>>81411827
Why do you hate the freedom?
>>81411942
Because your uniforms look like shit.
>>81411827
>tfw use other guys meme but not mine, when you ask me to make it
>>81412282
h-he was faster, me lad.
I saved both, and will spam them whenever edgy teenagers start posting fugg the pigs.
>>81413116
Do you have healthcare in Iceland?
>>81412496
Thanks. I also screenshot a couple of your arguments. You made some pretty good points my friend.
>>81413399
There's universal healthcare.
>>81412496
>statism is the only way to achieve roads, hospitals, and transport
Come on now.
>>81413965
Nah, its far better to have 4 competing roads literally right next to each other (assuming the person who built the first road doesn't own ALL the land around that one road preventing competition.)
>>81413965
With Roads on an urban-city scale, yeah. It's a lot more efficient.
Public transport is also really nice.
>>81414102
>competition is a bad thing
Statist philosophy at its core, folks.
>>81414114
Slavery is efficient too. Fortunately, there are other factors to consider when determining the correct course of action.
>>81413715
Thanks, man. What ideology are you, by the aay? I'm an unironic national socialist.
>>81414102
I have not ever seen identical private owned stores which a placed next to each other and competing with each other.
>>81414421
>not addressing the argument
Typical An-cap behaviour at its core folks
>Slavery is efficient too
How can you guarantee that slavery wouldn't exist in a society that values profit and personal property over everything?
>>81411827
I guess old thread is dead.
Long live our new Chinese overlords!
>>81415076
At least they can build roads
>>81414421
Yeah, but I'm getting a pretty good deal here. i live in a better society because I am made to pay tax. Actually, I'm not. I can go on the dole and get free money.
False equivalency.
>>81414977
I addressed the argument. It is obviously better to have 4 roads rather than 1, which is something you would understand if you actually owned a car.
>t in a society that values profit and personal property over everything
Your right to property comes from your right to life. Slavery is an explicit violation of the right to life and self-ownership, so by definition such a society would reject it.
>>81415260
>I'm getting a pretty good deal here
>I can go on the dole and get free money.
First of all, TANSTAAFL. Second of all, congrats on being a nigger I guess.
>>81415403
Nice image macro
Really advances your argument
Keep at it
>mfw when our only chance at efficient government is gone forever
>>81415403
I literally made an argument.
You ancaps are the most autistic fuckers on earth I swear. You so blind to human emotion that you ironically think that anarchy is in any way good.
>>81415492
What rights?
There's no meaningful authority to enforce/protect them?
>>81415492
>First of all, TANSTAAFL.
What?
> Second of all, congrats on being a nigger I guess.
I never said I am going on the dole, you dumbass ancap whore. I was making the point that I live in a society in which I don't actually have to pay taxes.
>>81414459
The point, retard, is that in your example it doesn't if they HAVE to its that they CAN'T and so they find other solutions.
> Positive claims require evidence and all that.
> Toll booths are the only way to pay for toll roads, it's not like people could invent new ways ever for the whole of time.
And in all honesty I wouldn't mind finding a worthwhile way to get rid off worthless fucking pennies they are shit tier monies
>>81415492
How would a society without a government deal with human trafficking? Saying society would reject it is about as absurd as a communist saying society will work for the betterment of all.
![Screen-Shot-2014-07-26-at-8.33.51-AM[1].png](https://i.imgur.com/1qUy3oe.png "Screen-Shot-2014-07-26-at-8.33.51-AM[1].png")
>>81415563
>Nice image macro
Not an argument.
>>81415729
>You ancaps are the most autistic fuckers on earth I swear. You so blind to human emotion that you ironically think that anarchy is in any way good.
Not an argument.
>>81415913
Its not an argument if its the truth.
>>81415913
This isn't an argument either, because no arguments are present. This is an argument.
>>81415866
Society rejects it until it becomes profitable
>>81415492
>Your right to property comes from your right to life
Who is stopping Tycoon Ted from having his private security firm enslave the poor? Who's going to protect these people when they can't afford legal or physical protection? Or is everyone supposed to obey some kind non binding code of conduct which has virtually no consequence for breaking.
