Find a flaw. Go ahead, I'll wait.
>>67956793
it sounds gay
>>67956793
>Tolerates degeneracy
>Supports sending jobs overseas
>Supports importing Mexicans
no roads
o
r
o
a
d
s
>>67956793
against free trade ....
>willingly being cucks to corporations
>>67956793
...again? ...
>>67838676
>>67956793
Reality.
1/2
>>67956935
>Tolerates degeneracy
In an anarcho-capitalist society you are free to engage in any sort of behavior you choose so long as you respect the equal rights of others. There is nothing degenerate about liberty.
>Supports sending jobs overseas
Voluntary trade is a key aspect of free-market capitalism. By definition, so long as the trade/exchange is voluntary, it must be beneficial to both or all parties involved in the exchange. Outsourcing is not necessarily a bad thing, as it allows individuals to acquire goods at a significantly lower price compared to if the goods were created here in the United States, where labor and resources are more expensive than the labor and resources in/of other countries.
>Supports importing Mexicans
No peoples would be imported into an anarcho-capitalist society. Consider that all property in an anarcho-capitalist society is privately owned. The only individuals who would be permitted to enter in this society, which has quasi-borders as defined by the borders of other states, would be those who have permission to enter onto the private property they must enter onto. Such mass migration would be unlikely in this society. Also consider the migration problem in Europe. The migrants are most interested in entering into states where there is an expansive welfare system, and shy away from entering countries that will offer no such aid; an anarcho-capitalist society would offer no such aid.
>>67956947
Are you of the opinion that a road is a technological marvel so complex that a private company could never conceive nor create one? There are privatized roads in existence in other states and there have been privately owned and maintained roads here in this country.
>>67957372
>against free trade ....
How so?
>>67957485
>willingly being cucks to corporations
A corporation is a particular business that is granted legal protections and privileges, necessarily, by the state. In an anarcho-capitalist society, a...
You need the threat of violence from the state to stymie the threat of violence from individuals. Minarchism is the way to go.
>>67957675
Underrated post
>>67957222
Anarcho-Capitalism is wrong, Anarcho-Syndicalism is wrong, Bolshevism is wrong. What's right Anon?
>>67956793
The environment.
2/2
>>67957485
>>67957802
...corporation cannot exist.
>>67957523
yup
>>67957675
>Reality.
Could you elaborate?
>>67957859
>You need the threat of violence from the state to stymie the threat of violence from individuals.
Your argument is that you need a structure in which individuals are systematically subjugated against by way of the initiation of the use of violence in an effort to prevent violence from occurring. Do you understand the contradiction in such a notion?
>Minarchism is the way to go.
Minarchism condones the initiation of the use of force. Furthermore, this ideology ignores the simple truth that no man takes better care of a mans property than the man himself. Defense, jails, prisons, courts, and all other such systems managed by the state with minarchism are better handles by the private sector, as are all other systems in which goods and services are created and distributed.
>>67958219
>The environment.
Care to elaborate?
>>67956793
fuedalism
>>67958364
IN an anarcho capitalist system, what is keeping the private sector from ruining the environment? What is keep other nations from conquering us? If socialism is so bad, how come hurler and his nazi party brought so many people out of poverty, employed millions of Germans, had a shit ton of innovations and turned a third world shot hole into a world power again?
>>67958219
is hurt by the state
>>67956793
No way to prevent collusion.
Many types of services provided by the government, such as the police force, the fire department, and the military, cannot operate on an individual by individual basis, only on an area by area basis.
There is nothing to prevent any kind of business which supplies military protection from declaring themselves to be states, other than other businesses doing the same thing, which is so far away from guaranteed prevention you are practically guaranteed to have military companies successfully establish new states somewhere.
>>67957675
this.
1/2
>>67958711
Feudalism was a social system in which the King or the Crown, who had the ability to initiate the use of force against others, entered into contracts with private individuals in which they exchanged military protection for labor. In an anarcho-capitalist society, there would be no individuals who function similarly to the King/Crown, in that no individual has the authority to initiate the use of violence against others, as primacy is put on property rights.
>>67958830
>what is keeping the private sector from ruining the environment?
When an individual pollutes the air and that pollution contaminates the air on my private property, my rights have been infringed, and such polluters/aggressors will be dealt with accordingly by the private defense agencies and the private arbitration firms. Additionally, in an anarcho-capitalist society, third parties who are harmed, or have their rights encroached upon, will be protected. Also consider that all property in an anarcho-capitalist society is privately owned. It would be incredibly difficult for a private company to be allowed to pollute the air, as that company would likely be contaminating the air located on another persons property or affecting nearby third-parties.
>What is keep other nations from conquering us?
Private defense agencies.
>If socialism is so bad, how come hurler and his nazi party brought so many people out of poverty, employed millions of Germans, had a shit ton of innovations and turned a third world shot hole into a world power again?
War. All systems of production were ramped up in order to sustain the military endeavors of the Nazi regime.
>>67958990
>No way to prevent collusion.
Collusion is discouraged simply from the relationship between the producer and consumer. We do not see collusion with companies who provide grocery stores with food, nor do we see price regulation, (for most food items). Could you give me an example of how collusion would be a problem?...
2/2
>>67958990
>>67959688
>...only on an area by area basis.
I am unsure whether scalability is possible with private defense agencies, but let us assume that it is not. What would be the problem with this?
>There is nothing to prevent any kind of business which supplies military protection from declaring themselves to be states, other than other businesses doing the same thing, which is so far away from guaranteed prevention you are practically guaranteed to have military companies successfully establish new states somewhere.
There will always be those who aggress upon others, and there will be those in an anarcho-capitalist society who attempt to aggress upon others by establishing a state. It is left to the private defense agencies and the people themselves to ensure their rights. Also, this seems to be an illogical argument to make. You are stating that because there is a possibility that a state will be established in an anarcho-capitalist society, we should not have an anarcho-capitalist society and should have a state.
>pay a large black man in toilet meth to break you in two and steal your shit
>nothing happens because you're probably too beta to raise kids
>>67960428
I'm a courteous host, so here's your (you)
>>67960770
Don't devalue the (You) economy like that.
>>67959688
>feudalism is blah blah blah
no feudalism is what happens when you remove the central power structure of a civilization.
>no state
>no enforcement of laws
>people turn to warlords for some semblance of protection and law and order
>warlords war with each other over land and resources
>eventually the society defaults into a feudal system of fiefs and vassals that relies on the loyalty of minor warlords to the high warlord
EUROPE WAS NOT SUNSHINE AND ROSES AFTER ROME COLLAPSED YOU IDIOT
>>67957675
this
>>67960226
Governments don't kill people.
People kill people.
>>67961057
>feudalism is blah blah blah
Fair critique.
>no feudalism is what happens when you remove the central power structure of a civilization.
