Anarcho-capitalism:
- Home
- Board: /pol/ - Politically Incorrect
- Reading: Anarcho-capitalism:
Find a flaw. Go ahead, I'll wait.
i can murder with impunity
only works in a homogenous society
>>67838803
He said flaw, you Mongoloid.
>>67838676
It's not national socialism
>>67838676
it will just lead back to statism in future, as there is no authority to keep the lack of a state in place
>>67838676
Most people don't want to live in that system, and thus that system will end almost immediately after it is implemented. We are social creatures, and desire social hierarchies. Governments are the natural evolution of these hierarchies.
>>67838676
If there's no regulation at all, what's to stop a corporation from hiring a private army and killing anybody who gets in their way?
>>67838676
It's not libertarianism.
>>67838676
>>67839169
not an argument
No means of preventing violence, therefore it'll tend to systems of protection essentially the same as feudalism or pre-democratic republicanism.
0/10
>>67838676
Flaw: Stefan Molyneux - he's batshit insane.
2nd Flaw: you won't accept any legitimate flaw because you are a true believer with blocked reasoning-ability.
>>67838676
>Argument?
Not again, you start to be more annoying then the muslims.
You must be a sociopath or just a stupid kid. Kill yourself, just do it alraedy, end your miserable life, not even your parents are gone miss you, be a hero for some time and purge yourself from existence, do society and nature a favor, end your life today
>>67839264
>he's batshit insane
Not an argument
>>67839169
MUH voluntary servitude. Basically statists share a similar type of thought in regards to the state expressed in ideas like "social compact." I.e we voluntary submit to state rule.
>>67838676
Private courts.
>>67839139
>implying
You implied the claim that it';s flawless first, OP. The burden of proof is on you.
You have to prove it's flawles, wew don't have to prove to you it's not.
>>67838803
In an anarcho-capitalist society private defense agencies and arbitration firms would exist and deal with those who infringe upon the equal rights of others or violate contracts accordingly.
>>67838940
>,,,as there is no authority to keep the lack of a state in place
We are talking about a societal structure in which private defense agencies exist and adult individuals are able to arm themselves. Nothing will prevent aggression from ever occurring, but I fail to see how anarcho-capitalism would necessarily lead to the creation of a state. Could you elaborate?
>>67839024
>We are social creatures, and desire social hierarchies.
I don't disagree; in an anarcho-capitalist society you would have hierarchical structures.
>Governments are the natural evolution of these hierarchies.
>appeal to nature logical fallacy
>didn't read the sticky
>>67839033
>what's to stop a corporation from hiring a private army and killing anybody who gets in their way?
A corporation is a legal entity that is granted particular protections, necessarily, by the state. In a free-market economy, as you would have in an anarcho-capitalist society, corporations cannot exist. The premise of your question is flawed.
>>67839139
It is the only form of libertarianism that abides by the non-aggression axiom and is the ony form of libertarianism that fully coincides with natural law.
>>67839249
>No means of preventing violence...
Nothing can prevent violence. In statist societies violence cannot be prevented; in fact the mere existence of the state necessarily creates and condones violence. Anarcho-capitalism simply offers the most effective solution in dealing with those who initiate the use of force against others.
>>67839479
Would you like to elaborate?
>>67838676
No central government = No laws = No property rights = Less investment and incenctive to work
>>67839306
>>you won't accept any legitimate flaw because you are a true believer with blocked reasoning-ability.
>Not an argument
lmao
>>67839786
What's stopping private defense firms from being bribed, or from doing crime themselves? I know nothing can [revent violence, but what do you do when it has already happened?
>>67839786
>>Governments are the natural evolution of these hierarchies.
>>appeal to nature logical fallacy
>>didn't read the sticky
I'm not appealing to nature, I'm saying that if you get rid of governments, people will make more.
>>67839786
>Nothing can prevent violence
There you are wrong, in fact that's one of the main concerns of any well meaning system. Even Christianity was, in fact, spread to teach different ways to the looting and raping northmen who felt Christians were effeminate. It actually worked.
There are many ways to limit violence, it's just when you're stuck in a community of people who culturalise violence that it seems inevitable.
Move out of the ghetto, faggot.
Unable to defend itself against aggressive states.
>thinking the Libertarianism is Anarcho-Capitalism
Fuck off, please. Thanks.
>Give me a flaw
>*gives a flaw*
>not an argument
BITCH, you asked for a flaw.
>>67840472
Not an argument
>>67840306
Interestingly, modern libertarianism isn't even (arguably) a free market because of anti monopoly laws and other laws which protect small business, small consumers and increases competition.
Of course everyone intelligent knows laissez faire economies are fail.
>>67839786
>>A corporation is a legal entity that is granted particular protections, necessarily, by the state. In a free-market economy, as you would have in an anarcho-capitalist society, corporations cannot exist
Really? Fine. What's to stop a GROUP OF PEOPLE from becoming influential and rich enough to form a military and wage war?
Saying that there will be "defense agencies" is just admitting that there would be STRAIGHT UP WARFARE when there wouldn't be otherwise. And no, cops overstepping their bounds every once in a while is not equivalent to a war.
>>67838803
Really you're just going to kill someone in a society where people are expected to provide their own protection. That's a quick way to death
1/2
>>67840000
>What's stopping private defense firms from being bribed, or from doing crime themselves?
I could just as easily ask what prevents state-run defense agencies from being bribed, or from doing crime themselves, as private citizens have no choice but to accept the terms dictated by the state.
Private defense agencies are dis-incentivized from being bribed or committing crime themselves for the same reason that any other private company is discouraged from compromising the integrity of their company: that consumers who voluntarily acquire the services or products rendered by this company will take their business elsewhere. Private defense agencies would act in their best interest, as most agents generally do; accordingly, they will attempt to provide to consumers the highest quality protection at the lowest possible cost, maintain the integrity of their company, etc., for if they do not, customers will acquire the services of another private defense agency.
>>67840180
>I'm not appealing to nature...
You were appealing to nature.
>...I'm saying that if you get rid of governments, people will make more.
I certainly concede that there will be individuals within an anarcho-capitalist society that will attempt to commit theft, initiate the use of violence against others, and do other such things that the state does. What you seem to be arguing is that we ought not to have a society in which there is no state because a state would likely form. I do not see, following this logic, why anarcho-capitalism is not preferable to statism.
Furthermore, you are arguing that "people will make more" governments. Why do you believe this will be the case?
>>67840234
>Even Christianity was, in fact, spread to teach different ways to the looting and raping northmen who felt Christians were effeminate. It actually worked.
You fail to distinguish the difference between prevention and discouragement. What you are referring to is the way in which Christians...
>>67840472
You're being memed. This thread is cancer.
>>67838676
jews
/thread
>>67839786
>It is the only form of libertarianism that abides by the non-aggression axiom and is the ony form of libertarianism that fully coincides with natural law.
That's why it's flawed. The NAP is a fucking joke that can't be held consistently. Minarchism>An-cap
>>67839786
>I fail to see how anarcho-capitalism would lead to the creation of a state.
Well if you have no state you have no constitutional law, which means no police force
so what's to stop one of these military companies you speak of from walking into a few towns and demanding they pay some kind of taxation, then walling off the area these towns are in? at that point you already have a proto-state
basically what I'm saying is that if statism has come about in multiple parts of the world, then getting rid of all of it is merely a reset before the same thing happens again not a permanent solution
>>67840577
You're fucking stupid.
Libertarianism does not support those anti-monopoly laws because monopolies don't form in a natural free market.
>>67841304
Microsoft would never have gotten as big in Australia where anti monopoly laws are actually enforced.
>>67840897
>I could just as easily ask what prevents state-run defense agencies from being bribed, or from doing crime themselves, as private citizens have no choice but to accept the terms dictated by the state.
That's the point, they both have this problem.
>
Private defense agencies are dis-incentivized from being bribed or committing crime themselves for the same reason that any other private company is discouraged from compromising the integrity of their company:
Again, this happens in our current state. And all that you said about working in their best interest? Same shit is the current state. So what so special?
>>67838676
Any ancap book recomendations? I´ve read Hayek and Mises but not true ancaps
2/2
>>67840234
>>67840897
discouraged individuals from committing rape and theft. They did not prevent individuals from committing rape and theft.
>There are many ways to limit violence...
I never argued otherwise. If the government blinded every individual violent crimes would likely be limited, save for the act of blinding individuals.
>>67840624
>What's to stop a GROUP OF PEOPLE from becoming influential and rich enough to form a military and wage war?
Is that not what happens now? Is this not what the United States is?
In an anarcho-capitalist society you have private defense agencies that serve their customers. In the event that a private defense agency arises and begins to infringe upon the equal rights/initiate the use of force against those who have contracted other private defense agencies, the defense agencies which the innocent people have contracted will defend them.
Also, have you seen the movie The Godfather? There is a scene in the film where Solazzo is speaking with Tom, and he says something along the lines of "I'm a businessman Tom, I don't like violence. Blood is expensive." The reason I am citing this quote is to say that war is expensive, and it is not in the best interest of these private defense agencies to wage war, nor is it in the best interest of individuals to contract the services of private defense agencies that wage war, as they would not be protecting these consumers and the price of service would be significantly higher compared to defense agencies that are not waging war.
>>67841420
I never said they don't stop monopolies from forming. They also stop competition and aid industries that already have large corporations. You wouldn't need to stop monopolies if they weren't being assisted by the government.
>>67838676
I'll start by saying I like to belive I am an-cap but the more and more I live with that belief the more and more I find my self amending it.
I understand you may be deluded, it's impossible to find a flaw with a hypothetical scenario as you can amendmen that specific scenario to still work with the ideology.
>nigger tries to rob me
>I shoot him
>The event is covered by a sort of castle doctrine
>no trouble
Now take for example a multi national multi trillion dollar corporation, regardless of the "free market will fix it" mentality they still control massive amounts of wealth and there fore influence.
>multi national company attempts to take my land for new factory
>I tell them I'm not interested
> this factory might boost profit by 5%
>they pay armed mercenaries to forcibly take my home
>attempt to take them to court
> they have the money to hire lawyers to rewrite the laws to include the "right of conquest"
This is the problem with the ideology is it is great in theory but in practice it will never stand the test of time.