> addressed the argument. It is obviously better to have 4 roads rather than 1, which is something you would understand if you actually owned a car.
What if the owner of the original road owns ALL the land around it, so much so that getting to where you needed to go was impossible. You didn't really address that part did you.
>>81416188
Which apparently human trafficking is very profitable. I mean there are lots easier ways to make money, but apparently its a thing.
>>81416282
To be fair, without government property is just whoever have the most guns, so you could just take the property if you can afford a small army.
>>81411827
ancap does work if you'll be fine when everybody else gets fucked. You just look at other humans like a resource anyway. That's ancap. Everything was put here for you. Even other people.
>>81415834
>There's no meaningful authority to enforce/protect them?
You think people who support such a system of rights won't try to protect them?
>>81415846
>I live ina society in which I don't actually have to pay taxes
If you never purchase anything and live in the wilderness, I suppose. Otherwise, you're paying them, whether directly or indirectly.
>>81415866
Human trafficking in what sense? Like sex slavery? Or just illegal transport of immigrants?
In the former case, probably the same way as we do now (because recall, police and courts will still be a thing). In the latter, it wouldn't, since the idea of "illegal travel" makes no sense in the context of anarchism.
>>81416380
But then the Ancap ideology crashes and burns and we've reverted to feudalism.
I thought Ancaps claimed that their "utopian" system would also include some degree of stability.
>>81416534
>If you never purchase anything and live in the wilderness, I suppose. Otherwise, you're paying them, whether directly or indirectly.
I can work cash in hand and receive dole payments, or just receive dole payments if I don't want to pay tax. I, however, don't mind paying tax, but I have worked cash in hand in the past.
Ultimately this means I have a choice.
To anyone that isn't an autistic moral absolutionist, the Australian society isn't in need of reform. We have it really good, and ancap won't make my life, or the lives of anyone easier.
>>81414748
Somewhere between constitutional monarchy and fascist totalitarian dictatorship.
Main objectives:
-funding the sciences
-funding non-degenerate art
-preserving the white race
-large, powerful military
-colonization of Mars
-Space and deep sea exploration
Religion:
-Christian, by cultural means.
Law:
-Most cases, eye for an eye.
Social:
-Forced castration for repeat criminals, imbeciles, transgenders, and SJWs.
-Deportation of Blacks, Muslims, unattractive Hispanics, and annoying chinks.
-Execution for serial killers, pedophiles, child molesters, murders committed in the 1st or 2nd degree, anyone who has committed a violent crime, rapists, etc.
Foreign policy:
-Try to develop an empire
-If country that has become colony of the US is a native country to muslims/blacks/etc. then deportation law becomes inactive
Should I keep going or no
>>81416534
Who will pay for the police or courts without taxes?
>>81416534
>You think people who support such a system of rights won't try to protect them?
Yes, people will try to protect them.
But this'll just lead to a constant state of conflict/tension between those who believe in the rights and those who don't.
>>81416534
>(because recall, police and courts will still be a thing)
How will they be funded? Taxes? Or should I say THEFT DON'T TREAD ON ME MOTHERFUCKER
>>81415403
>>81415913
I and my friends bought an attack helicopter from the now disbanded army.
How do you stop me from robbing, raping, and pillaging all you hold dear?
>>81416812
See that's the thing. Humans have naturally wanted to build empires for the past 5,000 years.
Eventually someone outside the anarcho capitalist society builds up an Empire and decides they want to colonize what was the anarcho capitalists.
Given the AC's can't afford a military industrial complex because they can't figure out who will pay for it without taxes, the outside empire will win in the end.
>>81416812
I agree with you on most of this but what do we have to gain from deep sea exploration?
Also, I want forced sterilisation of sex offenders, but don't feel non sex related crimes should be punishable by it. A lot should be punishable by the death penalty though.
If it were me I would give every person with an IQ lower than 100 (mainly minorities) 10 years to leave the country, if they stayed they'd be sterilised, but suffer no further punishment, so in 100 years the average intelligence of our socieities would skyrocket.