There is no basis for such an assertion. This would be akin to stating that totalitarianism is always the result of the existence of a state.
>no enforcement of laws
In an anarcho-capitalist society there are private defense agencies which enforce laws. When individuals do violate the rights of others, violate contracts, etc., the matter is taken to an arbitration firm after the respective private defense agencies are involved.
Your argument is predicated on an unreasonable premise, which is the false equivalence that feudalism is the equivalent to anarcho-capitalism.
>>67961297
What is government comprised of? The picture you have addressed could just as easily say "militaries murdered...", with the implication being that the members of this organization committed acts.
>>67961843
Can children consent? What stops a perv from banging a bunch of middle school kids?
There isn't a standard of law, " enforced private rights" is vague. Exactly why should I tolerate someone else "private rights" ? By fear of retaliation? Where exactly do rights begin and end?
>>67961843
>There is no basis for such an assertion.
Somalia along with various other failed states throughout history
>In an anarcho-capitalist society there are private defense agencies which enforce laws
a post-hoc solution based on the premise that people will be willing to hire and fund mercenaries with the intent of resolving civil disputes. the very idea that anyone aside from the incredibly rich who can afford the capital to even make that worth it let alone the idea that anyone would bother establishing such a business model without following it to the logical conclusion of conquest in a stateless society is absurd.
>When individuals do violate the rights of others, violate contracts, etc., the matter is taken to an arbitration firm
again, something that would only be worth it to rich and there would zero enforcement of verdicts aside from mercenary companies. at this point you are just creating a vehicle for the rich to set up their own feudal state/oligarchy.
>Your argument is predicated on an unreasonable premise, which is the false equivalence that feudalism is the equivalent to anarcho-capitalism.
no, my argument is predicated on the very real assertion that feudalism and/or totalitarianism is the end result of anarcho-anything. getting rid of the state does not magically stop someone from creating a new one.
>>67962311
>What stops a perv from banging a bunch of middle school kids?
The parents of the child.
>Can children consent?
Define "child".
You raise an interesting point. I would recommend you compare Locke's position on children's rights and compare that to Rothbard's position on children's rights. A one year old human is unable to give consent, and thus, unable to enter into contracts. A twenty year old is able to consent and enter into contract. Whether, say, a fifteen year old can give consent and enter into contracts is more ambiguous, and I do not have an answer for this question. Fortunately, individual societies within the anarcho-capitalist society at large would make such decisions. Additionally, private arbitration firms would help set precedents as to what the age of consent is/should be.
>There isn't a standard of law, " enforced private rights" is vague.
Natural law/natural rights.
>Exactly why should I tolerate someone else "private rights" ?
A general sense of human decency, the Golden Rule, etc.
>By fear of retaliation?
The understanding that you will suffer the consequences of your actions would likely serve as a deterrent, just as it does in today's society.
>Where exactly do rights begin and end?
I'm unsure as to what this means. Could you elaborate?
>>67956891
BTFO
>>67963039
>Natural law/natural rights.
natural law is the same law lions and wolves follow.
Hey OP do you have a kik, i don't really like the format on 4chan but i like this discussion.
Because people shouldn't be free to do what they want desu familia. Most are retarded and cannot be trusted with absolute liberty.
>>67963039
Can a women get an abortion? Does the kid have a right to be born? Or would you treat the child as a person and take the side of the women basically saying that she does not consent to that person being in her body and violeting her sovereignty.
>>67963769
who's going to stop her?
as he said the only law is "natural law"
>>67956793
>>67956793
Externalities and public goods.
1/2
>>67962962
>Somalia along with various other failed states throughout history
Somalia collapsed in 1991 and former members of the government attempted to institute their own states, which they did achieve, as their is currently a government in Somalia today. There were always states in Somalia, and they never had anarchism.
Understand that one of the reasons why the state collapsed was because individuals did not follow the rule of law. Many Somalis had no regard for the rights of their fellow man.
>the very idea that anyone aside from the incredibly rich who can afford the capital to even make that worth it let alone the idea that anyone would bother establishing such a business model without following it to the logical conclusion of conquest in a stateless society is absurd.
>logical conclusion of conquest
You are stating that conquest is the objective and proper end to defending the rights of others. Must I refute such a silly argument?
>the very idea that anyone aside from the incredibly rich...
You are assuming that defense agencies will only be able to render to consumers their services at a price which they cannot afford. Do you have evidence to support such an assumption?
>again, something that would only be worth it to rich ...
Are you stating that only "the rich" are interested in ensuring their rights, or that only "the rich" would have the means to do so? If it is the later, I expect you have some evidence to support the claim that defense agencies, once privatized, would be disproportionately more costly than public defense agencies to the point where only the wealthiest of individuals can afford their services.
>getting rid of the state does not magically stop someone from creating a new one.
I have never argued that once a state is abolished a new state would not necessarily appear. Your argument is that because there is a possibility, or high probability, that anarcho-capitalism will lead to the creation of the state, we ought...
>>67964031
Who's going to stop anybody from doing anything? What stops me from being up a private army and going over to my neighbor and fucking his shit up?
>A recent variant of anarchistic theory, which is befuddling some of the younger advocates of freedom, is a weird absurdity called “competing governments.” Accepting the basic premise of the modern statists—who see no difference between the functions of government and the functions of industry, between force and production, and who advocate government ownership of business—the proponents of “competing governments” take the other side of the same coin and declare that since competition is so beneficial to business, it should also be applied to government. Instead of a single, monopolistic government, they declare, there should be a number of different governments in the same geographical area, competing for the allegiance of individual citizens, with every citizen free to “shop” and to patronize whatever government he chooses.
>Remember that forcible restraint of men is the only service a government has to offer. Ask yourself what a competition in forcible restraint would have to mean.
>One cannot call this theory a contradiction in terms, since it is obviously devoid of any understanding of the terms “competition” and “government.” Nor can one call it a floating abstraction, since it is devoid of any contact with or reference to reality and cannot be concretized at all, not even roughly or approximately. One illustration will be sufficient: suppose Mr. Smith, a customer of Government A, suspects that his next-door neighbor, Mr. Jones, a customer of Government B, has robbed him; a squad of Police A proceeds to Mr. Jones’ house and is met at the door by a squad of Police B, who declare that they do not accept the validity of Mr. Smith’s complaint and do not recognize the authority of Government A. What happens then? You take it from there.
>>67957802
>No peoples would be imported into an anarcho-capitalist society.
I don't feel like hiring local White people because they have too much dignity and demand too high wages to work at my sweatshop factory that makes plush dolls, luckily there is a rundown apartment complex near my factory that I purchase and use to house filthy Mexicans I import and have work at my factory for shit wages which is still an improvement for the Mexicans as opposed to living in their shitty cartel country. But they soon become dissatisfied working at my sweatshop so they proceed to fuck up the nearby White neighborhoods.
