>>79556583
Does anything in a fascist society use initiation of force to prevent voluntary association of any kind?
>>79557008
Really doubt a single corporation will be able to provide every single good and service. But even if such a corporation was able to do so in a free market, it was because of consumer satisfaction.
>>79557139
The only bad monopoly are the state-enforced ones. Monopolies that arise in a free market do so because they were the most efficient at consumer satisfaction. As a consumer, I can't complain, because by definition I'm satisfied. If I were not satisfied, I would "vote with my money" and choose the competition that satisfies me the most.
That's the free market in a nutshell.
It's infantile and babyish to think the state is totally unnecessary.
Normal lolbertarianism for me, please.
>>79556951
>But if the collective isn't organised
The big if. It would be if there is incentive to, wouldn't it? Since people are free to associate with and trade as you wish.
>Who'd make sure the roads were built?
Everyone who has an interest in roads existing. Supply will meet demand.
>>79557418
And when the corporation start cutting corners and reduce quality while employing thugs to intimidate small business? Remember that at this stage the corporation is almost all powerful. The only thing that could stop it would be a government but OOOOOPS! There are no governments in the libertarian paradise
>>79557476
>It's infantile and babyish to think the state is totally unnecessary.
>Normal lolbertarianism for me, please.
That's nice, but you do know that's not an argument right?
>>79557822
Are you saying you want me... shot?
>>79556916
Of course there are people who make them, but it's few people who make them. So it wouldn't take an army to expel them, that's my point.
And the making of a product that can kill you needs to have inspectors making sure the lift is made properly, so by not allowing the safety inspection of the lift making process he is going against the NAP. So in this case, filming private property wouldn't be against the NAP.
By the way, I'm not an ancap, I'm assuming the role of one for the sake of argument.
>>79540753
It's very difficult or impossible for a society to produce and distribute public goods without enforcement.
That's the problem.
>>79557779
>And when the corporation starts cutting corners and reduce quality while employing thugs to intimidate small business
That's when the competition enters.
If you think you can do better, you compete. You could even take a gamble and use the financial markets to finance your enterprise. That's the role of the enterpreneur.
>>79556642
I believe the frogposter was referring to kindergarten aged children
>>79557893
Explain china then. The faulty escalator gets installed anyway, someone dies and nothing is done.
>>79557779
>And when the corporation start cutting corners and reduce quality
Competition wins, unless there is demand for lower quality goods.
>while employing thugs to intimidate small business
Small businesses can employ their own. Or at least protect what's theirs by their own hand, so there would be a whole lot to intimidate for a single company.
If they use violence though, they have to raise wages for their thugs to compensate for increased risk of wounding or dying. This leads to economic inefficiency which drives the competitiveness to the ground.
Also people not wanting to associate with a violent, coercive business.
>>79557705
>The big if. It would be if there is incentive to, wouldn't it? Since people are free to associate with and trade as you wish.
800 years ago people in this country started so called 'waterschappen' to make sure we didn't drown.. Those are the oldest governmental institutions of our country. I doubt the free market would have fixed it, or will fix it. It's better to have no profit margins involved in not drowning.
>Supply will meet demand
It doesn't though. To a local degree, maybe.. But if you want to drive from Amsterdam to Helsinki, it's probably nice that there are some state-made arrangements like bridges, roads and maybe a ferry or two.
>>79557885
Why yes of course.
> control+f "public goods"
> only result is mine.
Come on now, /pol/.
>>79557349
If the Ancap society were to wish to remain being ancap, it would need a form of collective action to repeal communists. The business owners would also have to repeal worker unions that wish to seize the means of production since communists would brainwash the population through the media or any other means. In effect, in practice, it would look indistinguishable from a fascist/free market state+weed somewhere. Not to mention religious zealots like ISIS would try to destroy it as well, and they will invade like they are doing now in Europe. "Muh freedome of movement" and then you're invaded by muslims. So it doesn't last without protection. Anarcho capitalism can only survive within the borders of a fascistic border and demographic control.
>>79558055
Please define public goods. Also whatever they are, why wouldn't people want to produce the supply to meet the demand of such goods?
>>79558406
>Please define public goods
Streets and the facilities that go with them, roads, highways, signs, bridges, levies, dykes, dunes (ours are largely artificial) and that's not even getting into public services and utilities.
>why wouldn't people want to produce the supply to meet the demand of such goods?
Why would I care if the road leads to Dresden if I never go past Arnhem? Why would I need signs to point me to Arnhem if I know where it is? Why build a bridge 200 km from my house if I can make a detour to avoid the river. What do I care if people in Zeeland drown if I live in Groningen?