>>67838676
There are none. Anarchy is the most moral state of affairs one can have - the one in which there are not necessarily people held to be legitimate in their violence and coercion in regard to others.
1/2
>>67841147
>so what's to stop one of these military companies you speak of from walking into a few towns and demanding they pay some kind of taxation, then walling off the area these towns are in?
First of all, all land in an anarcho-capitalist society is privately owned, meaning that any wall which a "military company" attempts to erect would have to rest on privately owned land. To violate the property rights of others is not permissible in an anarcho-capitalist society. Those who have contracted the services of a private defense agency will have this agency defend their respective property. Those who have not contracted such services and face individuals attempting to violate their property rights must defend themselves, or find others to defend their property rights for them or with them.
>>67841537
>Again, this happens in our current state.
I agree.
>And all that you said about working in their best interest? Same shit is the current state.
I agree.
>So what so special?
I understand the underlying question that you are asking. Here is my answer: the difference is that with anarcho-capitalism there is no state.
Agents generally act in their own interest. Private individuals act in their own interest, and those who work for the state act in their own interest. Accordingly, those who are state agents will usurp power so that they may better themselves economically. There is no reason for them not to do this, (other than the ethical implications), as there is no system in which such actions can be regulated. The private sector and public sector have formed a relationship in which one sector is inextricably intertwined with the other, as they have a mutually beneficial relationship. Lobbying is a great example of this relationship in action.
Again, I'm not arguing that some sort of corruption would not occur in an anarcho-capitalist society, I'm simply arguing that such corruption is less likely to occur, as the state is the primary enabler of...
>>67842508
>To violate the property rights of others is not permissible in an anarcho-capitalist society.
Says who? Saying it's not "permissible" will not prevent it from happening. What will stop a foreign nation from funding a PMC and becoming the government? How will decentralized and competing PMCs fight back against a centralized force funded by people not in the country?
>>67842835
Nothing prevents it from happening *now*. In fact, the state is unequivocally the group of people who routinely violate people's property rights.
>>67843143
>Nothing prevents it from happening *now*.
Yes there is something that prevents that from happening right now and it's the US military.
>>67838676
I can't get free shit and ban things I don't like.
In all seriousness though that attitude is why you'll never have a Libertarian government elected by democratic means or be able to sustain a libertarian society in Anarchy, there will always be to many leeches and prudes who don't want it. That's why a lot of AnCaps switch to Nrx eventually.
2/2
>>67841537
>>67842508
corruption in todays society.
>>67842302
>... the more and more I live with that belief the more and more I find my self amending it.
I think that this is probably a good thing.
As per the hypothetical scenario you have given, the answer is fairly simple. In this scenario, the real problem rests with the private arbitration firm.
In an anarcho-capitalist society, there would still be those who attempt to violate the property rights of others. So lets assume that this happens.
>they pay armed mercenaries to forcibly take my home
At this point the private defense agency you have contracted would defend you. For the sake of this argument, lets assume that you have not contracted the services of any private defense agency.
>attempt to take them to court
> they have the money to hire lawyers to rewrite the laws to include the "right of conquest"
Here is the last problem with your scenario. You have assumed that the only courts that will exist are ones in which the adversarial system exists. It may be that the most efficient arbitration firms, as determined by the customers, are those in which a panel of three men render verdict. Others may contract the services of an arbitration firm that simply flips a coin to determine a verdict. But again, lets assume that the verdict of the Judge in this court rules against you. Why would this happen? It is likely that the Judge would defend property rights, for if he begins to render verdicts in which property rights are not upheld, individuals will contract the services of other arbitration firms and the one which he works for will go out of business.
I'm by no means an expert on this stuff, just somebody who is interested in it like you.
>>67841564
I'm going to post a picture of the recent an-cap books I've read, just give me a few minutes.
>>67842835
>What will stop a foreign nation from funding a PMC and becoming the government?
Private defense agencies.
>>67843512
An-caps need to stop using our flag.
>>67843576
>>67842835
>How will decentralized and competing PMCs fight back against a centralized force funded by people not in the country?
The people themselves have the ability to defend themselves. Additionally, the private defense agencies will defend their customers and themselves.
>>67842508
>Those who have contracted the services of a private defense agency will have this agency defend their respective property. Those who have not contracted such services and face individuals attempting to violate their property rights must defend themselves, or find others to defend their property rights for them or with them.
ok, and sometimes they'll fail
what are a few unallied PMCs going to do when another Ghengis Khan comes knocking
>>67840164
If I can kill people with no consequences, that's fucking sweet, not a flaw you retard.
>>67843802
Not an argument
>>67843576
>Private defense agencies.
I said that wouldn't work though. A PMC that gets funded by another country would potentially outfund any domestic PMC here. Free market competition does not work with militaries. How will they compete non-violently? How will they work together if what I said does happen? They're trying to compete, not help each other. And if the PMCs do become centralized monopolies, then they would essentially become the ruling class.
>>67843303
You mean the group of people our property rights are routinely violated to pay for? Brilliant.
>>67843870
Says the faggot who doesn't want to get clean away with murder. Fucking cuck.
>>67842508
>Again, I'm not arguing that some sort of corruption would not occur in an anarcho-capitalist society, I'm simply arguing that such corruption is less likely to occur, as the state is the primary enabler of...
Oh, okay. I see your point.
>>67843922
>All those jews
Good lord
>>67843922
Fuck you, Milton Friedman is not an an-cap, and David Friedman literally spoke out against using the NAP dogmatically.
>>67844051
Says the faggot who's feeding the shitposter, fucking retard
>>67843991
What's your fucking point? You won't have property rights period if you let the country get taken over by a foreign power.
jews
>muh private defense agencies
>trusting in a group of mercenaries to protect you when they are driven by profit
nothing stops them from taking money from people who dont wish you well.
>>67844169
That's because David Friedman is a pseduo-utilitarian and doesn't see the merit in terms of convincing others in fronting the moral side of the argument. But it's the most important side, so he can deal with it.
>>67844293
Nobody except, other anarchists, believes in property rights *now*. I don't believe in rights at all, but you people pretend to while routinely violating them. Dumb ass sheep.
>>67844393
>moral
>most important
I'll give you that anarcho-capitalism is morally flawless, but practicality is more important.
>>67844519
Not everything is black and white. I'm almost certain you and every other anarchist would take a minarchist state over a socialist state.
>>67838676
Capitalism can't exist without the ownership and exchange of capital. This is done through currency. In anarchy, there is no unified currency so you're reduced to barter, literally the opposite of capitalism.
>>67844566
That's your arbitrary value judgment. I think it's the very least important, and I think that determination comes from God, which would render it an objective value judgment.
>>67844655
No, I don't go for lesser evils. Evil is evil period. I'm a moral absolutist - everything *is* black and white.
>>67838676
Conquerable by a strong centralized totalitarian state, which, in the best Chinese tradition, erases all record of any of its political achievements and officially remembers the anarcho-capitalists as less effective caricatures of the conquerors.
In an emergency, you want a government.
>>67844752
Absolutism never works.
>>67844943
"Works"? What does that even mean? If it's the truth that there are objective moral values, then it's simply the truth. Period.
>>67843747
>ok, and sometimes they'll fail
Perhaps.
>>67843983
>A PMC that gets funded by another country would potentially outfund any domestic PMC here.
This could potentially happen, sure.
>Free market competition does not work with militaries.
Why?
>How will they compete non-violently?
By attempting to provide to consumers the highest possible quality service at the lowest possible price.
>And if the PMCs do become centralized monopolies, then they would essentially become the ruling class.
The fear of monopolies is an unrealistic one, particularly with the private defense agency, as scalability is a serious issue when discussing expansion.
Can you give me an example of a monopoly that was birthed in the private sector and sustained this monopoly hold for a substantial period of time? I'm using the word "substantial" liberally.
Also, the linked video is one in which Milton Friedman addresses the fear of the monopoly.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tdLBzfFGFQU
>>67843991
I actually kekd out loud at this, thanks anon.
>>67844169
>Fuck you, Milton Friedman is not an an-cap...
I didn't mean to include that book, sorry.
>...and David Friedman literally spoke out against using the NAP dogmatically.
This is true. I enjoy the writings of David Friedman because I believe he gives some of the most airtight consequentialist arguments in favor of voluntarism. As you indicate here, he has said time and time again that the moralist arguments in favor of anarcho-capitalism can be rejected. He gives the asteroid headed for Earth in an effort to invalidate these arguments.
However, Friedman gives great insight as to how voluntarism would actually function, more-so than other notable an-caps.
>>67844338
>trusting in a group of mercenaries to protect you when they are driven by profit
>not seeing the irony in condoning a state-run military
>>67838676
Here's some flaws:
1. Sweat shop working conditions for the lower class
2. No middle class
3. Select few mega rich behemoths
4. No anti-trust keeping companies from taking over and extorting markets, lowering quality and jacking up prices
5. No environmental regulations = Beijing like atmosphere around the globe and oil spill polluted oceans
6. No currency regulation, creating large booms and busts with depressions every few years
7. No long-term focus on non-profitable pursuits like space travel
Just a few off the top of my head. Give anyone absolute power, including corporations and the country goes to shit. This is why a balance of powers is the only effective form of government.
>>67845038
>objective moral values
Not really. The only reason anarcho-capitalists get away with winning every moral argument is because almost everyone believes freedom is good, so the logical conclusion is anarchism. If someone thought freedom was cancerous, then an-caps would have to argue on terms of practicality.
When I said "works" I meant that absolutism does not work in practice. Not for very long anyways
>>67845345
Stupendous boogey-man argument. Everything will be bad ooga booga!
>>67845345
No respect for culture or borders, ancapistan has a demography like sweden because nobody is protecting who can and can't set up next door
>>67845219
How do you showcase the quality of a military nonviolently...?
>Can you give me an example of a monopoly that was birthed in the private sector and sustained this monopoly hold for a substantial period of time?
Nigga, I've seen that video and I agree completely that monopolies are caused by government intervention. The question was, if PMCs are decentralized and competitive, how would they fight against a large centralized force and win, because in the free market, monopolies wouldn't form, so you would essentially have dozens of defense agencies that are not as powerful, which in this case, is not a good thing.