>>67960022
no, he's stating that no matter how anarcho-capitalist you make your society, some douchebag is going to persuade some other douchebags to join him and take over all the assets of yet more douchebags with their stronger military force.
From a starting position where every company had a military potential that was equal, it isn't realistically possible for individuals/individual corporations to fend off the advances of a coalition. Their only option is to band together, and now you have two neighbouring states warring over a difference in ideology, which is exactly where you started.
2/2
>>67962962
>>67963039
...to have a state.
>>67963209
>natural law is the same law lions and wolves follow.
You do not understand the ethical theory of natural law.
>>67963502
Don't have a kik but I have a Skype.
>>67963769
>Can a women get an abortion?
Yes. A human being exercises the right to self-ownership. She has the right and the responsibility to make the important decisions that affect her body. At the moment she decides she no longer wants the human being inside of her, the human being inside of her becomes an invader, and is subject to expulsion.
>Does the kid have a right to be born?
No human being has the right to house itself inside the body of another human being that does not want that human being inside of itself.
>>67964088
>Externalites.
Please elaborate.
>public goods
Public goods do not exist in an anarcho-capitalist society for obvious reasons. What do you mean by this?
>>67964227
>Who's going to stop anybody from doing anything? What stops me from being up a private army and going over to my neighbor and fucking his shit up?
Private defense agencies.
>>67964368
>But they soon become dissatisfied working at my sweatshop so they proceed to fuck up the nearby White neighborhoods.
The private defense agencies deal with those who aggress upon others.
>>67964532
>it isn't realistically possible for individuals/individual corporations to fend off the advances of a coalition
You are assuming that there will only be a coalition consisting of actors who are interested in aggressing upon others. What is the basis for this assumption?
>>67964309
The entirety of your post discusses and criticizes voluntarism, not anarcho-capitalism.
>>67964083
>>67964114
People still have morals in an anarchist society, therefore neither of those scenarios would happen.
>>67965113
>The private defense agencies deal with those who aggress upon others.
Who would pay those agencies?
Anarcho-capitalism is basically Mexican cartel life. You get killed over nothing.
No one gives a shit about you. You have 0 worth as a human being unless you're rich and dangerous. Those are the only qualities that are valued
It's very easy to become a victim of slavery and sex trafficking and it's impossible to escape it.
Rampant degeneracy
No one to uphold the law and contracts.
If you're not satisfied with your rulers you can't just leave and go to another cartel, they can and will keep you there forever against your will
I don't really want to live in a nightmare, I'd rather just have a safe and comfy society fameli
>>67965328
>Who would pay those agencies?
Individuals who are interested in contracting the services of a private defense agency of course. In an anarcho-capitalist society, I would pay Private Defense Agency X for their services.
>>67964159
>Somalia collapsed in 1991 and former members of the government attempted to institute their own states, which they did achieve, as their is currently a government in Somalia today. There were always states in Somalia, and they never had anarchism
somalia was tron apart by warlords vying for power because their government was completely ineffectual.
>Understand that one of the reasons why the state collapsed was because individuals did not follow the rule of law.
it collapsed because the government couldn't enforce the rule of law.
>You are stating that conquest is the objective and proper end to defending the rights of others
no i'm stating why have waste investing in a mercenary band waiting for someone to hire you to enforce their will when you can use said mercenary band to plunder nearby towns and/or establish your own little tax farm
>You are assuming that defense agencies will only be able to render to consumers their services at a price which they cannot afford.
we're talking about companies that have to arm and equip mercenaries and pay them at a wage said mercenaries can live on and are willing to risk life and limb for and then have them sit around waiting for some asshole that wants their arbitration enforced. do you honestly think all of that is going to be cheap enough for some asshole who hardly makes enough to live on to afford? do you really think some suburbanite middle class family is really going to want to toss out hundreds if not thousands of dollars because their neighbor won't return their $150 lawnmower?
>Are you stating that only "the rich" are interested in ensuring their rights, or that only "the rich" would have the means to do so?
i'm stating that the rich are going to be the primary demographic that views it as even worth it. without standardized laws and a central law enforcement people are more likely to just accept that they got screwed over because the alternative isn't worth the time, effort, and/or money.
>>67965274
I just found the memes funny, I don't really know enough about it to really have a position.
>>67965113
The private defense agencies might not be enough to fend off the hoards of Mexicans I bring in. Regardless you can not refute that ancrapistan won't prevent a large influx of foreign scumbags either as cheap labor or under a guise of humanitarianism.
>>67956793
This is exactly how Singapore is.
I would know. Triangle Singapore reporting.
>>67956793
Why are you choosing to argue anarcho-capitalism on /pol/, rather than starting a blog, YouTube channel, meetup group, or finding a virtuous Ancap woman who will have little ancap children with you? Why is this a good use of your time?
>>67965247
>Some libertarians, including Murray Rothbard and Walter Block, hold the view that the non-aggression principle is an irreducible concept: it is not the logical result of any given ethical philosophy but, rather, is self-evident as any other axiom is. Rand, too, argued that liberty was a precondition of virtuous conduct,[3] but argued that her non-aggression principle itself derived from a complex set of previous knowledge and values. For this reason, Objectivists refer to the non-aggression principle as such, while libertarians who agree with Rothbard's argument call it "the non-aggression axiom." Rothbard and other anarcho-capitalists hold that government requires non-voluntary taxation to function and that in all known historical cases, the state was established by force rather than social contract.[4] They thus consider the establishment and maintenance of the night-watchman state supported by Objectivists to be in violation of the non-aggression principle. On the other hand, Rand believes that government can in principle be funded through voluntary means.[5]
>>67965574
>>67964159
>I have never argued that once a state is abolished a new state would not necessarily appear. Your argument is that because there is a possibility, or high probability, that anarcho-capitalism will lead to the creation of the state, we ought to have a state
no I'm saying that a state is inevitable and that arguing for the dissolution of it is retarded
>>67964629
>You do not understand the ethical theory of natural law.
I understand the theory of it, I just think its wrong and stupid.
there is no such thing as "laws" if there is no one willing and capable to enforce it universally.
>>67965463
What happens if my shitty business can't pay for a defense agency because of having very few revenues? Will niggers be able to destroy it without consequences?
>>67965274
>implying there won't be some greedy bastards eventually
Literally communism la-la tier, everybody will not just magically 'get along' with no government.
>>67965956
and this is exactly why people would turn to warlords for protection.
>>67965574
>somalia was tron apart by warlords vying for power because their government was completely ineffectual.
Sure. If anything this seems to be a critique of statism, not anarchism.
>it collapsed because the government couldn't enforce the rule of law.
This is another reason, sure. Again, this is not an argument against anarcho-capitalism.
>no i'm stating why have waste investing in a mercenary band waiting for someone to hire you to enforce their will when you can use said mercenary band to plunder nearby towns and/or establish your own little tax farm
Because one path would involve the initiation of force and would allow yourselves to be properly subjected to violence, while the other would provide a stable income and foster a mutually beneficial relationship between yourselves and your customers.