>>81412496
>implying you aren't a teenaged faggot
>>81417101
This. Anarcho-Capitalism is basically a mixture of the worst of feudalism and tribalism. And in the end they all fall.
>>81417101
>b-but muh private armies
I agree. Ancaps are a complete joke. An Ancap society will and would never be able to exist. My society would just take it over.
>>81416812
>>81415403
I have to say it's the perfect argument.
>>81416824
Apperantly the courts and police are privately owned.
Courts and cops obviously won't show preferential treatment to their customers and owners because that would be wrong. And god forbid a corporation doing something morally wrong, gee, that would be soooo bad for business i guess.
And supposedly they will be objective or else they will have shitty reviews or some shit like that and they'll go out of business...after screwing a bunch of people over first of course. Oh and direct bribing will be commonplace because there are no laws or consequences preventing people in power from being be bribed.
>>81416797
>I can work cash in hand
What do you spend that cash on? If you ever go to a store, you pay some form of consumption tax, as well as indirectly paying property and income taxes of the business via prices elevated above equilibrium.
Again, the only option for not paying tax is living innawoods and being totally self-sufficient.
>>81416824
>>81416983
>>81417015
People who want police protection and court services. Which happens to be most people, because in functional societies, there are far more people who want to be protected from criminals, than there are criminals who want to be protected to render their criminal activity less dangerous.
Bear in mind that we are not talking about a forceful monopoly consisting of a single police agency and a single court system. There would likely be a good deal of security services and arbitration agencies, like there are today. But market forces will incentivize them to cater to the largest possible consumer base, so those services that want to help rapists and mass-murderers will have almost no funding and military power (if they even exist at all).
>>81417101
Why in an anarcho-capitalist would one person not essentially act as dictator because they had a monopoly on everything? Then wouldn't the worldwide corporation make slow shifts into being just like a modern day authoritarian dictatorship? Seems more like a means to an end than anything
>>81417592
Well I'm sure that your police force will be very well equipped by well meaning citizens who want to take down massively profitable global slavery cartels out of the goodness of their hearts.
>>81417592
Yes, but why would any of these independent courts respect each other's rulings at all?
>>81417591
>Courts and cops obviously won't show preferential treatment to their customers and owners because that would be wrong.
Of course they would, that's the point. However, the larger the organization, the less likely it is to do that, since its customer base is more diverse.
Also, are you suggesting this doesn't happen already? You think the fucking chief of police ever gets speeding tickets?
>god forbid a corporation doing something morally wrong, gee, that would be soooo bad for business i guess.
Yes
>they'll go out of business...after screwing a bunch of people over first of course
Yes. Right now, politicians go out of business for doing the same thing and end up without so much as a slap on the wrist, so you're not making a very good case for statism.
>direct bribing will be commonplace
Will you give your money to a security service that would be willing to shoot you if some asshole paid them enough, with zero consequences? Come on. And again, bribery happens all the time right now, so your argument fails to demonstrate the advantage of statism.
You have to forget the notion that anclapism aims to be a utopian paradise. If you held statism to the same standard, it would seem just as ludicrous. Anarchists merely claim that anarchism is better than statism.
>>81417592
Yeah, I could go self sufficient. Ultimately that is a choice. And you don't pay tax on the dole. The government is basically taxing themselves if you count the GST.
Personally I think the GST is a problem, and one of the only thigns that is a problem here.
But even if we were forced to pay tax, that doesn't mean our lives aren't better for it. And against, there is always the dole.
>>81418200
What's preventing security forces from making mandatory payments? I mean you might own a gun, but if there are 30 guys showing up at your house, you are going to be able to kill so many of them before they get you.
>>81417360
>I agree with you on most of this but what do we have to gain from deep sea exploration?
What did we have to gain about going to the moon?
We know less about the bottom of the ocean than we know about the Moon. You never know what you might found down there.
>Also, I want forced sterilisation of sex offenders, but don't feel non sex related crimes should be punishable by it. A lot should be punishable by the death penalty though.