>>67845348
You answered the question of defining "works" by reiterating "works". Works toward what end? Why that end? Why should anyone care?
If everyone thought freedom was cancerous (which many people do) then they'd be wrong.
>>67844194
>implying I'm not shitposting
Top kek
You can't actually prove "the initiation of the use of force" is an objective ethical axiom
>>67845822
And you can't "prove" your hand is objectively attached to your arm. #justvacuousstatementthings
>>67845735
I wasn't defining works with work. I was rephrasing my point. In this case I would define work with being able to achieve your goal
>>67845908
>can't actually prove your own arbitrary rule that's supposed to govern the entirety of the global economy
>W-w-well uhm you're an agnostic so there
>>67845997
My goal is to serve God, which *requires* I adhere to moral absolutes. So your statement is completely counter-intuitive.
1/2
>>67844681
>Capitalism can't exist without the ownership and exchange of capital.
Capitalism is an economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately owned and operated. There need not be a state-mandated centralized currency for this system to operate.
>In anarchy, there is no unified currency...
With anarcho-capitalism there is no unified currency in the sense that individuals are forced via the initiation of force to use a particular currency. However, this is not to say that people would voluntarily adopt a unified system of currency, as this would certainly provide for ease of exchanges.
>>67844910
Are you familiar with the law of demand?
>>67844927
>Conquerable by a strong centralized totalitarian state...
The possibility that total conquest will occur exists for all societies. I believe you are trying to say that the probability that an anarcho-capitalist society will be conquered by a "centralized totalitarian state" is higher than the probability that a state will be conquered by such a force. You must explain why you believe this is the case, as you do not say why you believe this is so in this post.
>>67845345
>Sweat shop working conditions for the lower class
Should individuals not be free to make the decisions concerning their labor?
>No middle class
Explain.
>Select few mega rich behemoths
Explain how free-market capitalism exacerbates the concentration of wealth accumulating by a select few compared to an economy with government-intervention.
>No anti-trust keeping companies from taking over and extorting markets, lowering quality and jacking up prices
Do you not understand what would incentivize private companies to not do such things?
> No environmental regulations
This is not true. Property rights would be defended in an anarcho-capitalist society. The United States defended such rights prior to the creation of the environmental protection agency in the early 70's.
>>67846128
Who said anything about agnosticism besides you?
You required proof of something as a basis for believing it, but you can't prove jack shit about almost everything you do believe. That's called intellectual inconsistency, and it's generally discouraged for a reason.
>>67846131
I'm not religious
>>67845947
Implying Trump and guns aren't fucking awesome. Pic related.
>>67846292
>absolutism does not work in practice
is what you said. If you wanted to qualify it "absolutism does not work in practice... for me" you could have done so. Though it very obviously loses its argumentative weight and edge in you doing so, since nobody necessarily cares what you think.
>>67845573
I don't like defending an-caps but anarcho-capitalism does not deny closed borders. The country is occupied, the only way to uphold property rights would be to let people in with consent.
>>67838676
>dismantling thousands of years of progress to go back to a primitive and archaic existence.
oh yeah and if someone sells you poison food just don't buy it from them anymore. Free market :^)
>>67846457
show me an absolutist anything that has worked consistently
2/2
>>67845345
>>67846170
>No currency regulation, creating large booms and busts with depressions every few years
If you'd like to debate Keynesian versus Austrian economics we can do that. Please provide an opening argument first.
>No long-term focus on non-profitable pursuits like space travel.
This is to imply that space travel would never be a profitable area. Are you of this opinion, that space exploration/developing technology to be used in space could never be profitable?
>>67845667
>How do you showcase the quality of a military nonviolently...?
Define military.
> if PMCs are decentralized and competitive, how would they fight against a large centralized force and win, because in the free market, monopolies wouldn't form, so you would essentially have dozens of defense agencies that are not as powerful, which in this case, is not a good thing.
Why would dozens of militaries not be "as powerful" as one centralized military? If these private defense agencies are in the business of protecting their clients and the clients of all defense agencies are being threatened by an external force, why would the defense agencies not work together to serve their clients? You seem to be making a number of assumptions here that would be unlikely in such a scenario.
>>67845822
Yes I can. Is self-ownership an inherent right?
>>67839369
So your best defense is that "anarcho"-capitalism shares things in common with oppressive centralized government, thus affirming the image he posted.
>>67846718
Absolutist Christian morality "works", if you define "works" as being able to achieve your goal and your goal is serving God.
>>67846276
sheeeeeit, so I can just make the claim that taxation isn't theft, and since you can't REALLY prove anything, I can assume I'm right?
>>67841304
>monopolies don't form in a natural free market.
Explain this one to me.
>>67846997
You can assume whatever you like - it's not necessarily true by virtue of you assuming it. For instance, I'm now assuming you're a cock-mongling faggot fucker, but that doesn't *necessarily* means that's the case. I just wager it is.
In it's most simple terms, markets are almost never in equilibrium and don't tend to be competitive enough to justify removing a state.
>>67838803
If you're rich, yeah. But I guess that's just the price to pay for freedom.
>>67846647
Presuming then, that all available properties are in the ownership of someone and in order to live in ancapistan a party has to purchase them from someone else
The weakness here lies in the fact that only one person in a community needs to consent in order to allow moslems and nig nogs to invade.
The owner can sell his house to a party of shitskins without the consent of his neighbors and allow foreigners entry into the area.
Then they can simply accumulate capital like everyone else and create their own ghettos, mosques and insular communities.
There will always be liberals as a part of the demographic, it is foolish to assume that everyone in ancapistan thinks and feels the same way about every issue, some people will want to import rapefugees and they will have no barriers
>>67847083
It's highly unlikely, but the fact that they discount the possibility entirely just shows how delusional these people are.
>>67847083
Tell me the last time a monopoly existed for any significant period of time where government wasn't directly involved in its sustainment.
>>67846170
Hey buddy, why don't you give some evidence for your claims instead of just saying "it's this because this."
Let's look at the facts. Deregulation allows companies to be dicks. The only reason China is so fucking polluted is because it has no environmental protection agency. If companies are free to pump out as much shit into the atmosphere as they want, why spend money on inefficiencies? Also, if there's nothing preventing companies from consolidating forever until they're a fucking monopoly then they will. Example: Fucking America in the early 20th century. Ever heard the names Rockefeller? Vanderbilt? Carnegie? What the fuck do you think these assholes did? They bought out the competition and jacked up their prices. Carnegie in particular created hell on earth working conditions for steel workers that made them work for more than 12 hours a day for very little pay. Workplace accidents were an every day occurrence and steel mills are very nasty in that regard and can cost you limbs.
These are ACTUAL examples of corporations having too much power. Without any rules or government they will be giant fucking dicks to squeeze as much profit out of people as possible. Having monopolies ruling your markets leads to shit economies. This economics 101. Have you ever even taken an economics course? Have you ever even opened an economics textbook?
>>67847391
Corporations don't exist in the absence of government. Corporations are literally government made and sanctioned things.
>>67847083
If you pre-suppose that resources can't be laid claim to, and that any entrepreneur can get an equal share, than the natural response to a de facto monopoly would be the creation of a competing company. That pre-supposition doesn't seem reasonable to me, but it's the closest to a libertarian reason as I could think of.
What is the closest we can get to absolute libertarianism and social darwinism without falling into statism via a vicious circle?
I don't believe in the necessity of ethics or moral systems, yet I don't see a plausible scenario where humanity could exist as a collective of egotists/individualists for any long period of time.
To dismantle all political systems and go back to primitivism would inevitably lead to the formation of proto-states as they would guarantee a better chance of survival, and these proto-states would then morph into governments and similar entities.
Is there a way around this?
>>67846809
>Define military.
Armed forces representing a country/people.
>Why would dozens of militaries not be "as powerful" as one centralized military?
Because the only people paying for it are people who are geographically close and have an incentive and that's only if they want to and can afford it. Compare that to what we currently have where everyone pays into the military regardless of choice, and the stronger one is clearly the larger centralized one. Why would competing PMCs work together? They're natural enemies. We can't even get our states to cooperate. They would obviously serve their clients, but how effective would private PMCs be at fighting let's say Russia?
>>67840897
>You were appealing to nature
An appeal to nature would be to say that a state is good because it is natural. That is not what I am saying.
>I certainly concede that there will be individuals within an anarcho-capitalist society that will attempt to commit theft, initiate the use of violence against others, and do other such things that the state does. What you seem to be arguing is that we ought not to have a society in which there is no state because a state would likely form. I do not see, following this logic, why anarcho-capitalism is not preferable to statism.
Because our government is nowhere near as bad as most of the ones that will form if we attempt to employ anarcho-capitalism. Our system isn't perfect, but it is improvable within the law. This is vastly superior to autocracies, and autocracies will form. If you have a bunch of people without a government, then the first guy who can convince a bunch of people to do what he wants can make his own having his people kick the shit out of anyone who doesn't do what he wants. Essentially all that anarcho-capitalism would result in is society resetting itself by at least several hundred years.
>Furthermore, you are arguing that "people will make more" governments. Why do you believe this will be the case.
Because we are social people. Our more primitive social hierarchies developed into governments. They are a natural thing, if removed they will be created again. Stop and think for a second. Anarchists are a minority. That should, in and of itself, tell you that the majority of people do not want anarchy. The majority of people want some form of government however limited.
>>67838676
How can my bakery function under anarcho capitalism? I work hard and employ three people. I sell bread to restaurants and I have a shop.
I pay the staff the same pay as me. We make delicious bread and wonderful cakes. It's shift work and I have to get up very early. About 4:30 am. It's exhausting, but I love baking. Why can anarcho capitalism help my family, friends and employees? Please tell me.
>>67847184
Calling me meany-poo names doesn't prove the NAP.
By the way, you CAN prove certain things, particularly mathematical things, like saying "true statements are true" or "A=C and B=C so A=B". These statements are either self-proving or can be logically proven... with... proofs. It's in the name.