> do you honestly think all of that is going to be cheap enough for some asshole who hardly makes enough to live on to afford?
Not all individuals will be able to afford the services of a private defense agency. There will be those who acquire land and live off of the land and never acquire resources that are exchanged with others. There will be others who will simply opt out of contracting such a service.
No man has the right to the labor of another man. Are you arguing that individuals have the right to the resources or labor of other individuals?
>>67965625
>Regardless you can not refute that ancrapistan won't prevent a large influx of foreign scumbags either as cheap labor or under a guise of humanitarianism.
Yes I can. In an anarcho-capitalist society all of the land is privately owned. How will they enter into this society is it requires that they infringe upon the rights of others, (or violate their property rights)? They would be forced to deal with the respective private defense agencies.
>>67965707
This is just one of the things I do in regards to promoting anarcho-capitalism. I engage in other similar efforts as well.
It's utopian. In the same way that socialists fail to recognize that markets are vital emergent phenomenon, ancaps fail to recognize the same is true for governments.
Read Buchanan, Arrows, Black, etc.-- the public choice theorists. Politics is going to happen, and there's nothing you can do about it.
>>67965956
Any business today pays at least as much in taxes to support the police. So if you can't afford it, then you'll be fighting off niggers trying to rob you instead of fighting off cops trying to book you for tax evasion.
>>67956793
I was waiting for one of these to pop up. How would privatized schools work in a way that could provide schooling work low income families, and how could we go there from now? If we dissolve public schools this instant there will be mass amounts of people without education because the market wasn't given time to expand.
Pls respond anarchos
>>67965574
>we're talking about companies that have to arm and equip mercenaries and pay them at a wage said mercenaries can live on and are willing to risk life and limb for and then have them sit around waiting for some asshole that wants their arbitration enforced. do you honestly think all of that is going to be cheap enough for some asshole who hardly makes enough to live on to afford?
You realize mercenaries can be hired when necessary right? They're called mercenaries because they work for several different employers; an individual enforcement company only has to pay them when they're using them.
Simple.
Uneven distribution of resources among companies. Small companies won't be able to compete whatsoever. Everything will be centralized.
Centralized production = anti-incentive to augment the quality of the product because there are no competitors anyway
>>67966610
>If we dissolve public schools this instant there will be mass amounts of people without education because the market wasn't given time to expand.
And if a herd of meteors destroyed all public schools we would be equally fucked, in the short term. While abolition of the state is the end goal, that does not necessarily imply that it would or should be done overnight.
>>67966933
Bayonetta to the rescue
1/2
>>67965856
> it is not the logical result of any given ethical philosophy but, rather, is self-evident as any other axiom is
This is incorrect. The non-aggression principle is the proper (logical) result of natural law.
>>67965908
>there is no such thing as "laws" if there is no one willing and capable to enforce it universally
Natural law is a rights based system. Are you stating that rights only exist in the context of the state, or in other words, that it is government, which is comprised of men, who give other men rights?
>>67965956
>What happens if my shitty business can't pay for a defense agency because of having very few revenues?
You are asking me "What happens if I cannot afford something?" The answer is self-evident.
No man has the right to the resources or labor of another man.
>Will niggers be able to destroy it without consequences?
Perhaps, perhaps not. There will be those who take it upon themselves to help their fellow man, just as there will be those who take it upon themselves to plunder.
>>67966610
>How would privatized schools work in a way that could provide schooling work low income families...
Children would not be compelled to go to a school; the responsibility of instilling children with knowledge and values would rest with the parents of the child. Some would prefer to send them to a school, others would prefer unschooling, others still let the children do as they please.
As far as the cost of private schools is concerned, this goes back to how a competitive marketplace affects the price of goods and services to consumers. The reason why education in the United States is costly is because it is a state-run system.
> If we dissolve public schools this instant there will be mass amounts of people without education because the market wasn't given time to expand.
How much time is needed to expand?
Also, you re now arguing not about the ideology but the implementation of the ideology in today's state. Anarcho...
>>67966799
> Everything will be centralized.
Therefore, centralized government need to be abolished.
Meanwhile your fears of monopoly are vastly out of touch.
>>67966179
If people couldn't get a long then society wouldn't've come as far as it has. For the most part people are good, or at the very least apathetic.
Communism presupposes more than people getting along. It thinks that people will work selflessly for people they will never meet.
>>67957802
>There is nothing degenerate about liberty.
yeah nah
>>67966915
I'm aware, I'm not saying a market solution wouldn't work, what's the best way to go about it, and would private schools actually compete enough for low income families to afford schools?
>>67966355
>Sure. If anything this seems to be a critique of statism, not anarchism.
it was de facto anarchism you retard.
>Because one path would involve the initiation of force and would allow yourselves to be properly subjected to violence, while the other would provide a stable income and foster a mutually beneficial relationship between yourselves and your customers.
when you have the most guns and equipment with little sources of income, the incentive to become a roving gang of bandits unsurprisingly skyrockets. this happens all the time when the people traditionally paying a mercenary company stop paying them.
there's no point in fostering a mutually beneficial relationship when no one near you can afford you.
>Are you arguing that individuals have the right to the resources or labor of other individuals?
no i'm arguing that the idea that mercenaries, FUCKING MERCENARIES, will take up the role of law enforcement is a moot fucking point when most of society isn't going to bother hiring them when its easier to just move on with their lives.
only the wealthy are going to bother with these mercenaries and arbitration firms because they're one of the handful of groups that would actually find it worth it. and when you're wealthy enough to afford a mercenary company what is stopping you from using them to take over a few towns and declaring yourself duke of upyoursia living off the tax revenue your new knights are happily collecting?
2/2
>>67966610
>>67967067
...capitalism might be best implemented if the state were dissolved over the period of a few years. I am unsure as to what period of time would be appropriate, but this is an important question you are asking. But before we worry about how we implement such a system we must worry about convincing people of our ideas.
>>67966799
>Small companies won't be able to compete whatsoever. Everything will be centralized.
Could you list some examples of this occurrence taking place in a free-market economy?
>>67966355
>Yes I can. In an anarcho-capitalist society all of the land is privately owned.
Some people who privately own some of that land let them in either as guest workers or as refugees.
>>67956793
Same flaw as anarchy.
Some will attain power and bend others to their will by any means. Now your anarchy has evaporated into a dictatorship.
>>67967067
>Also, you re now arguing not about the ideology but the implementation of the ideology in today's state. Anarcho...
I know, I was in the last thread and was curious about this aspect. Is there really more than "trust me bro" on this though? Will competition really enable low income families to afford primary education?
>>67956793
>An army arrives
>Here are the rules...
And that's the end of the "anarcho" part.