I strongly disagree. I believe serious sex offenders should be put against the wall and pedophiles/sex offenders tortured to death in the most painful way possible by the victim and victim's family. Their bodies should then be given to the other sex offenders as their only source of food.
>If it were me I would give every person with an IQ lower than 100 (mainly minorities) 10 years to leave the country, if they stayed they'd be sterilised, but suffer no further punishment, so in 100 years the average intelligence of our socieities would skyrocket
I believed this too a few months ago, but this is not possible. IQ is relative, and by removing people with an IQ under 100, you aren't doing anything but changing the population number. If you keep following this, you will never not have anyone under 100 until you kill everyone. This idea (which seems good at first) is not actually very good. The population should be judged by both IQ level, work ethic, general intelligence, knowledge on politics, science, history,etc.; not just IQ alone.
>>81412496
>Roads
Fucking triggered
>>81418200
In a "statist" society these corruption problems can be/are rectified by other elements within gov't, because they are acting for their country and ideals instead of just for financial gain.
I'm not denying that corruption in some form won't be present in a "statist" society, but corruption in an AnCap society would be far worse.
>>81417471
More like:
>>81418200
You actually want to trust private interests to uphold the law... You are a dumb cunt, my friend.
They will only uphold the law in instances they see convenient. The rich would be even more untouchable they they are today.
And you are deluded if you think a police force run for profit won't be doing OTHER things for profit. You have a monopoly on power at that point, and if you didn't you would start wars to gain it. Hence we have yet again a feudal system. You just don't understand that society STARTED ancap. People in tribes making decisions based on might and gain.
The stability of your society rests on people being good enough to uphold a pact that won't be enforced, especially if you are the one that is in the business of supporting it and then decide that slavery is more profitable that justice.
>>81417843
>massively profitable global slavery cartels
This exists in your imagination, m8.
>>81417949
Because going to war over a petty difference is bad for business. It's far more practical to agree on a unified code of rules (at least, for all the major things worth defending with full military force, like murder, rape, theft, etc), than to send your employees into constant firefights. Plus, it's not like there will be that many laws to rule on; most Western courts will tend to rule the same way when it comes to major crimes, the only difference is sentencing. And that gets ultimately determined by what the market (ie. society) demands.
>>81418406
A quick phone call to any other security service offering protection from this newfound mafia. Imagine for a moment that the government and police don't exist. McDonalds starts threatening customers at gunpoint and making them buy $100 worth of burgers when they come in the restaurant. How much revenue do you think they will make after a couple weeks? Will people still keep coming there?
Besides, this is what happens right now, so I don't see why you're so concerned.
>>81418669
>instead of just for financial gain
Why are you under the impression that anarcho capitalists have no ideals and only act for financial gain?
>>81418484
>roads
>>81418947
>It's far more practical to agree on a unified code of rules
Enter a new proto-government.
>>81418679
>You have a monopoly on power at that point
What part of "competing security services" is hard to understand?
>The stability of your society rests on people being good enough to uphold a pact that won't be enforced,
Of course it would be enforced. Do you really think that the government is the only entity capable of enforcing rights?
>>81419064
Or an old absolute monarch
>>81419064
The difference being that if you don't want their protection, you don't have to pay a dime. Just don't complain if you commit a crime against someone and the hammer comes down hard.
>>81419180
The part of competing security forces I don't understand is the part that supposedly stops them from forming a conglomerate, or fighting to the last man standing, and then controlling the while fucking country.
The balance you propose is too fucking delicate. And even if they were competing, nothing is stopping them from holding up in a zone of control, and then extracting wealth from their surroundings by force to whatever extent they please.
>Of course it would be enforced. Do you really think that the government is the only entity capable of enforcing rights?
I'm saying that government is the only powerful entity concerned with rights. Any other body with the power to enforce rights won't be obligated to do so. Sure, you can say that they can make money of protected the people, but more can be made of enslaving them.
This is how is has been through all of history, and you are retarded if you think it would change now.
>>81411827
An ethnically homogeneous state works because your tribe is an extended family.
>>81419507
>nothing is stopping them from holding up in a zone of control, and then extracting wealth from their surroundings by force to whatever extent they please.