>>79558406
In economics lingo, goods that are excludable, rival, and have no significant externalities.
In more common terms, goods that cannot be produced or distributed privately. They Inherently have some social properties.
It's no longer as simple as supply and demand. Because these goods now involve different consumers who have different utilities and might lie about their true values, yet must make purchases collectively.
No roads.
>>79558239
>800 years ago people in this country started so called 'waterschappen' to make sure we didn't drown.. Those are the oldest governmental institutions of our country. I doubt the free market would have fixed it, or will fix it. It's better to have no profit margins involved in not drowning.
If people in sufficient numbers deem such action sufficiently important to pay for it's existence, they will. If however they won't they are willing to risk not taking such such an action, they won't.
What do you see as the problem here?
>It doesn't though. To a local degree, maybe.. But if you want to drive from Amsterdam to Helsinki, it's probably nice that there are some state-made arrangements like bridges, roads and maybe a ferry or two.
Of course people will prefer to fund something they need, right? Or are we in disagreement over human nature or something?
If there is enough need to such a service in the marketplace (potential paying customers), there's nothing stopping people from establishing solutions which answer to these needs..
>>79558940
Shit, I just defined private goods, not public goods!
Public goods are the opposite of what I said. Goods that are nonexcludable, or nonrival, or do have significant externalities.
Sorry. What I said are private goods. Opposite of public.
What is it, some kind of naval signal flag?
>>79550301
Ownership of one's own body is theft you are saying? If the opposite of theft is slavery, I'd gladly endorse theft.
>>79559096
>What do you see as the problem here?
It's not a problem.. I'm just saying that typically if there is incentive to solve some kind of collective problem, in our case not drowning, that eventually that tends to lead to a sort of government being formed.. And governments don't have black and yellow flags.
>If there is enough need to such a service in the marketplace (potential paying customers), there's nothing stopping people from establishing solutions which answer to these needs..
And for many things, those solutions typically take the form of some kind of government..
>>79559061
Private roads exist dimwit
>>79558882
>>79558940
See
>>79559096
>>79559442
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-somerset-28639196
This enterpreneur had the insight to see in the market that there was a demand for a road like this, so he did it. I think that 'not drowning' is a much more urgent collective problem.
>>79559553
Roads are not what I would particularly call a public good. They have no externalities, are very rival, and are pretty much excludable.
>>79559096
This is disingenuous. A Scandinavian's idea of the State pretty much already is a Libertarian's idea of a properly voluntary communal project.
>>79559774
Roads are rival, consume public land and are only semi excludable.
>>79559825
>a statement, reason, or fact for or against a point
>>79559774
>Roads are not what I would particularly call a public good.
Transportation is the bedrock of modern society you dipshit. And they wouldnt happen in a completely free market society. There's no way to enforce any tolls or make any real cooperatives that can fund them.
>>79558346
This.
Heil Cantwell.
>>79560167
Did you forget I'm arguing in favor of the necessity of enforcing public goods, you stupid fuck?
This is all pointless quibbling over a meme topic and how viable toll booths are.
Why don't we stop wasting each other's time and turn our attention to a unambiguous public good, such as security?
>>79559442
>I'm just saying that typically if there is incentive to solve some kind of collective problem
If people living in an area do not consider a problem to be worth their money and attention is it really a problem to them?
Now drowning is certainly a problem and I can't see a possibility of ignoring it if you wish to live in an area with such a risk. Therefore people will pay companies to construct and maintain dams, if they do not wish to do so they wouldn't take the risk of drowning and simply decide to live elsewhere, right?
>And for many things, those solutions typically take the form of some kind of government..
But does it necessitate a government? It might have been so in history but many people of voluntaryist persuasion think that living the information age is very possible without a regional monopolistic entity.
Government officials then forcibly tax people and pay the lowest quality (private) supplier possible and use rest of the money to lobby and subsidize their own businesses or interests in the marketplace. Those objecting will simply be deterred through the monopoly on violence.
This is why it is important to "cut the middle man".
>>79558346
That's why ancaps eventually all become fascists/"neo-reactionaries".
>>79560479
1433 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RP9yV9ISnBk
>>79559774
I was not only speaking of roads.
The point is that supply will meet demand.
>>79559911
>This is disingenuous.
Why?
>A Scandinavian's idea of the State pretty much already is a Libertarian's idea of a properly voluntary communal project.
Can you elaborate, I don't understand?
>>79559825
Nice one Stef, you really showed them.