>>67967291
What stops me from purchasing some cows or something then proceeding to fuck those cows? What stops me from importing a sex slave from a third world nation into my private property and keeping it around for my pleasure?
>>67956793
with out law there can be no freedom
>>67956935
>supports importing Mexicans
after spending one week on the streets begging for money and receiving no government hand outs, they will go back home.
>>67967068
>>67967291
You know we don't start from scratch, right?
Imagine getting into Anarcho-capitalism at this moment. The powers that are kept from owning the entire market are held by regulation. Take that regulation off and you end up with the largest corporations swallowing the smaller companies.
Is that necessarily bad? Not exactly.
But why is it probably bad? Because why would they waste money upgrading their product to the fullest if they've swallowed the competition?
Not to mention all the corruption that adds up when things get bigger.
>>67967311
>Some people who privately own some of that land let them in either as guest workers or as refugees.
Good luck, me and my white nationalist neighbors own the roads, water supply, and grocery stores. They physically could not live here. To ensure no one rats on this, we've all made a binding contract that anyone who even so much as lets a non-white onto their property forfeits that property to the other members.
>>67966426
If you go out of business the police still protects you. In anarchism if you go out of business you better go and swear your loyalty to the closest warlord, as >>67966240
mentioned before you get killed.
>>67967067
>You are asking me "What happens if I cannot afford something?" The answer is self-evident.
If you can't afford protection you get killed. That very fact makes me want to live in our current shitty society than in anarchism.
>Perhaps, perhaps not. There will be those who take it upon themselves to help their fellow man, just as there will be those who take it upon themselves to plunder.
Thats assuming good faith. Its more likely a criminal band will attack you than a gang of heros protect you until you get a job.
>>67967067
>NAP faces two kinds of criticism: the first holds that the principle is immoral, the second argues that it is impossible to apply consistently in practice; respectively, consequentialist or deontological criticisms, and inconsistency criticisms. Critics say NAP is associated with an absolutist, dogmatic strain of libertarianism and has received little support from academic philosophers and ethicists (including libertarians), who (if they address NAP at all) reject it on ethical and practical grounds. Libertarian academic philosophers have noted the implausible results consistently applying the principle yields: for example, Professor Matt Zwolinski notes that, because pollution necessarily violates the NAP by encroaching (even if slightly) on other people's property, consistently applying the NAP would prohibit driving, starting a fire, and other activities necessary to the maintenance of industrial society.[70]
>>67966750
>You realize mercenaries can be hired when necessary right? They're called mercenaries because they work for several different employers; an individual enforcement company only has to pay them when they're using them.
are you insinuating that the mercenaries would just go back to their daily lives when they aren't mercing it up? thats not how mercenary life works. mercenary companies need fresh bodies at a moments notice. you won't be hired by a mercenary company for long if you can only work on Tuesdays and Fridays.
>>67967067
>Natural law is a rights based system. Are you stating that rights only exist in the context of the state
rights are irrelevant when no one recognizes them, and there will always be those don't recognize the rights of others.
anarchy is retarded and for edgy teenagers that think society can survive without the state
>>67967279
>there's no point in fostering a mutually beneficial relationship when no one near you can afford you.
Again you assert that no individuals will be able to afford the services of the private defense agencies. Let's take a step back and examine this assertion.
We have publicly-funded defense agencies. Such defense agencies, (local law enforcement, federal policing agencies, etc.) are able to sustain themselves via compulsory taxation. Such systems are also a monopoly. As a general economic principle, it holds that a competitive market results in goods and services being rendered to consumers at the lowers possible price to them. Why are you asserting that a free-market which allows for competition will necessarily result in the increase in the management costs and total price to consumers for these similar services? This would negate all we understand about economics, for if your assertion is correct, then all systems of distribution/systems of production should be handled by a centralized power.
>...when most of society isn't going to bother hiring them when its easier to just move on with their lives.
It generally holds that individuals act in their self-interest. It is in the self-interest of the individual to defend himself to the best of his abilities; such would compel him to enter into a contract with a private defense agency.
>and when you're wealthy enough to afford a mercenary company what is stopping you from using them to take over a few towns and declaring yourself duke of upyoursia living off the tax revenue your new knights are happily collecting?
Other private defense agencies.
>>67957802
How can there be private property without a government?
Property is a legal concept defined by the law and enforced by law enforcement agencies.
>>67967817
plus eventually some form of state will pop up due to humanities natural food chain.
there will always be an alpha male
>>67967692
>Good luck, me and my white nationalist neighbors own the roads, water supply, and grocery stores
Thank you for demonstrating why ancrapistan would quickly devolve back to statism, those who own the major economic assets would impose their law on others and it would be even more tyrannical than any state as they would defend their laws under the absolute right of property and they may use whatever violence they feel necessary to defend that right.
>>67956793
It certainly would be better than the current system, but I do prefer a form of Autocatic National Minarchism with constitutional limits, preventing the government from infringing on the rights of people, and making sure that the country isn't invaded. Pic related is a minarchist flag I made. Thoughts on the flag, /pol/?
>>67967692
>Good luck, me and my white nationalist neighbors own the roads, water supply, and grocery stores.
What happens if you own all the roads leading to a mexican community, then you close all the roads and forbid them to pass? Will you legally starve them to dead? Who will protect them? That could lead to massive genocides.
>>67967675
> Take that regulation off and you end up with the largest corporations swallowing the smaller companies.
Ideally, most companies would be destroyed or prosecuted upon switching to anarcho-capitalism. If someone is sitting on a large pile of stolen wealth while the government turns a blind eye (or even aids him), you obviously wouldn't let him keep it once the government is out of the picture.
Thus, any property that's found to be illegitimate (and probably beyond that just to be sure) would become unowned property -- claimed by the first person to work it like any other unowned property.
>>67967796
>are you insinuating that the mercenaries would just go back to their daily lives when they aren't mercing it up?
I'm insinuating that the number of mercenary companies would be exactly large enough such that they are constantly employed. There would obviously be less mercenary companies than rights enforcement agencies just as the same legal firm may represent multiple different companies.
>>67967311
>Some people who privately own some of that land let them in either as guest workers or as refugees.
They may only enter onto land they have permission to enter onto.
>>67967449
>Will competition really enable low income families to afford primary education?
http://www.cato.org/publications/white-paper/private-education-is-good-poor-study-private-schools-serving-poor-lowincome-countries
>>67967609
>What stops me from purchasing some cows or something then proceeding to fuck those cows?
Once you purchase the cows they become your property, and individuals may do what they please with their property so long as the action they choose to engage in does not violate the rights of others. You are fully within your rights to fuck the cows.
> What stops me from importing a sex slave from a third world nation into my private property and keeping it around for my pleasure?
Self-ownership is an inalienable right. You may not own another human being.
>>67967675
>Take that regulation off and you end up with the largest corporations swallowing the smaller companies.