Other than their own consumers, that is. Stop seeing businesses and employees and robotic and evil organizations.
>Any other body with the power to enforce rights won't be obligated to do so
What obligates the government to do so?
>>81419508
Hitler did nothing wrong.
>>81418947
One. Economic motivation won't stop an Islamist army which has united the Middle East after the USA stopped having a foreign army and decides to conquer the world.
Two. What if the private army has more guns than the other? What if all the armies work together to raise taxes from its citizens as long as they stay in each others turf?
>>81419290
Not much would stop me from forming a union of egoists and fighting back.
And what about muh NAP?
So you are saying that in the case of crime, the NAP can be broken on behalf of the victim? Interesting.
And again, these people with the guns will simply establish power bases. They have the guns, and as a result will be able to project a zone of control. Competing organizations would need to fight them to get that control and consumer revenue.
Their will be competing "defense" organizations, only they will be cartels of power over people. There is n nothing stopping this from happening. Having control over the people is far more profitable than having them pay for your services.
I thought anarco capitalism was just commerce without government interference. This thread is just about anarchy.
>>81418947
It's not profitable until one or two security companies buy up or destroy other competitors, creating a monoply/duoply.
Besides, these security companies/courts will only agree to these "ground rules" when it's convieniant for them/not cutting into their profit.
Let's say doing action X is against these "ground rules", and the CEO of Y security company does action X. Is security company Y obligated to arrest him, their CEO, and wreak financial havoc on their own company?
>>81419938
What else did you expect?
>>81418947
>Because going to war over a petty difference is bad for business
Having all the business to yourself is better for business though
Don't you realize that some people with power sometimes crave more power? That disagreements can become violent?
>Why are you under the impression that anarcho capitalists have no ideals and only act for financial gain?
You mention earlier that people will act rationally when it comes to running their business but that sometimes they act for other reasons too. So you contradict yourself by saying this.
>>81411827
>>81412496
I'm sorry shill but you haven't stated a single argument.
>>81419636
What obligates the government to do so is it's nature of existence. Western government exists for the people, not for itself. Not only that but their is the democratic factor. It EXISTS to do so. The founding fathers cared about freedom more than anyone, and they saw government necessary.
>Other than their own consumers, that is. Stop seeing businesses and employees and robotic and evil organizations
The armed consumers would best be in leagues with the armed organization, no? Remember that conglomerates are likely to form between "security" agencies and gun/ammo manufacturers. And business isn't evil because it isn't allowed to be evil. Business decimates third world nation's and their people when it is allowed. Will be as evil as it wants to be, and if their weren't governments in the world, it would form them.
Corporations and governments are not so different. The people on top are the people with power.
>>81417101
So, did Rome stand the test of time?
>>81420097
Jesus, at least make new memes. This one is more than common.
#yolo
Once there was a man who held a political make-work job like so many here...shining brass cannon around a courthouse. He did this for years...but he was not getting ahead in the world. So one day he quit his job, drew out his savings, bought a brass cannon – and went into business for himself.
>>81420195
Longer than the United States so far.
Hell the eastern empire lasted until 1453 when Islamists took over.
Really, unchecked Islam will conquer the world.
>>81419938
Ancaps want the complete dissolution of government and services like law, fire safety, crime prevention, etc privatized because they believe it will somehow cost them less than what they would otherwise pay in taxes and that it would somehow be more efficient without any government regulation whatsoever.
>>81420264
You could argue that it lasted until the fall of Byzantium.
And as a continuous state, it lasted a very long time.
Is the France we have today really the same France as before, what with it's monarchy dead? Is a parliamentary lead Britain the same as a Britain lead by monarchy? The boarders have stayed the same, but they are essentially different.
>>81420470
This was mean't for >>81420195
I deleted my Stef folder lads
post mems
>>81419702
>Economic motivation won't stop an Islamist army
Self-preservation is a pretty good motivator. People freely donate to starving African children, even though there is no motivation other than feeling like you're a good person (whether that money actually helps or not). People will most certainly put forward money when their very lives are on the line, are you insane?