Ethics on the other hand is a muddy and basically ontologically devoid field of philosophy. As a result shysters like von mises can waltz in and bark whatever the fuck they want to work backwards from their conclusion that the free market is the greater goods, and their adherents will lap it up, going so far as to call people who question their massive leaps in logic "cock-mongling faggot fucker(s)".
>>67847391
Also, in regard to "buying out the competition and jacking up prices", it must be you who has never opened an economics textbook to believe that's a sustainable business model. If it were feasible to simply buy out competition wherever it popped up in order to "jack up prices", then people would quickly and consistently make startups with the intention of selling out. The fact of the matter is that there is a ceiling on how high anyone can put their prices in any pseudo-competitive marketplace for almost any good.
>>67846927
You would have to define your means of which you serve god. The problem is when you stop making this personal and expect everyone and everything to cooperate with your absolutism a la the NAP
>>67838676
Eve Null-Sec.
>>67847325
Any private enterprise of any notable scale has only existed within a market-involved government because a truly libertarian/"anarcho"-capitalist government has never really existed.
Now you might think you've won this argument, but suppose I said "A government that is only concerned with handing out candy to everyone is the best form of government". Then suppose you ask the obvious question, "how the fuck is a government going to hand out unlimited candy to people?". I reply saying "Well tell me the last time candy was unlimited in your inferior form of candy-less government". This would be a stupid response on my end.
The burden is still on you to prove that a lack of centralized power would magically prevent exploitation and abuse at the hands of a monopoly.
>>67838676
It is a great system if you've had it for a long time. But that's the problem. When you just won a civil war and you need a government, you need one that quickly werks. In new economies and governments, it usually starts out with dictatorial communism (think tribes) and eventually evolves to Democratic capitalism(think colonial times). Unless you've had anarchocapitalism for quite awhile it won't work like it's supposed to. (Think panic, rape, and murder in the street until private companies get their shit together and make a profit from protecting people.) Technically we already are kind of living in an anarchocapitalistic society (as long as you live in a democratic capitalist country) except the fact that government is an obligation in this society makes protection spring up quicker.
>>67847835
Your beliefs about the world don't stem from a priori deductive truths like mathematics.
They stem from inductive claims about the world and assumptions about correspondence between sensory experience and reality which are logically unjustifiable.
Also, ethics isn't muddy at all to a Christian - God provides us with objective moral truth and value. But I very highly doubt you believe in anything like God, so must suck dick being you.
>>67847512
Corporations are not made by states, they ARE states. Why do corporations get a free pass from the anarchy part of anarcho-capitalism?
>>67839249
>>67839169
>>67838803
>>67839033
>>67840705
Violence is expensive, and cooperation is always preferable in every way to outright violence. You have to pay hazard pay to your goons, and what exactly does the company get out of it? Not to mention that public perception is huge to companies.
People freak out over Walmart paying people too little and buying shitty produce, imagine the shitstorm if walmart actually hurt people.
>>67847888
I don't expect them to. I desire them to. If they don't, that's not my problem - I did my job. That's *their* problem, because they'll be judged for it. I won't be judged for the evils of other people.
1/2
>>67847083
>Explain this one to me.
Why don't you give us some examples of monopolies that have formed from within the private sector and have maintained the hold on this monopoly for a period of time that could be considered substantial? Milton Friedman could only find two in the history of the United States, which were the NYSE and the DeBeers corporation, both of which have lost this monopoly hold as a result of competition, with the NYSE facing competition domestically and the DeBeers diamond company facing international competition.
>>67847391
>Deregulation allows companies to be dicks.
Please explain what you mean by "be dicks."
>The only reason China is so fucking polluted is because it has no environmental protection agency.
This is not true. The reason why the air pollution in parts of China is relatively poor is because they are experiencing an industrial boom. There was a time when air pollution in the United States was relatively poor. This is, obviously, no longer the case.
> If companies are free to pump out as much shit into the atmosphere as they want, why spend money on inefficiencies?
In an anarcho-capitalist society companies are not free to "pimp put as much shit into the atmosphere as they want". If a company is doing something that infringes upon my rights, then they will have to suffer the consequences of this. As Rothbard said, no individual has the right to clean air; you do, however, have the right to not have the air on your property to be polluted by another individual. In an anarcho-capitalist society, all land is privately owned, which means any pollution which pollutes the air located on the property belonging to someone else is a violation of property rights.
>Ever heard the names Rockefeller? Vanderbilt? Carnegie? What the fuck do you think these assholes did? They bought out the competition and jacked up their prices.
Rockefeller was responsible for providing poor and middle class individuals with the ability to...
>>67848079
"Private enterprise of notable scale" =/= monopoly.
>>67848190
> people voluntarily interacting without coercion or violence
>a state
>>67848190
They don't. They literally can't exist in anarchy. That's the damn point.
>>67848153
Mark 12:17
>empiricism
Fine. What is a unit of good? Is evil radiation? Or does it have mass? Give me something I can observe.
>>67848079
Epic strawman. Going in my copypasta folder.
>>67848336
>threat of losing job
>not coercion
>>67848324
I agree, however it is a prerequisite.
>The burden is still on you to prove that a lack of centralized power would magically prevent exploitation and abuse at the hands of a monopoly.
Any day now, respond when you feel like it.
>>67848336
>implying corperations don't use coercion or violence
why is a corporation excluded from hiring its own police force to oppress others? Another free pass for the corporation?#
>>67848381
>>67848336
How can you prevent people from voluntarily interacting in cooperation with eachother for the greater good of the group? Why would you want to?
>>67848475
You can call it a straw man, but do you care to answer my point?
>prove that a lack of centralized power would magically prevent exploitation and abuse at the hands of a monopoly.
>>67848463
I don't believe in good as a unit. Something is good or it isn't, or something is evil or it isn't. There are no units, it's a quality of relations defined by God.
>Give me something I can observe
Give me something I can observe only in the 12th dimension.
>>67848227
>Cooperation is always preferable in every way to outright violence
The same is true for the people they would be taking charge of. The difference is that the company is vastly more likely to win a fight. If what you're saying were true, governments would have never formed.
>>67838676
Here you go:
Needs a revolution.
bye
>>67848510
>we will stop interacting with you
HOW AGGRESSIVE
>>67848561
There has never been a monopoly that has existed for any serious period of time that wasn't sustained by government interference except for a very few, which were ultimately done away with by market forces and not by government. There's no reason to believe there would be monopolies in a free market, let alone more than what are *MADE* by government now.
>>67848639
A corporation is a literal government entity. It's defined by government paper in government courts.
>>67848639
1, What exactly would they gain from being violent towards others? The cost of maintaining that police force and the public backlash surely outweigh any possible gain.
2. We wouldn't stop anyone from doing that. That's one good point: an-caps will allow for coops and whatnot; statists will not allow for completely free trade.
>>67838676
Anything anarchy is retarded. The Enlightenment view of man is incompatible with how man actually acts. Hobbes was right!
2/2
>>67847391
>>67848276
...heat their homes on a massive scale for the first time in human history. He was responsible for the price of oil dropping over 90% in just a few short decades. Andrew Carnegie was responsible for providing to the private sector and the state steel at an historically low cost to consumer, which was responsible for an unrivaled period of infrastructure growth. These men are responsible for directly lifting hundreds of thousands of people pout of poverty and helping posterity more-so than most other men of the 20th century.
>...made them work for more than 12 hours a day for very little pay...
How exactly did he "make" them?
>Workplace accidents were an every day occurrence and steel mills are very nasty in that regard and can cost you limbs.
This is true. Today, commercial fishing, logging, boilermaking, and septic tank cleaning have considerably high workplace-fatality and injury rates. What's your point?
>These are ACTUAL examples of corporations having too much power.
A corporation is a particular type of business that is granted legal protections and privileges, necessarily, by the state. A corporation cannot exist in an anarcho-capitalist society.
>Without any rules or government they will be giant fucking dicks to squeeze as much profit out of people as possible.
Companies don't "squeeze profit" out of people, for every consumer in the free-market enters into contracts voluntary. In other words, free-trade is necessarily beneficial to both parties. Companies are incentivized to provide to consumers the highest possible quality product or service at the lowest possible cost.
> Having monopolies ruling your markets leads to shit economies.
I will ask you for specific examples of monopolies for a second time. In this post you give me three names without giving a specific example of a monopoly. Again, can you give me an example of a monopoly that was birthed in the private sector and maintained this monopoly without the...
>>67848977
>Monopolies are all the government's fault.
>Even if they did exist, they would ultimately be done away with by market forces
>be done away with by market forces
>a monopoly
>done away with by market forces
>>67848739
>Give me something I can observe only in the 12th dimension.
By your deflection I am assuming you are admitting you cannot provide physical proof of good or evil. If it cannot be observed, then to the empiricist it does not exist.
>>67847391
>>67849153
...help of the state?
TO EVERYONE THAT HAS RESPONDED TO ME, I AM WORKING ON RESPONDING TO YOU. PLEASE FORGIVE ME FOR THE TIME IT IS TAKING ME TO RESPOND. THANK YOU.
>>67849246
Have you ever done any inquiry into what monopolies actually are? How they exist, sustain, and operate? Without *violence*, they're literally unsustainable if there's any competition whatsoever unless they're operating *incredibly* efficiently and near cost, in which case they wouldn't even be a problem.
>>67849287
You cannot provide physical proof your hand is attached to your arm. I have about as much respect for empiricists as I do nihilists, which is near 0.
>>67848686
>prove that a lack of centralized power would magically prevent exploitation and abuse at the hands of a monopoly.
It's not a centralized power that causes them, it's their intervention into the economy. Things like tariffs, land grants, regulations are examples of how government can aid in the creation of domestic monopolies.
>>67849027
Fucking pedantic. Fine, not a 'corporation' then, something that behaves and is organized in exactly the same way as a corporation but does not require the government to derive it's legitimacy
>>67849106
>What would they gain?
Eliminating rivals, acquiring what others have, enforcing a regional hegemony, the usual reasons for violance
>The cost of maintaining that police force
is spread across all employees of a suitably large corporation
>public backlash surely outweigh any possible gain.
That is just a speculation on other people's opinions. There could just as easily be no backlash, it depends on how the corporations PR department spins it.