You are arguing that free-market capitalism would result in the monopolization of industries. Can you please give an example of a monopoly that was birthed within the private sector and sustained this monopoly for a period of time that could be considered substantial? Please watch the linked video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tdLBzfFGFQU
>>67967883
please respond to >>67967449 freedom man
>>67968461
>They may only enter onto land they have permission to enter onto.
Well if they're invited as refugees or as workers is that not permission?
Anarchists in this post fail to realize that the only reason they can be shitposting at 4chin right now is because there are policemen and soldiers out of your basements ready to kill anyone who threatens peace.
>>67967883
do you know how much a Kevlar vest costs?
do you know how much ammo stockpiles cost?
do you know how much SWAT gear costs?
the only reason things like the police exist in the first place is because tax revenue is very large source of income.
we're not talking about bouncers or personal guards here. we're talking about people taht will have to be equipped well enough to bring someone with an assault rifle and molotovs to an arbitration meeting. we're talking about people who are going to be asked to raid buildings that are likely filled with gangsters among other things. that kind of service doesn't come cheap.
>It generally holds that individuals act in their self-interest. It is in the self-interest of the individual to defend himself to the best of his abilities; such would compel him to enter into a contract with a private defense agency.
listen you little shit, even today most people don't file civil suits because its not worth it and that's with the entirety of the state behind their back.
WHY IN GODS NAME WOULD SOMEONE WASTE MORE MONEY THAN THEY WOULD NOW JUST BRING SOME ASSHOLE THAT VAGUELY WRONGED THEM TO AN "ARBITRATION HEARING"
>Other private defense agencies.
what would stop Donald Trump from hiring all the defense agencies around new york city and using them to declare himself king of manhattan?
if the richest guy in town hires most of the mercenaries do you really think people would rather risk their entire livelihood over a few tax dollars every now and then? the only people with sufficient incentive to hire mercenaries in a bid to overthrow the would be ruler would be other rich people.
Anarchism can work if we'll have only moral people. So first we need some technology to asses morality of a person and then either:
If most men are immoral, game over.
If they are a minority, then we either eradicate them or develop some reeducation system (but that's risky). Or we could try to use eugenics.
>>67968119
We already have this thing called homeowners associations, anon. They can't impose anything on you unless you live there.
>What happens if you own all the roads leading to a mexican community, then you close all the roads and forbid them to pass? Will you legally starve them to dead? Who will protect them? That could lead to massive genocides.
First, they would have to be pretty retarded to let that happen. Who sold the roads to the genocidal maniac? If it's a small town then the local infrastructure was likely owned by the towns people, and if it's a large area then you are describing a prodigious undertaking likely to fail if someone refuses to sell.
Can supplies not be flown or tunneled in?
Further, he still needs to enforce those property rights. The U.S. spends billions and can't keep people out; your genocidal maniac will have a tough time if he can even find enough men willing to go along with his murderous scheme.
And frankly I doubt you'd find any hardcore nationalist group willing to pony up the billions of dollars it would take to exterminate a group of non-whites. Governments can get away with it because of tax money but I'd think most private citizens would be satisfied with just living very far away from non-whites instead of actively exterminating them.
>>67969119
Meant to reply to
>>67968174
1/2
>>67967694
>If you can't afford protection you get killed. That very fact makes me want to live in our current shitty society than in anarchism.
Please understand two things:
No man has the right to the resources or labor of another man. You would not argue that if you cannot afford the bread that I bake you still have a right to the bread I bake.
Also understand that in a free-market where private defense agencies compete for the same pool of customers you would have a lower price to consumers for such services compared to the price to consumers for such services rendered by a monopoly.
>Its more likely a criminal band will attack you than a gang of heros protect you until you get a job.
What you are stating is that a cost-benefit analysis would conclude that it is more lucrative to plunder than to defend. Such is not the case.
>>67967796
>rights are irrelevant when no one recognizes them...
Such rights exist whether or not others violate or recognize them.
>...and there will always be those don't recognize the rights of others.
This is true. This is why private defense agencies would exist.
>>67967968
>How can there be private property without a government?
You might be interested in researching John Locke's labor theory of property. tldr is that self-ownership exists, in that you own yourself. Accordingly, you own all of the things your body encompasses, including things such as your free-will. You own your hands and arms. You own your labor. Thus, you own the right to the fruits of your labor. This is how we establish private property rights. Private property exists with or without a government. In an anarcho-capitalist society, private property rights are defended by private defense agencies if that is what you are asking.
>Property is a legal concept defined by the law and enforced by law enforcement agencies.
This is incorrect.
>>67968162
>Thoughts on the flag, /pol/?
I like it.
As far as minarchism is concerned, I would refer...
>>67968420
and who's going to raid the gang hideouts?
>>67969221
>This is true. This is why private defense agencies would exist.
and who's going to stop an unscrupulous person from using well equipped mercenaries to attack others?
>>67968521
There is no answer we can give except "Maybe" and "Even if they can't afford it, they have no right to rob others to pay for it."
It's like asking me to predict the price of pomegranates in a truly free market. It cannot be done. The wonderful thing about libertarianism though is that if you disagree with one aspect of it or if one part of it goes to shit, you can easily design a government that does nothing but fix that one aspect. I don't think that's desirable or necessary, but it could be done.
>>67968180
I'm talking about monopoly, but in the case you're talking about, so called "stolen money" wouldn't be dealt with. Because there would be no regulation to begin in.
>>67968461
I have one example that I recall.
It's somewhere in Africa, a boat company that has the monopoly but very shitty product, and by misinforming the public, they're essentially shutting down any attempt at dethroning them.
That's one part of the corruption I was talking about. (more ads, more this, more that, people will gravitate towards it even though there's something better out there)
Let's say I didn't have an example or I had an example. Why wouldn't what I say happen?
Friedman didn't prove his position, he just states the opposite without giving any substantial argument.
So, tell me if what I'm talking about would happen or not, and why wouldn't it.
>>67969119
>They can't impose anything on you unless you live there.
You don't know how far their economic power will reach, especially regarding roads. If they own enough roads they could impose their will over an area the size of a small country. And if they don't own enough they can't stop immigrants from being imported.
>>67969421
Consequential Libertarianism is what I believe in. Moral arguments only get you so far.
>>67969221
>In an anarcho-capitalist society, private property rights are defended by private defense agencies if that is what you are asking.
OK, so I have to be rich to not get my shit stolen? Great.
>>67956793
1 million somalians move in
2/2
>>67968162
>>67969221
...you to the essay written by Rothbard directed at Robert Nozick, the author of Anarchy, State, and Utopia, titled "Robert Nozick and the immaculate conception of the state". Here's the link: https://mises.org/library/robert-nozick-and-immaculate-conception-state-1
>>67968615
>Well if they're invited as refugees or as workers is that not permission?
That would be permission, yes.