>What if all the armies work together to raise taxes from its citizens as long as they stay in each others turf?
This is what governments do now, so they won't be any worse off. However, therein comes the cometition factor. If your security service turns rogue and decides to become a government, consumers will demand protection from THEM. Based on such high demand, competitors will stand to make a lot of money if they liberate them.
>>81419830
>Not much would stop me from forming a union of egoists and fighting back.
You mean, a criminal union? What would stop you is, as I explained, the fact that far more people desire protection from you than there are your kind who desire protection to commit crimes.
>in the case of crime, the NAP can be broken on behalf of the victim?
>non-aggression principle
>broken on behalf of the victim
I don't think you quite grasp what the NAP is.
>Having control over the people is far more profitable than having them pay for your services.
Until they start shooting your employees when they step outside their door to go to work. Until your executives get blown up when they turn their luxury car on. Until another security service rushes in with guns blazing because it actually caters to the consumers' demand for legitimate, above-board security services against mafia groups like yours.
>>81420437
>implying government bureaucracy is efficient in any way whatsoever
>>81417029
That goes against the non aggression principle. You wouldn't actually do it because you have internalised morality.
If you were a psychopath then get ready for someone with a PAD to take you down like the t*rks did to Russia
>>81416282
We are supposed to follow the societal agreement because we would be raised following universally preferable behavior and the non-agression principle.
Failure to comply would have you outnumbered society vs you which should have more funds
>>81419976
>until one or two security companies buy up or destroy other competitors
This is what is not profitable. Trying to buy up or battle against all competition is retarded. Firstly, it's a great way to spend all your money. Second, it's a great way to lose all your customers. Third, it's a great way to lose all prospective employees.
>only agree to these "ground rules" when it's convenient
Practically every society on the planet agrees on these ground rules. Don't murder. Don't steal. Don't rape. Don't enslave.
>Is security company Y obligated to arrest him, their CEO, and wreak financial havoc on their own company?
Yes. Particularly if it's a publicly-traded company, which it would almost certainly be. CEOs are not kings, and they cannot get away with murder.
>>81420069
>Having all the business to yourself is better for business though
And having 90% of your company's worth disappear in the first two days of fighting is even worse for business. Again, stop thinking private security services would operate like governments. Governments have crucial differences that allow them to do things no private firm could ever dream of doing.
>So you contradict yourself by saying this.
>respecting consumer rights, thereby increasing consumer confidence and consequently annual revenue, is irrational
Apply yourself.
OC
>>81420174
>Not only that but their is the democratic factor.
The democratic factor is irrelevant. The government controls the military. It has a monopoly on the use of force, just like your ancap security service bogeyman. Except somehow, your government is staffed by nice and trustworthy people, while the private security company is a cyberpunk distopia corporate dictatorship.
The level of doublethink is astounding.
>>81421363
noice
since it's never have been tried, so it must work. you raise your children like no other in whole human history, they will respect my property rights, there will be no aggression against others!
>>81420928
Self-preservation? I think you don't understand Islam. They never desire profit or self preservation.
Let's say we take the USA full anarcho-capitalism and we let Isis coalesce into a full empire, how can the ancaps stop a full invasion without a military? Remember these people have no fear of death or economic desires.
>>81420928
>fact that far more people desire protection from you than there are your kind who desire protection to commit crimes.
Criminal based on who's understanding? There are multiple people who want to assert their authority on everyone. I'm only a criminal in the eyes of people who don't like me. I can promise people free money, I can promise people a life away fro the corporate bullying, I can promise people a land of peace and harmony, and doubtless, people would eat it up. There would be millions not content with ancap society. Some people remember the easy days where government gave shit to you, and when you fucked up, you had a safety net to try again. You assume that this society would have a great majority believing in ancap. All I would need is a united significant minority to fucking wreck the shambling, competing micro militaries that my enemies would have. It would be fucking chaos. People would need to pick a side, martial law would be enforced, and the militarizes of the land would need to fight a drawn out war. All of this would be relatively easy to set in motion. Power always find's it's way back into as few hands as it can be separated into. There would be war, there would be turmoil, and eventually, someone will rise above the rubble, and unless they are ideological in nature, they will be king.