Going to bed - make more of these threads later.
>>67849587
>I have about as much respect for empiricists as I do nihilists,
I got some bad news for you buddy.
>>67848153
This post is literally empiricism.
>>67849709
It's not pedantic - in the real world, instead of a corporation we more broadly just call a group of people who freely associate and employ labor towards producing goods and services a 'business'.
>>67849897
please stop arguing semantics with me and help me with my questions about anarcho capitalism
>>67849522
>>67849679
I can certainly agree that government has enabled, and protected the capitalist corporate class in its exploitation of people. But if you think that a private entity is magically incapable of seizing up resources and establishing a militia, you are completely and utterly naive.
>>67849783
>This post is literally empiricism
Are you literally retarded? I was saying *YOU'RE* an empiricist, which it seems, indeed, you are. In which case LEL.
The answer to my question is probably. Good night - you can catch me later.
>>67849709
For one, people will fight back. Without the social acceptance of the force, it won't last.
Walmart has raped and pillaged our neighborhood again. Man, I need some new towels for all the blood, lets go to Walmart!
>spread across all employees
What does this even mean? They would still have to pay hazard pay. Do you mean take it out of their paychecks? how does that make sense?
>>67850075
It would be a state if it violently seized it. Congrats - you're an anarchist.
>>67850020
If people want to *freely* organize, they can *freely* do so however they like. But keep in mind pic related.
Good night people.
>>67850107
Just pay them all a little less. The more employees you have, the less you need to reduce their salaries to compensate for the company's bottom line.
>>67838803
first post most retarded post
>>67850075
Fuck off retard. I've been arguing against an-caps and private militaries this entire thread. We have IDs, look at my posts.
>>67847633
>Why would competing PMCs work together?
Competing PMCs would work together if it is in the best interest of their clients. In the hypothetical scenario you have provided, it would be in the best interest of the private defense agencies to work together, as this is what would best serve their clients.
>They're natural enemies.
In the free-market it is certainly true that they are competitors. However, in this instance, it would be in the best interest of their clients for them to work together in order to defend their clients against an external force.
>>67847679
>Our system isn't perfect, but it is improvable within the law.
I agree. Minarchism is certainly preferable to what we have now. I am also of the opinion that anarcho-capitalism is preferable to minarchism.
> If you have a bunch of people without a government, then the first guy who can convince a bunch of people to do what he wants can make his own having his people kick the shit out of anyone who doesn't do what he wants.
This would be an example of why private defense agencies would exist.
>Because we are social people.
Again, I agree with both you and Aristotle. Man is a social creature.
>They are a natural thing, if removed they will be created again.
I agree that in an anarcho-capitalist society there would be individuals who attempt to infringe upon the rights of others. I, nor any other sensible an-cap, would argue otherwise. This does not seem to be a sensible argument as to why we should have a state.
>Anarchists are a minority. That should, in and of itself, tell you that the majority of people do not want anarchy.
I agree. Is this to say that the will of the majority is always proper? Is this to imply that the majority consensus is always correct and the minority consensus is always wrong?
>>67839169
Carl the cuck made this one ?
IM AN ANARCHIST!
AAAAAAAAAAAA!
ANARCHEEEEEEEEEEE
>>67850226
>Your private entity magically becomes the government when it uses violence
Okay, so you've conceded that anarcho-capitalism basically sets the stage for an oppressive state. Unless you think every private entity is going to be peaceful. Which I refer back to my naive comment.
>>67850226
If they are freely allowed to do what they like then they are freely allowed to organize into an authoritarian micro state as your picture described. I find option A, the communist authoritarian route to be the one that most accurately models reality.
>>67850075
But that is exactly how states form
>>67838676
You don't own yourself, you are yourself.
>>67847604
Please respond
>>67850757
>>67850763
Disregard that, I suck cocks and can't fucking read
>>67850083
Oh, sorry, totally fucked up reading that post.
Is that literally it, then? "God did it, the end"?
>>67850267
How is that not still a cost? You can only lower the wages so much, and you'd be paying the minimum possible already.
>>67847682
>Why can anarcho capitalism help my family, friends and employees?
No economic system has lifted more people out of poverty and increased the standard of living to a higher degree than free-market capitalism. If your primary concern is upward economic mobility, then anarcho-capitalism is a potential answer.
Outside of economic betterment, anarcho-capitalism is the only societal system in which your natural rights are respected. It is the only societal system in which your friends, family, and you yourself will not be systematically subjugated against by a group of individuals who initiate the use of violence against you and all of the people you care about.
>>67850776
I own myself.
>>67847604
A state that maintains the basic necessities for life like a defensive military, roads and borders, and then all other aspects of society could be governed in the same way we buy insurance.
>Crime insurance
funds police and protects paying citizens from crime
>Fire insurance
funds firefighters and douses fires etc
>Poverty Insurance
acts like a pension to serve as personal welfare if you should ever fall on hard times
This way almost all aspects of taxation are opt-in
>>67848227
You
FucKING
IDIOT
WALMART BUYS PRODUCTS
MADE BY FUCKING SLAVES
SLAVES
ENSLAVED PEOPLE
AND NOBODY GIVES A FUCK
MOST PEOPLE DON'T EVEN FUCKING KNOW IT
BECAUSE THE MARKET ISN'T SOME PERFECT CLOUD IN THE SKY
YOU FUCKING IDIOT. YOU ARE PROOF THAT ANARCHO CAPITALISM CANT WORK YOU FUCKING IMBECILE
>>67850935
Nice non-argument. You can't own yourself because ownership requires the owner and the thing that is owned. The two cannot be the same or else I can say that yourself owns you which is categorically false.
>>67850387
>Competing PMCs would work together if it is in the best interest of their clients. In the hypothetical scenario you have provided, it would be in the best interest of the private defense agencies to work together, as this is what would best serve their clients.
And even if they worked together they would be ultimately weaker due to a lack of funding necessary to fight a foreign force, and the difficulties in coordinating multiple military entities. Holding a standing army is very difficult already and peacetime would only result in less funding to a given PMC as people would deem it not necessary.
There is none, anarcho-capitalism is the way.
But some people newly introduced to it seem to think that the state should be instantly abolished, that's childish and is not going to happen, the state won't disappear quickly, and then there are gradualists, who think we should dismantle the state following a pattern, i think we should be opportunists, we should take every little opportunity to diminish the state, it's sphere of influence and it's power, up until it's no longer useful.
The bitcoin is a great example of this, in fact, the bitcoin is the most anarcho-capialist thing in the world right now, it's descentralized, the government can't influence it, they can't destroy it, they can't tax it and nobody can steal your bitcoins, peaceful voluntary trade free from government influence is all there is to bitcoin.
As technology advances, more and more we have opportunities to boycott the state and make it smaller and we should take all these opportunities until the masses realize the state is not really necessary anymore.
>>67838676
Power vacuum leading to:
>Collusion of large businesses interest.
>Outside influence up to and including invasion
>Rise of radical groups & dictators.
>>67850930
If they're not working for free the wage can always go lower with no government mandated minimum or unions (unionism is statism)
>>67850935
>No economic system has lifted more people out of poverty and increased the standard of living to a higher degree than free-market capitalism.
You forgot to cite your quote to Friedman
>>67851161
How is that different from ancap?
>>67851281
>The bitcoin is a great example of this
I'd hate to disagree with you, but cryptocurrency markets are far too volatile at the moment to entice the average normie. Just look at what happened to ETH in the past 5 days.
You know... if you combine all of the various flags for the anarchist types...
... you wind up with the international maritime flag for "I require a tug".
... which makes perfect sense to me.
... I've never seen a crowd more in need of tug.
>>67851606
Gave me a kek
>>67851329
>what is supply and demand
>what are prices
If they could just magically pay people less and get the same amount of productivity, they'd be doing it already.
>>67851481
Its not much different and to be quite honest, I am not an anarcho capitalist so I don't have all the answers, I just felt sorry for your 'please respond'
The main difference would be the maintaining of a very much reduced state in charge of keeping the sovereignty of the nation as whole against foreigners and maintaining certain necessary public services like roads and power lines (energy companies can still compete but the use of the method of electricity transmission would be guarded by the minimalist state)
>>67838676
If we really need to find the flaws for you, youre a joke of a human being
I like my roads
>>67838676
what would stop someone selling nuclear weapon to ISIS supporters?
>>67851758
>>67851329
>If they could just magically pay people less and get the same amount of productivity, they'd be doing it already.
And if they decided not to, the first person to implement the strategy would severely undercut its competitors.
>>67851758
no, the government has a mandatory minimum. That is why all the manufacturing is done by foreigners who don't have one
>>67851226
Can you give me a source on this?
And not some "lower than comfy-American-minimum-wage = slavery" bullshit
>>67838940
They can claim this isnt an argument all they want, its 100% true. Where did kings come from except from fuckers that owned a city and had a workforce of guards?
>>67851866
The US is already the biggest death merchant in the world.
A few individuals selling WMD's would be much better than a megalith.
>>67851887
If that's the case, then why pay anyone at all? Think this through, mate. Wages are a price that both the buyer and seller must agree upon.
The state is our flawed god. There's no reason to replace it with something else since we have direct influence on it.
>>67852027
This is true and it depends entirely on which side the workforce and job availability is buttered. If there are more jobs than people, then the people have the negotiating power. If there are more people than jobs then, so long as you do not pay literally nothing, you can pay as little as you want in a free market because there will always be someone who will work for less.
>>67838676
>just got out of college with degree in economics or business
>doesnt want to pay taxes
>*cries*
>finds ancapism
>"OOH, now i can pretend my taxes, oh, i mean rent, is voluntary"
You and everyone who supports ancapism is a sad adult-child.
Also, for the same reason Communism doesn't work.
People are shit.
>>67852172
>pay as little as you want
>but not $0
Are you on drugs?
>>67852008
I'm talking about selling to domestic supporters.
What would stop someone who getting contracted by some home grown durkas to produce weaponised sarin gas for them or something like that?
After all, they would be paying customers.
>>67851232
>You can't own yourself because ownership requires the owner and the thing that is owned. The two cannot be the same or else I can say that yourself owns you which is categorically false.