>>67968521
I hope the article that I posted addresses your question. There is another resource I have somewhere that looks at the cost of private education in the United States in the past 100 years adjusted, which I will post if I can find it.
>>67968956
>the only reason things like the police exist in the first place is because tax revenue is very large source of income.
You have conceded that such services are fundable by individuals.
>that kind of service doesn't come cheap.
It certainly doesn't. What makes you think that the monopoly we currently have is more capable in distributing these services in a cost-effective manner than the private sector? Is there any area in which the government provides to consumers services at a lower cost than an identical system that operates on behalf of private individuals? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Letter_Mail_Company
>what would stop Donald Trump from hiring all the defense agencies around new york city and using them to declare himself king of manhattan?
If Trump did such a thing the defense agencies would no longer be serving their customers, and thus their former customers would contract the services of another private defense agency. Where there is demand there will always be supply.
>>67969235
The mercenaries with guns. Don't change the subject when you get proven wrong.
>do you know how much a Kevlar vest costs?
>do you know how much ammo stockpiles cost?
>do you know how much SWAT gear costs?
And I bet you believe a tomahawk missile actually costs $569,000 too. When manufacturers can charge whatever they like because the taxpayer is footing the bill, prices increase across the board.
>>67969795
How is there guaranteed supply
If trump is giving his defense agency enough cash to ensure they stay with him,why wouldnt other defense agents from other defense agencies join his ranks.
AnCap would turn into the thing its trying to go against
>>67956793
It'll work in a perfect society, but society isn't perfect. I'm a libertarian, but I find Anarcho-Capitalism to be radically dangerous and extreme.
I mean, an ancap Libertarian candidate wanted to legalize production + distribution of child pornography.
I'm for gay marriage and states to decide on abortion, but when it reaches child pornography and necrophilia, that's when it's too far.
>>67969795
>I hope the article that I posted addresses your question. There is another resource I have somewhere that looks at the cost of private education in the United States in the past 100 years adjusted, which I will post if I can find it.
Thank you anon.
>>67969938
>If trump is giving his defense agency enough cash to ensure they stay with him,why wouldnt other defense agents from other defense agencies join his ranks.
The same reason why Wal-Mart doesn't employ everyone on Earth? They don't have infinite money and each new employee provides less value than the previous one, meanwhile the other companies are losing employees making it possible to pay their remaining ones more to compensate.
>>67969795
>That would be permission, yes.
So ancrapistan can't stop a mass influx of immigrants then.
>>67969119
>First, they would have to be pretty retarded to let that happen. Who sold the roads to the genocidal maniac? If it's a small town then the local infrastructure was likely owned by the towns people, and if it's a large area then you are describing a prodigious undertaking likely to fail if someone refuses to sell.
You are assuming people are smart enough to think long term. Most people if offered a big amount of money will sell their stuff. For example, many years ago in my dad's town the government gave free tractors to the farmers, those farmers exchanged the tractors for some prostitutes, 3 months latter they were starving... but well, they enjoyed the prostitutes that 1 night.
>Can supplies not be flown or tunneled in?
They can. Just like in any siege, but its hard, and you need help from the outside. If there is no government outside, no one will help.
>And frankly I doubt you'd find any hardcore nationalist group willing to pony up the billions of dollars it would take to exterminate a group of non-whites.
What will avoid a group like ISIS with hardcore extremists from sweeping across land? That is a practical example of a group of armed men that will kill anyone that refuses their beliefs.
>>67969221
>No man has the right to the resources or labor of another man. You would not argue that if you cannot afford the bread that I bake you still have a right to the bread I bake.
I agree with that, but killing all people with financial trouble or unemployed has more negative consequences to the economy than letting them live while they look for another job.
>What you are stating is that a cost-benefit analysis would conclude that it is more lucrative to plunder than to defend. Such is not the case.
Wrong. In the long term and from an economic point of view, plundering is less lucrative to defend. But from an individual point of view, plundering is more profitable. If you rob a bank you will get more money than if you work as a tomato seller for years.
>>67969421
Hey anon thanks for the help with the responses. It looks like there's just two of us in this thread.
>>67969391
>and who's going to stop an unscrupulous person from using well equipped mercenaries to attack others?
Private defense agencies serving their clients.
>>67969573
>Why wouldn't what I say happen?
Because it has never happened and disregards the most fundamental principles of economic theory.
You cannot give me an example of a monopoly that arose in the private sector without government intervention and maintained this monopoly hold for a period of time. The government itself is a monopoly. If you decry monopolies than you must take issue with the mere existence of the government. The government has a monopoly on courts, defense agencies, and prisons until very recently.
>>67969658
>OK, so I have to be rich to not get my shit stolen?
It is probable that defense services would be less costly to consumers if handled by the free-market.
>>67969938
>If trump is giving his defense agency enough cash to ensure they stay with him,why wouldnt other defense agents from other defense agencies join his ranks.
Why would individuals continue to do business with Trump, (patronize his casinos, hotels, etc.), if they are aware that he is attempting to use violence against these same people? Once Trump began to wage this war, why do you believe individuals would continue to give to him their business? What sort of sense would that make?
And why would a defense agency do business with Trump in the first place? They would alienate and lose all of their other clients.
>>67956793
http://ronpaulsupporters.com/philosophy/anarcho-capitalism/
>>67956793
The living conditions of 90% of the populations during the industrial revolution, because that pretty much was anarcho capitalism.
>>67970387
>Why would individuals continue to do business with Trump, (patronize his casinos, hotels, etc.), if they are aware that he is attempting to use violence against these same people?
He can tell them to do business or be ready to fight against his mercenaries.
>And why would a defense agency do business with Trump in the first place?
Money.
>They would alienate
Many people are greedy and evil, they don't care of how bad a warlord is, as long as they are paid. And there are many historical examples, you just need to read history to see how it works.
>and lose all of their other clients.
Why do they want other clients if trump pays them more? They can impose taxes with trump, and even enhance their revenue.
>>67969958
>necrophilia
A dead person has no rights, and so to have sex with a dead body so long as it is your property is fully within your rights. You cannot, of course, go to a graveyard and dig up bodies and fuck them because those bodies are the property of the owner of the cemetery.
Child pornography is a bit different, as children at certain ages cannot consent or enter into contracts.
>>67970218
>So ancrapistan can't stop a mass influx of immigrants then.
People are free to do what they want with their private property if that is what you are asking me. Once an individual ships 1,000 individuals from an outside society onto his land, then what? To travel onto the land owned by another individual they must get consent, which would likely require capital, which they would likely not have.
>>67970352
>In the long term and from an economic point of view, plundering is less lucrative to defend. But from an individual point of view, plundering is more profitable.
Either plundering is or is not more profitable then supplying to consumers a particular service.
>If you rob a bank you will get more money than if you work as a tomato seller for years.