>Until they start shooting your employees when they step outside their door to go to work. Until your executives get blown up when they turn their luxury car on. Until another security service rushes in with guns blazing because it actually caters to the consumers' demand for legitimate, above-board security services against mafia groups like yours.
There is always resistance to authority. I wouldn't be a tyrant in the yes, I would make them believe I am protecting them. Hundreds, if not thousands would follow me.
This other security agency would be fighting a war with me. They would fucking die just as my guys would die. Is it worth it?
>>81421341
>>81421514
Stafan is that you? These arguments are on point.
>>81421514
That is because the military has rules about anti-social behavior and not murdering civilians and punishes those who invariable do.
Remember, 1 out of ever person is a sociopath and only do not do bad things out of fear of punishment. Not economic gain.
>>81421514
How is the democracy factor irrelevant? You a complete fucking moron. If we don't like them they loose their job. No one in government has the power to set up an oppressive regime which is why it hasn't done it yet. How can you be this stupid? Not even the president could do it!
Not only that but they aren't in it for profit. They are employed BY THE PEOPLE to do what WE WANT or we get fired.
Think before you type, Jesus Christ.
>>81421623
This leads me to a point. Ancap would require a dictatorship because people would want a government.
They would naturally establish one if not prevented.
Which also leads me to another point... Economies go through natural boom and bust cycles and even though libertarians say the busts wouldn't be so bad under their policies, people would still only vote for a government who promised to fix the economy.
No one who says "Sorry. The economy will fix itself eventually." will win an election.
>>81421929
That's true. Business will find a way to cut everyone out of their prosperity if they could. Letting the economy run it self sounds good, but some places need twerking.
Ancap is starting from the bottom and have a society form itself. It's a dramatic restructure.
There is truely nothing stopping people from forming armies and going around on conquest. It simply isn't there. This fucking leaf over here seems to think that the solution to this is more pockets of power uniting behind the will of the people. We now have waring kingdoms and chaos for years until someone wins.
>>81421547
>Self-preservation
On the part of the potential victims, obviously. I wasn't talking about the invading Muslim hordes.
>how can the ancaps stop a full invasion without a military
They can pay for a military. Why are you under the impression that people in an ancap society won't value their lives and will be hilariously blind to massive existential threats?
>>81421623
>You assume that this society would have a great majority believing in ancap.
Well, if we are talking about an acap society, then it must necessarily be composed of people who agree with the ideology. Communism works out fine if everyone in the society is a diehard communist. The whole point of ancap is to make the claim that IF people follow this ideology, they will have more liberty, prosperity, and happiness.
And anarchists, more than any other people, are sensitive to looming political power. Don't assume that they would just ignore burgeoning governments.
>>81421656
Unfortunately not. But fucking hell, it's time-consuming arguing with 5 people at a time, and I'm falling asleep. Your turn, Fritz.
>>81421739
>rules
Gee, if only non-governmental organizations could have rules of conduct and consequences for breaking them too.
>>81421830
> If we don't like them they loose their job.
Huh, kind of like businesses. Interesting.
>No one in government has the power to set up an oppressive regime which is why it hasn't done it yet
Do I really have to paste you a goddamn list of wiki links to oppressive regimes in the past century alone? Jesus christ.
>>81421929
>Economies go through natural boom and bust cycles
No they don't. Business cycles are caused by unchecked credit inflation, which is only possible/sustainable under government control of the money supply.
>>81422313
True. I mean if we use observable facts as how an ancap society would look, we can just look at Somalia.
All Ancaps are on the path to nihilism then depression then suicide.
>>81421341
>And having 90% of your company's worth disappear in the first two days of fighting is even worse for business
Wtf are you basing this on? Evidently the instigator of a war is going to do so on the belief that they can win and gain from it. A company is simply going to weigh the risks and rewards of pursing such an action. To claim that doing so will immediately end the company is absurd.
>Again, stop thinking private security services would operate like governments.