One owns oneself and you own yourself. You exist. Perhaps you could argue as to whether or not you own yourself, but you exist, unequivocally. You, as a piece of physical property, also exists, in that your body exists in nature. The question then becomes who owns your body, and all that it encompasses, such as your free-will, and your labor?
Again, does one own oneself, or is the property one finds in oneself owned by another individual or no man at all?
>>67851276
>And even if they worked together they would be ultimately weaker due to a lack of funding necessary to fight a foreign force, and the difficulties in coordinating multiple military entities.
This may or may not be true. Admittedly I'm not so well-read on historical examples of private armies, so it's difficult for me to definitively say that you are right. But let's assume that you are right, and that having several different private defense agencies working in conjunction with one another would not function as efficiently as one consolidated defense agency. Well then the private defense agencies can undergo a temporary merger in which they consolidate all of their resources to defeat this external force.
>...and peacetime would only result in less funding to a given PMC as people would deem it not necessary.
Why would people deem it unnecessary to defend themselves against aggressors? And do people not maintain the right to make this decision?
>>67851427
kek
>>67851866
>what would stop someone selling nuclear weapon to ISIS supporters?
The United States arms allies of ISIS.
>>67852218
HIGHTEST
I
G
H
T
E
S
T
>>67852258
Can't you understand? This is what already happens in reality in the global market.
>Work for $1 a day
>Get no money at all
Choose
>>67852304
>The United States arms allies of ISIS.
that doesn't answer my question
>>67838676
ANCAP is unstable and leads to fascism.
The first strong group of people that decides to get together to conquer everybody else is going to do just that.
>>67852302
Your question "jumps the gun".
The reason that there even is an ISIS is because the Middle East was destabilized by Government.
So while, yes I can see an issue with what you are trying to say, but ancap reduces the frequency of such an event happening. Also, lets not forget to mention that terrorist attacks happen all the time on government soil.
How would you stop a group of people just setting up a state, building an army, and conquering territory bringing it under the rule of that state?
Would it be constant civil war?
BUILD ROADS
>>67851800
I understand, but my goal was to try to define a system as close to complete libertarianism as possible. As soon as you include a state, or any kind of authority/governing entity, the individual loses his sovereignty.
Individualist anarchists claim that a true anarchist society wouldn't necessarily prevent the formation of collectives of people, but I find this hard to believe since such groups would inevitably morph into syndicates or micro-states.
>>67852612
"""strong group of people"""
That is not Political Authority. Try Again.
>>67852420
People are competing with you for that labor. If you could pay them less, you would, but you can't or else they will go elsewhere. You can't just take costs out of salaries willy-nilly and not expect a hit to productivity or the skill of your workforce. That's just rearranging the costs. An increase in overhead can't be magically whisked away by lowering wages. That's just not how it works.
>>67852612
that's not a bad thing
>>67852523
I'm going to need you to clarify this question. Are you asking how individuals would be prevented from arming supporters of ISIS from within an anarcho-capitalist society?
>>67852658
>How would you stop a group of people just setting up a state, building an army, and conquering territory bringing it under the rule of that state?
Private defense agencies.
>>67852736
If roads are really that important then people will privatize them as there will be a profit to be made.
If there isn't a profit to be made, then how can one argue that roads are really that important in the first place if you aren't willing to pay for them?
>>67852633
ISIS exists because of Islam
Islam will always make a constant supply of radicals
If Britain went anarcho-capitalist, what's to stop them trying to conquer of Britain and make it an Islamic state?
The reason they don't now is because of state intelligence services and the presence of a large standing army making that impossible.
>>67852922
exactly, this is why you cannot have a completely stateless society, because a state would be needed to maintain its statelessness
>>67853013
People are only competing with me for that labor if the job market is bigger than the population, and if we use reality as our yardstick that would simply not be the case. The number of people seeking a job would outnumber the amount of available jobs, so the bargaining power belongs to the employer who interviews many candidates for a single position and can pay them whatever he wishes. They cannot go elsewhere because for ever opening there are three candidates willing to fill it and I guarantee you one of them is desperate enough to work for whatever the company is willing to pay them
>>67838676
>Capitalism
wew that was easy
>>67839786
I too am concerned about the natural formation of hierarchies and power structures
>>67852777
Little "l" libertarian government seems to be the best compromise for stability in a large national.
You have to admit human nature was not designed for such massive societies.
Ancap is by its nature a regression back to tribalism.
>>67852972
>That is not Political Authority. Try Again.
What do you mean? They become a political authority when they kill anybody who would stand against them.
I don't know what you mean by political authority.
>>67853252
I see your point. One certainly wouldn't want to go ancap just to be controlled by dictators a decade later.
Do you think it's possible that technological advancements in defense would exceed that of weaponry, allowing for this issue to be bypassed and allow for ancap?
Also, if Islam is such a threat, why don't we kill them outright?
Political Authority is just a superstition, as proven irrefutably by Larken Rose:
http://www.mensenrechten.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/the-most-dangerous-superstition-larken-rose-20111.pdf
If you are a Statist now, you won't be after reading The Most Dangerous Superstition.
"The free market will fix everything" "Have you heard of the non-aggression p[principle?"
I find Scientology more appealing than Anarcho-capitalism..
>>67838676
>"I'll wait."
maybe instead of waiting you could get to work convincing everyone to turn ancap instead of jerking off on /pol/
utopia should be an easy sell, you fucking mong
>>67853549
Legitamitly not an arguement.
Explain what you find wrong about saying
>"The free market will fix everything" "Have you heard of the non-aggression principle?"
Instead of just throwing out a few quotes that sound like what an an-cap would say and then dismissing an-cap by saying you find a rather universally accepted bullshit organization more believable, despite never giving a reason why
>>67853253
You bring up a good point that a labor surplus would drive the price down, but it would still have a floor, friend. There is still a price. It can't be 0. Either way, you cannot get rid of an increase in overheard by decreasing wages. That's what this whole argument is about. It doesn't work that way. By paying less, you are going to get less skilled workers. If you lay people off instead, you are still losing labor. THE COST DOESN'T DISAPPEAR INTO THIN AIR BY "SPREADING IT OUT TO THE EMPLOYEES"
>>67853432
No, that is just "brute force".
Political Authority is a superstition. People must be brainwashed to believe in Political Authority.
This is what "authority" looks like:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ngpsJKQR_ZE
Can a street gang do this? NO.
Larken Rose explains this critical difference best in his Magnum Opus, The Most Dangerous Superstition:
http://www.mensenrechten.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/the-most-dangerous-superstition-larken-rose-20111.pdf
>>67853253
>you cannot have a completely stateless society, because a state would be needed to maintain its statelessness
So, there's no answer?
>>67853711
>maybe instead of waiting you could get to work convincing everyone to turn ancap instead of jerking off on /pol/
Have you not been reading the thread?
That's exactly what he's been doing
>>67851283
>Collusion of large businesses interest.
This happens now, only in this state the private sector is compromised by the state; the financial industry is a great example of this. Are you saying that this would happen in an anarcho-capitalist society and it does not happen now, or that it would occur at a higher frequency in an anarcho-capitalist society?
>Outside influence up to and including invasion
>Rise of radical groups & dictators.
Enter private defense agencies.
>>67853252
>...what's to stop them trying to conquer of Britain and make it an Islamic state?
Nothing will prevent them from trying to do this, but the private defense agencies will prevent this from occurring.
Also, consider the following: in an anarcho-capitalist society, all property is privately owned. As you have with every other form of anarchism, anarcho-capitalism means that there are no defined borders. Once could argue that synthetic borders exist as a result of the borders of other states being created, so that the borders of an anarcho-capitalist society existing where the U.S. currently does exist where the borders of Canada and Mexico exist. Anyways, the property in this society is all privately owned, which means that for any outsiders to travel to this anarcho-capitalist society means that they must have permission to travel on the land that is privately owned. If an attempted invasion occurred, the private defense agencies contracted by those whose property rights were being violated would spring into action and defend their clients.
>>67853711
>maybe instead of waiting you could get to work convincing everyone to turn ancap instead of jerking off on /pol/
That's what I'm trying to do brother.
>>67853826
Why must we presume that paying less = less skilled workers, especially if there is a labor surplus?
Also moving back to where we started, presumably a company is operating under a profit, some of those profits can go towards the private military of the company, whose job it is to protect the company's interests. It would be easy to justify this to shareholders because hegemony is good for the company, which is essentially a state
Its simply eliminating the middle man of the government that already exists today (see : gulf war) for the use of force
>>67838676
Utilities won't work.
Any non-city area and most small cities don't have the population to support multiple providers considering the infrastructure required. The incumbent there runs a monopoly with no chance of competition, this is why we have regulators and why you don't pay $1000/mo for water.
Why would we want to try out Anarcho-capitalism ? I mean if Somalia is the best that it can do, why would anyone would want that?
>>67854018
>Nothing will prevent them from trying to do this, but the private defense agencies will prevent this from occurring.
Will private defense entities be enough if say, China tries to annex "ancap USA"?
>>67853852
>No, that is just "brute force".
That's fascism.
Pay your taxes or you go to the gulag. Obey my rule or go to the gulag.
People don't want to go to the gulag. That's the source of political authority. People eventually accept it as a given when the ruler is strong enough.
If it's pointless to resist, some percentage of people will bow and accept their rulers.
>>67854370
My whole point is that that money can be put to better use elsewhere. e.g., hiring more workers who actually do things, investing in expanding production, advertising, etc. Having a police force to brutalize the public for monetary gain literally makes no economic sense for companies who make consumer goods or services. People aren't defenseless, and public opinion does matter, and any business is going to have competition.
>>67853852
>Can a street gang do this? NO.
This is exactly what the mafia did. A street gang can do this. Gangs in africa do this all the time.
"Protection fees"
>>67854616
Supposing your business is real estate, then there is a very real profit to be gained from bullying and oppressing private citizens.
Or if your business is a delivery company, laying siege to a rival depot will stop them from operating and allow you to have a monopoly
There is no 'better thing' to spend money on, with no regulations or restrictions it becomes a literal arms race between companies
>>67854648
Did the mafia brainwash children for 10,000 hours?
Do people wave the mafia flag?