>>79561084
You are morally obliged to pay me.
>>79558346
>>79560710
This is something I've been wondering about lately. I definitely see how it would require a strong and healthy monoculture.
But does it have to go as far as to be referred to as fascism? I can see how, in modern world's degeneracy, a somewhat strict code of conduct would be necessary. But do you think would these kinds of actions would actually require a state monopoly?
Enough whining over definitions. Let me just write out a nice concrete example.
Suppose we all live in a community together with no government, and there's a problem with thieves in the area. We can pay money to hire security and fix the problem, and by talking to each other, it's clear that overall, people are willing to pay a total that is greater than the cost of the security. So collectively, it's a good decision.
However, it must be made clear, this is a collective decision only. A public good. There is no option to provide security for only the houses willing to pay. Either security is hired, which deters thieves and protects the entire area, or it isn't, and the area area is unsecured.
So a little bit of math is done, and we figure out how much each person needs to pay. And then you come to me. And I say, I don't care about security, I can defend myself just fine and therefore place no value on hiring more security. Therefore, I shouldn't have to pay for it.
The thing is, you have no idea if I'm telling the truth. I might really think the security is worthless. Or I might be lying and thinking the security is worth the money, but misleading you simply so I don't have to pay. Because remember, as long as it's paid for collectively, I enjoy the benefit whether I personally contributed or not.
So what is your response to that? It's clear, overall, the majority of the community is willing to pay their share of the fee for the security. The security is clearly a collectively good idea. Do you just allow me to not contribute, and enjoy the benefits anyway? Keep in mind, you're letting it be known to everyone they can escape the same payments in the future by doing the same thing.
>>79561517
But I only have a dollar and.. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8CM_--di7L8
>>79561084
Scandinavians had the Althing and voluntary Christian Socialism. Everybody else had a tyrant beating the money and labor out of them. Your idea of government is or was our utopia. Libertarianism and true Communism are indistinguishable.
>>79561853
You are clearly genetically unfit if you can consume my wisdom and still not make money.
You must ask for voluntary charity from friends and family, then give it to me.
Honestly, It has to be tried before anyone really knows where Ancap will work and not.
I think it could work, but a small small government is needed. Dishonest hustlers would wreak havoc in a pure Ancap society. I'm thinking a Frank Fontaine, Al Capone, or some other populist criminal preying on the unlucky and stupid. Ancap would also require a highly educated populace.
>>79562065
>Scandinavians had the Althing
Keyword: had
>voluntary Christian Socialism
>Everybody else had a tyrant beating the money and labor out of them.
Thing is that socialism is not voluntary. But I'm not even sure what age and what government you are specifically referring to. Anyway, there have been and is plenty of corruption and misuse of power in the north throughout the centuries. Just like everywhere else.
>Your idea of government is or was our utopia.
Whatever you are referring to with "was", I honestly hope that you don't mean the modern states of scandinavia. They're shit. These "socialist paradises" are teeming with corruption. Thing is the states here handle their corruption way better than in say mediterranean countries and therefore the corruption practiced here pretty much does not show up on international studies. In finland we have a specific word: "virkamieskorruptio" Which roughly translates to corruption of officials. The government's welfare programs are used as schemes to make "dirty" money for a lot of "social workers" for example.
>>79562298
The fact that you use big words and the way shut down retarded kids on your call in show shows you must be correct about everything.
I will pay you.
Hail messiah Stef!
But srsly now, despite some creepy character flaws, the guy is on the money on a lot of matters.
>>79562481
Now I'm not going to deny that crime would still exist in an ancap society; some people interact with others through voluntary transactions, and others use force (criminals).
However, Al Capone is a pretty bad example to use. Prohibition-era gangsters and modern drug cartels have the power they have because of state regulation. Can't think of a better barrier of entry to competition like simple prohibition of the good in question.
>>79540753
Your boss becomes your new president. The cycle starts again.
That and there is only one concern for government: It is the rule of many by the few no matter what you call it. Period.
>>79564049
Good point, but it wasn't Al Capone's rise to power is what i was referring to. It was his staying power. With the all powerful US government, he had to be convicted of tax evasion. His syndicate committed murders, arson, bribery, racketeering, pretty much everything and he was a king of Chicago.
A guy like that who figures out how to rise to power in an Ancap society. With charm, bribery, and the right connections would rule a city or larger. Barbarism is no joke, and I still think a small tiny government is needed.
>>79546005
America and Canada, and to a lesser extent the UK
>>79540984
People want good service, corporations want money. In accordance with competition and supply+demand, both of their needs will be met.