Why wouldn't they? Governments run by greedy people might declare war to acquire resources which a powerful few might benefit from. Why can't the same be said for a company who holds interests in various market sectors that sees benefits of "acquiring" assets held by someone else. Whats stopping Pepsi or Monsato from owning its own private security firm?
>>81422334
So will military payments be mandatory or voluntary? I mean why pay for a military if I don't see any Muslims around.
>>81422334
>composed of people who agree with the ideology
Yeah, if everyone works hard and everyone is fine with the cold, unfeeling nature of their new existence, then it will work fine. If businesses act like they do now,m then it will be fine. It is unrealistic. Even communism is more viable, because at least something is keeping the order.
Communism and ancap are both sides of the same coin. I am arguing the reality of the situation, not your hypothetical. You guys are just as memeworthy and just as incoherent as communists.
>Huh, kind of like businesses. Interesting.
Yeah, lets fire the company with a private army. He'll take it well.
The business doesn't need to listen to your complaints if it has a monopoly on both goods and power. The government effectively regulates and is jury to both of those things, and it will listen to our complaints.
>Do I really have to paste you a goddamn list of wiki links to oppressive regimes in the past century alone?
They were all formed from weakness, a shattering of government, a revolution. Out of American government as we know it, a tyrant will not arise. It's like saying that a pagan priest could become the pope. The conditions and the criteria for a tyrannical government to form, as seen in all of history don't exist, and can't exist in America.
Tyranny comes when people like you decide to restructure everything, thinking that it will actually end well.
>>81422462
EXACTLY!
We can look at any lawless shithole and observe the advanced stages of ancap.
>>81422900
this
>>81422593
Durr. I just thought of something that I should have thought about 100 posts ago.
With an AnCap society, I assume the military is pretty much home defense etc etc and we wouldn't have a strong foreign policy because payments is a voluntary issue...
How would an ancap society deal with the Islamic Caliphate getting a nuke?
I mean you could have a private nuke, but the argument is the Islamists don't care about dying.
How would you fight them without creating an offensive army with mandatory taxes?
>>81423094
ancap doesn't really function as a country,
it doesn't have foreign policy because >muh NAP prevents
offensive espionage
pre-emptive strikes of any kind
foreign involvement that isn't explicitly consensual
what's to prevent any foreign actor from building up an enormous army and then blowing you to shit as long as they don't explicitly say they are going to do so?
nothing.
Can someone explain to me why having to worry about dying from:
>food poisoning
>a poorly built car/plane
>unsafe work environment
>the fire service won't rescue me because i didnt pay my dues
>Hospital won't treat me cause im poor
>etc
is preferable to having government impose some form of quality control and regulations of essential safety services...plz let me know
I mean freedom for corporations is nice and all but id rather be taxed and have government takes care of those things rather than have to research and stress over literally every activity because one wrong move is likely going to kill me.
>>81412496
>MUH ROADS
checkmate statists
Anyway I've got to go, it's been a fun conversation, despite how heated it got due to me being a mad boi.
>>81423621
>>81423094
Ancaps don't have answers to these questions.
The most depth ive ever heard when questioned on this subject is: Hur Durr, people gon be scared an' pay for big'ol army when moslems attack
>>81423643
nigger you're implying so hard you've ascended to
>maximum overimplying
>>81415729
>blind to human emotion
lol
>>81423973
The ultimate goal for one seeking power in an ancap society would be to essentially be a dictator because they own so much. Therefore, in order to keep power (just like any state) they must employ the use of violence, which is where the military comes in.
The whole point of reverting to ancap is so we can literally derail this shitskin train we've boarded.
>>81419663
are you implying that he did?
>>81424749
I'm implying rather heavily that cucks believe he did.
>people are going to be moral and good guyz!
Kek
>>81424269
This would always happen though right? Wealth will always concentrate to the top in a capitalist system and eventually result in an all-powerful oligarchy
>muh crony capitalism
Yeah ancaps surely you see how parallel these lines of arguments of "its the governemnts fault!!!" run to communists who blame capitalism for every and all of their woes.
![StefanMolyneux[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/88SohuH.jpg "StefanMolyneux[1].jpg")