Is it respectable to the general public to say "I fought for the mafia"?
>>67854404
>Utilities won't work.
Define "utilities".
>The incumbent there runs a monopoly with no chance of competition, this is why we have regulators and why you don't pay $1000/mo for water.
I agree that the state suffers from the inability to set prices appropriately. However, you are likely not taking into consideration taxation when considering the monetary cost of water to consumers. Even still, it generally holds that monopolies operate identically, in that they provide to consumers the lowest possible quality good or service at the highest possible cost to consumer. Even when the intentions of those who provide to individuals water, the system of distribution is generally ineffective, and necessarily worse at providing to consumers these goods/services than the private sector. Use bottled water versus state-run water distribution in Flint as an example. When have you ever gone to the grocery store and seen bottled water that was brown?
>>67854483
Do you understand what a Cult is?
Name ONE pathetic street gang that has millions of worshipers - in different countries across the globe.
>>67855135
*Even when the intentions of those who provide to individuals water are well intentioned...
How are there still libertarians post-Moldbug? I don't understand this.
>>67855135
Is the water clean because nobody would buy dirty water, or is it clean because the government mandates bottled water should be clean?
>>67854869
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTYkdEU_B4o
>>67838676
it's not that there's anything bad about living under anarchy, it's just that cooperation is inherently advantageous and people will invariably organize themselves to divide labor, bargain collectively etc, and new governments will always form
>>67855199
The specific number of followers doesn't matter.
>>67854888
The number of hours of brainwashing doesn't matter. They convinced (some) people that they represented a legitimate authority.
>Is it respectable to the general public to say "I fought for the mafia"?
It was respectable among those who accepted the mafia.
Are you suggesting that in an ancap society that people are not susceptible to cultish behavior? That's patently false. Cults arise all over the place. People like the sense of unity that exists in a collective.
It doesn't matter if you call it brute force or whatever: In an ancap society, you're likely to find yourself at gunpoint having to do whatever you're told, living as a slave.
>>67855135
Water utilities are still privately run, they just need to have their rates approved by the state (not set by the state) as a measure against price gouging. I hadn't even thought about water quality, but that just makes the monopoly situation even worse.
>>67855596
In order to have states like we do now, it would require 10,000 hours of state-run "education" brainwashing. Chicken and egg problem.
To all the other statists possibly on the fence:
The modern state is a hundred year con nearing inevitable economic collapse.
It is built entirely on fiat currency and brainwashing.
It's going to collapse anyway, and it's insanity to do the same thing over and over.
>>67855890
>In an ancap society, you're likely to find yourself at gunpoint having to do whatever you're told, living as a slave.
Violence isn't good for buisness though for many reasons, the least of which is that if you resort to violence most other people and compan will no longer support you. And if you try and force them to support you, then the companies who protect the people will stop you, because you're trying to forcibly take away their business.
>>67855890
>In an ancap society, you're likely to find yourself at gunpoint having to do whatever you're told, living as a slave.
BULLSHIT!
There are no gun laws in anachy pleb.
There are 100 million gun owners in the US.
What mafia should they be afraid of in a world without gun laws?
>>67855969
>Water utilities are still privately run, they just need to have their rates approved by the state (not set by the state) as a measure against price gouging
If prices go to high, another company will come in and undercut the current buisness so that the new company can make money.
>I hadn't even thought about water quality
If water quality is really important then people will only buy from companies which provide water at a quality one deems sufficient at an acceptable price.
>that just makes the monopoly situation even worse
Monoplies don't occur in a truly free market. They need a government to sustain themselves.
>>67855433
kek
>>67855477
Thanks for posting this anon, I've never seen this before.
>>67855596
>it's just that cooperation is inherently advantageous...
This is to assume that what is "advantageous" to one is necessarily "advantageous" to another. Preferences are inherently subjective, which is one of the attractive elements of anarcho-capitalism. In an anarcho-capitalist society you would likely find some sort of collectivist community and an area of rugged individualists.
>...people will invariably organize themselves to divide labor, bargain collectively etc
So long as it's voluntary there is no problem with this.
>...and new governments will always form
Not if the private defense agencies and those who believe in ensuring their rights have anything to say about it.
>>67855969
>...they just need to have their rates approved by the state (not set by the state) as a measure against price gouging.
Would the risk of losing voluntary consumers not be incentive enough to provide to these consumers a high quality service/good at a low price?
If prices for water are best affected if handled by the state, then are prices for food best affected if handled by the state?
>>67856121
>the companies who protect the people will stop you, because you're trying to forcibly take away their business.
Yes but the problem is, independent agencies are slower and more disorganized than a collective force. The companies that protect people are going to want to be paid before they go in, they're going to have to decide which sides to support, which benefits them most.
Some will side with the invaders because the invaders are attacking their competitors.
People who are in economic competition with eachother may be tempted to avoid helping their competitors in favor of personal profit.
Oh we are the "brained washed public educated government drones " but the drop atheist anti government libertarians are "enlighten ones". Forgive us worthless sheeple for not understanding your great wisdom and knowledge of the social sciences.
>>67856336
>What mafia should they be afraid of in a world without gun laws?
Organized militaries are always going to be superior to unorganized people who happen to own guns.
>>67856487
>Yes but the problem is, independent agencies are slower and more disorganized than a collective force
Go down to any buercratic agency, like the DMV for example, then go wait in line in any business, like a bank, and then tell me that governments or "collective forces" are more organized and efficient.
>Some will side with the invaders because the invaders are attacking their competitors.
>People who are in economic competition with eachother may be tempted to avoid helping their competitors in favor of personal profit
Your assuming companies would pnly think i. The short term. In the long term they know goverments are likely to screw them over, and thus they would not support them for fear of being in the same position their competitor is currently in. Almost like kant's formula of universal law in a sense.
The first groups to organise into nation-states with collectivist national identities and cohesive religions are going to fuck everyone who tries to remain an individualistic capitalist six ways from sunday.
No mercenary army is going to stick around to defend your property after the first time a man who has been promised the undying love of his god-king in the afterlife suicide bombs six of them on their lunchbreak.
You can pay people to kill for you - you can't pay people to die for you.
>>67856508
Do you think the state had your best interest when it "educated" you?
http://www.amazon.com/Deliberate-Dumbing-America-Revised-Abridged/dp/0966707117
>>67856709
What is stopping people from forming militias based on mutual defense of self-ownership?
The only thing I can think of would be bullshit manmade laws.
>>67856486
>private defense agencies
and what exactly is to prevent one of these private agencies to form a state of their own? the other private agencies?
what's to prevent one or two or three or a dozen of these agencies from cooperating to form a state?
I'm just saying, this anarchist capitalism idea is not that different from the way things were 10,000 ago except now we have books to read and guns to shoot. governments, states, and the consolidation of power are a natural (albeit undesirable) of the societies that are formed by the interactions of self-interested people
Damn, this was a good thread. Thank you to everyone who responded. I've been posting for 3 and 1/2 hours so I'm finished for today. Keep fighting the good fight and spreading the message fellow an-caps.
>>67856940
>you can't pay people to die for you.
Except you can.
Modern militaries get paid and get many benefits.
In the medieval era many armies were mercenaries, people who were paid to die for a leader.
>>67839786
>I fail to see how anarcho-capitalism would necessarily lead to the creation of a state.
And this is why people like you will never be taken seriously. You think the state is some magical entity that exists purely out of ideological consensus. Like we all woke up 2000 years ago and said "HEY GUYS STOP BEING FREE AGENTS RIGHT NOW AND LETS ALL TRY THIS GOVERNMENT THING FOR A WHILE"
The reality is there is little difference between MUH BIG BAD STATE and any other accumulation of power, resources, and influence. The fact that it currently comes in "democracy" flavor says nothing about the underlying principles of the human condition that inevitably leads to such a thing.
If you dig up the sand on a beach, the tide comes in and fills the hole with different sand. But it all ends up being the same kind of bullshit.
Ironically ancaps are defeated by their own ideology. It isn't even logically consistant in the real world because it has to violate its own principles and meddle in affairs as a big brother to prevent anything other than strict anarchy from thriving in the absence of concentrated power and governing.
>>67856857
>Go down to any buercratic agency, like the DMV for example, then go wait in line in any business, like a bank, and then tell me that governments or "collective forces" are more organized and efficient.
Bureaucracies are inefficient precisely because they are divided into independent agencies. They don't communicate efficiently with each other. Hence there are huge inefficiencies. The purpose of a bureaucracy is to divide up power, not to unify it.
>Your assuming companies would pnly think i. The short term. In the long term they know goverments are likely to screw them over, and thus they would not support them for fear of being in the same position their competitor is currently in. Almost like kant's formula of universal law in a sense.
No, i'm thinking they will evaluate their longterm interests differently. It's possible that it will be better in their long term interests.
For example: If i wait for the invaders to conquer X,Y, and Z, their army will be weakened, then I can conquer them, and establish my own fascist ruler ship.
>>67848752
>the company is vastly more likely to win a fight
how? the second they "fight" all the customers leave. thats not what they signed up for, at least the majority of them, and all those profits will go to a company that focuses on actual defense
>>67850075
>a person wrote a tu quoque about ayn rand, rothbard, and friedman
>you saved it
cant decide which is worse
>>67855477
I think the first ten minutes of this video addresses what I was talking about and it presumes that two actors in a potentially violent situation come into it as equals with equal funds and equally competent 'rights enforcement agents' and when a company or cooperative of people are acting against an individual then the company will have the advantage.
And even if no violence take place, the threat of violence of rich company A vs less rich company B can create a war of attrition as company B has outbid company A against hit men (he talks about this about 18 minutes in)
>>67851901
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/slave-made-goods-now-available-freezer-section/
And yes, these products do make it into American stores
>>67838676
non-whites and stupid whites
>>67853428
>You have to admit human nature was not designed for such massive societies.
its actually you that is unable to admit this
>>67857100
hello I am an ancap but I am voting trump because the state is not gone yet
>>67857174
>Bureaucracies are inefficient precisely because they are divided into independent agencies. They don't communicate efficiently with each other. Hence there are huge inefficiencies. The purpose of a bureaucracy is to divide up power, not to unify it.
Private companies will always be more efficient because they have a greater incentive to. As the old saying goes "time is money". Companies have to find ways to save money, and as such they try and save time, were as goverments have no such incentive as they can just walk up to your house and say "It's april 18th , time for state aproved theft, bitch!"
>For example: If i wait for the invaders to conquer X,Y, and Z, their army will be weakened, then I can conquer them, and establish my own fascist ruler ship.
Which doesn't change my response. They will still realize that if they do that, they risk getting overthrown themselves, and thus they would not do it. Once again the formula of universal law and reason alone save the day.
>>67838676
Man, this autisto-capitalism thread is still going?
>>67857497
Then why not support canidates who will help get rid of the state?
Which I guess brings up a different question: have you supported trump since day one, back when there where options who would get us closer to an-cap, or do you only support him now because he is the option that will get us closer to an-cap in the current field of options?
>>67857664
Not an argument :^)
>>67857506
>Which doesn't change my response. They will still realize that if they do that, they risk getting overthrown themselves, and thus they would not do it. Once again the formula of universal law and reason alone save the day.
High risk, High reward is not illogical. It depends on the outlook of the company.
You're assuming it will always be logical for them to defend your interests.
It won't.
>Private companies will always be more efficient
Individually, yes. But when they try to act together with other companies, they will be more disorganized because they have competing interests.
>>67857103
Except you can't.
Modern militaries aren't mercenary armies. They're militaries, which is why we call them 'militaries' and not 'mercenary armies'.
Soldiers were also paid in the past.
The key to getting your money's worth was (and still is) to instill in each individual soldier the belief that he is fighting for something more important than himself, and that it is his duty, to his king, his god, and his country to charge that wall of angry-looking brown people with scimitars.
Mercenary armies in the past were not typically used to fight other armies - they were more often employed as protection for a king, or to put down local rebellions amidst the general non-military population. Sound familiar? That's what defense contractors do today.
I am going to sell heroin, and after I have consolidated the market, including the cut to shit cheese I sell the grade school kids, I will begin cutting it with boric acid and talc containing traces of asbestos.
I will open kindergarten rape parlours that the junkies can rent their kids to me for, so they get their smack for free.
I will use this revenue to fund my campaign to introduce history books to schools that explain how niggers built the pyramids using meme magic, which was later coopted by the low born cumskins .
You can't do a fucking thing about it, and I am going to sell it for pennies on the dollar. Welcome to
>>67838676
Imagine Hatfields vs McCoys but everywhere. All the time. Forever.
You like to think that might sound cool and all...but if you think critically and realize what a shit life that would actually be, you'll finally get the point.
Get over yourself, you're not a fucking snowflake with this retarded shit.
>>67857426
Do you really wish to regress back to tribalism? I enjoy using the internet & shit posting in near complete safety.
>>67857816
>Soldiers were also paid in the past.
So you admit that you can pay people to die for you
>The key to getting your money's worth was (and still is) to instill in each individual soldier the belief that he is fighting for something more important than himself, and that it is his duty, to his king, his god, and his country to charge that wall of angry-looking brown people with scimitars.
That's not true at all, otherwise veterans programs, ROTC, and many other such incentives wouldn't exist. Is it possible to get someone to die for you in the manner you describe? Yes. But that doesn't mean that you can't pay people to do the same.
>>67857962
We already have anarchy at the international level!
Any argument for government is inherently an argument for One World Government.
>>67857915
I'm not an ancap, but i think I'd be down with having you killed by a legal hit man after you attempted stage one on my child
>>67857915
You don't even have to go that far in the analogy. You can just marry some literally retarded woman and breed her and build a tard army on your own property.
You and your tard sons can rape and impregnate you tard daughters whenever you like and no one should be allowed to stop you because its your land and personal family life.
Then when you have an army of potatoes you can start ransacking and pillaging surrounding areas and converting people to your tard tribe in exchange for not eating them. Get big enough to take out any """""""""""""anarchy"""""""" enforcement militias and then viola welcome to Tard Kingdom, a feudal style absolute monarchy with the dumbest tards laboring at on the fields as peasants and a handful of elites at the top.
>>67857915
Yeah, my Private defense agency will be taking you to court for doing that on my buisnesses property and thus losing us customers.
Also, I'll be finacing a buisness which undercuts your rape parlor with more ethical and socially acceptable ways of leeting people pay for sex
And as part of a goodwill campaign out company is opening up low cost schools that provide quality education which is far better than your self admited bullshit.
So good luck I guess, but don't expect there to be no competition or consquences for ones actions.
>>67858337
There tards man not five days after he marries her, she'll have sold the house for a shiny stick to a company looking to build new facilities or a new private road.
>>67858337
That's actually state welfare.
Breeding an army of mouth breathers for the advancement of the democratic state.
Violent tards aren't going to last very long in a world where everyone is armed.
>>67839169
The one on the right should be covered in corporate logos.
>>67858577
That isn't an argument in favor of ancap. The same result would be achieved with NatSoc, as he would be deemed a threat to our society and removed from it by whatever means was required, and for considerably less time and effort
>>67858337
Wait... Isn't that Mormons?
>>67855477
>in this video lets pretend humans in their normal state without social pressures and balance checks implemented by how they are governed will more or less act as rational when they are suddenly allowed to literally do whatever they can get away with
You fuckers take way too much for granted, incentives and behavior shifts DRASTICALLY when you remove the human from its modern systems of government and "consequences" enforced universally by said government. It doesn't go about "business as usual" for very long when no one is held accountable as long and they can connive, cheat, and Jew their way out of it.
>>67850608
It's FDR's quasi-socialist America which did this, not some anarchist libertarian hellhole which would have been steamrollered by the Nazis.
>>67858141
You are welcome to, but you'll have to overcome the fierce loyalty of my drug slaves ( who could never afford my dope if I wasnt selling it almost at cost) and the cabal of powerful rich pedophiles who appreciate my discerning taste in 4 year old prolapsed anuses.
>>67858906
>natsoc
>being a bootlicker
And yes it is an argument in favor of ancap, as in natsoc he's sent to the death camps, where as in ancap he's driven out of the markets by smart buisnessmen who undercut his buisness and cause him to go bankrupt.
>>67858577
I have that covered with my dope fiends and pedophile defence force ( allahu akbar commandos included)
>>67859079
touche
>>67858131
Bullshit. You idiots like to spin everything into some form of epic optimistic mystical statement that doesn't acknowledge full, actual reality in any way. It's like an army comprised of Dennises from holy grail, you verbally masturbate to this shit thinking everyone should just "get it" when you haven't even fully understood it yourself. Even chomsky said it was no good. If that fucking moron can acknowledge it, what does that make you?
>>67859193
While we're waiting for his finances to dwindle, more children are being addicted to drugs and raped by pedophiles. Or we can send him to the death camp, or simply have him walked to the border and ejected. Being natsoc doesnt; mean bootlicker, the state must serve the interests of the people, because all people stand together against subversive and destructive influences such as our pedophile pimp friend
>>67859199
Good thing our private defnece agency installed new security measures designed to counter such threats after we paid them to update our security in case of new risks.
>>67859367
>full, actual reality in any way
We do not have a world government, therefore we have anarchy at the International Level.
The relationship between Singapore and Sweden is anarchy.
What is wrong with bringing the existing International Order down to the level of the individual?
>>67859372
>While we're waiting for his finances to dwindle, more children are being addicted to drugs and raped by pedophiles
Oh so the much better solution is to hand over our rights and give people the moral right to steal from us, kill us and forcibly seize our property?
Sure, millions of people deemed "undesirables" are toruted and killed each day and the secret police kidnap people at random never to be seen again, but at least no child is a crack whore
Thanks Big Brother for looking out for us and teaching that 2+2=5
Not a bootlicker my ass.
>>67859576
Because only a sith deals in extremes
>>67859624
Where did I say any of those things? NatSoc does not mean emulate the nazis in every way possible. Deportation of undesirables is just fine for me, if they are degenerates they are harming everyone. If they are not contributing they are leeching, like a cancerous growth. Why would you not want to remove a cancerous growth?
>>67859576
You really are retarded aren't you?
What is the UN? What is NATO? What is the EU? What is InterPol? It's like you avoid the fact that nations have international tier interaction literally all fucking over the place with legislation to make it work, and yet here you are, claiming to have all the answers. Does your mom know you're on an adult website right now taking to grown ups?
>>67859414
I doubt they will counter the waves of truck bombs being driven by drug addled pederasts who think they will receive 42 toddlers if they die in the name of black tar heroin. My spies stretch from here to St Petersburg, the Vatican, Yale, Beijing, all the way down into the deepest pits and vilest gutters of Saigon and Chicago Illinois. Your little cyber ninja technocrats city state is no match for the purse chemical need and blind id that powers my dark empire.
>>67859825
>Where did I say any of those things?
When you said "or we can send him to the deaths camps or deport him
>>67859996
Jokes on you, our an cap societey has improved quality of life so much that we invented necromany and are as advanced as 40k necrons.
So good luck, I'm behind 70000 skeletons.
>>67859920
>What is the UN? What is NATO? What is the EU? What is InterPol?
Voluntary agreements between heads of state that can be withdrawn unilaterally at any time. Not a global government. Brexit for example, is unilateral; They don't need the EU's permission to leave.
Currently, all 196 are fully sovereign, independent entities.
>Does your mom know you're on an adult website right now taking to grown ups?
Not an argument.
>>67860328
*necromancy.
Unfortunately the market never proved that better spell check was worth the investment so our "cyber ninja technocrats", which were not because technocracy implies a government, still makes speeling errors.
>>67860176
I was just giving multiple solutions to the problem, that would both be more expedient than waiting for a pedophile drug baron to run out of money.
>>67859996
See, in your flawed worldview, people will somehow strive to live this regimented and noble lifestyle that regards business interests and the power of money and technology as the rule of law.
That's respectable.
My empire is founded on lust, full bellies, oiled rectums, and effortless bliss. There will always be more people who can be lead by their appetites and who understand a society based on being the fucker instead of the fucked
>>67860569
But you haven't proposed one that does that with out violation of rights.
Do that, and I'll agree with you. Until then, I can't