Of course, but in this analysis you are only taking into account the economic aspects of committing both acts, and are neglecting what sort of rights you are violating, ethical implications, etc.
>>67970713
>not having the right to fire your workers
holy shit reddit i didn't see you there
why on earth do you think a company shouldn't have the right to fire their employees?
>>67970352
>You are assuming people are smart enough to think long term.
People have the right to fail on their own merits, then. If the town is so collectively stupid that not one of them thought to ensure a supply route out of their settlement then there's no helping them.
>They can. Just like in any siege, but its hard, and you need help from the outside. If there is no government outside, no one will help.
If the road owner uses violence to shoot down planes or tunnelers (who are traveling over and under but not through his rightfully owned property), then we have stepped outside the realm of property rights. At this point it would simply be cheaper to commit actual genocide but you were arguing that someone could could commit genocide through property rights alone. Once we move outside of property rights, the inhabitants are perfectly justified in defending themselves through force and the genocidal maniac's issue of finding people willing to work for him got that much harder as he is now an outlaw.
>What will avoid a group like ISIS with hardcore extremists from sweeping across land? That is a practical example of a group of armed men that will kill anyone that refuses their beliefs.
You've switched subjects here. ISIS is a state, not a private individual trying to commit genocide through the use of private property.
>>67970855
who defines rights
is there a set detailed list of rights that you cannot violate?
>>67970784
I don't trust a website that disagrees with Ron "To be an anarchist is a great idea" Paul.
>>67970851
>He can tell them to do business or be ready to fight against his mercenaries.
You have assumed that he will be able to contract the services of a rogue defense agency. I have asked why it would be sensible for such an agency to serve such a client.
>Money.
I have already explained the issue with this. It is unlikely that individuals would continue to do business with Trump knowing that he is initiating the use of violence against others and is interested in ruling over those who formerly did business with him. It is reasonable to assume that his income would drop significantly, which the mercenaries would likely take into account.
>Why do they want other clients if trump pays them more?
Lets assume that Trump alone can pay more to these defense agencies than any other group of people which includes other, more wealthy individuals, which is unlikely. As I have said, his income is not guaranteed and the wealth that he has acquired is finite. If he begins to initiate the use of violence of others, which no individual likely wants done unto themselves, it is unlikely that he will continue to acquire the amount of wealth he did prior to hiring such mercenaries.
>who defines rights
Natural law. Another way of phrasing this is "You may do as you please so long as you do not initiate the use of violence, force, or coercion against others". The NAP evolved out of natural law.
Forgot to reply to your post, sorry.
>>67971068
>>who defines rightsNatural law. Another way of phrasing this is "You may do as you please so long as you do not initiate the use of violence, force, or coercion against others". The NAP evolved out of natural law.
>>67970855
>To travel onto the land owned by another individual they must get consent, which would likely require capital, which they would likely not have.
You think backwards immigrants would give a fuck? Look at what they're doing to Europe, and in ancrapistan they'd face no organized resistance, only ad hoc militias and PMCs of varying quality and commitment.
>>67970855
>Either plundering is or is not more profitable then supplying to consumers a particular service.
Practical examples show that its always more profitable than working. In mexico the drug cartels ask for a quote to local businesses where government have few control. Why don't they just work as farmers? Because is more profitable to join a gang and set quotas on hard workers.
>and are neglecting what sort of rights you are violating, ethical implications, etc.
Thats assuming most people care about the rights and ethical implications. If that was the case in real life we wouldn't have crime or at least violent crime. This is not the case. If you remove police, crimes will skyrocket, definitive will not remain the same.
>genocidal maniac's issue of finding people willing to work for him got that much harder as he is now an outlaw.
More difficult, but not impossible, there is many scum people in the world.
>>67970997
>ISIS is a state, not a private individual trying to commit genocide through the use of private property.
But what stops ISIS from appearing? There is no state/government enforcing that other state/government is not formed.
>>67971508
That law does not cover theft.
If Jimmy Bill gets his favorite bicycle stolen by some dude that said it was free-game since it was outside,what does he do?
And more importantly,who would enforce the laws?
>>67971531
>You think backwards immigrants would give a fuck?
They are incentivized to care about respecting the property rights of others for if they do not they will have to suffer the consequences of committing such violations.
>Look at what they're doing to Europe...
Look at a list of the countries they are entering into. Immigrants are less prone to enter into countries with small welfare states, and are more prone to enter into countries with large welfare programs, like Germany and France. Would immigrants enter into a society in whicn they receive no welfare programs?
>>67971735
>That law does not cover theft.
A person's property is an extension of their body. Are you that dumb to assume libertarians think it's okay to steal?
>>67964629
>Private defense agencies
Which after a certain scale becomes no different from a country that funds a police force and/or army. It comes down to what the community agrees on.
>>67956793
Easy, Stefan Molyneux.
OP, how do you propose your ancap collective of fragmented private interests would defend itself against a sovereign nation if they decided to come after it's resources? Surely you realise that groups of privately owned soldiers with no centralised command structure is hardly equipped for such.
>>67969795
Nozick is a good read.
It's hard to be an agorist and not a drug dealer.
>>67972112
Stirner would say they don't deserve the resources in that case.
>>67971766
>They are incentivized to care about respecting the property rights of others for if they do not they will have to suffer the consequences of committing such violations.
They won't be as rational as you think or maybe the consequences won't be as severe as you think.
>Would immigrants enter into a society in whicn they receive no welfare programs?
The philanthropist who brought them there would provide the welfare at first, then once that is cut off they will pillage the rest of the area
>>67971611
>Because is more profitable to join a gang and set quotas on hard workers.
This would be more profitable, I do not disagree with this. Perhaps if the state-run law enforcement agencies were incentivized to render to the citizens of Mexico the highest quality services at the lowest possible cost they would ensure that this type of behavior was not commonplace. Enter the free-market.
>This is not the case. If you remove police, crimes will skyrocket, definitive will not remain the same.
It is important to remember that the state-run defense agency is being removed and will be replaced with privately owned and maintained defense agencies. It is not as if we are altogether abolishing defense services.
>More difficult, but not impossible, there is many scum people in the world.
I concur, but who were the most destructive genocidal maniacs of the 20th centuries? They were all leaders of states.
>>67971735
>That law does not cover theft.
Yes it does.
>>67971735
If Jimmy Bill gets his favorite bicycle stolen by some dude that said it was free-game since it was outside,what does he do?
Jimmy contacts the insurance agency he is covered by, and they reimburse him the value of his bike. If this does not occur, then Jimmy contacts the private defense agency which apprehends or attempts to apprehend the individual who stole his bike. An arbitration firm is then introduced which will likely render a verdict in your favor.
>And more importantly,who would enforce the laws?
Who does this now? We are simply replacing public defense agencies with private defense agencies.
>>67971896
>Which after a certain scale becomes no different from a country that funds a police force and/or army
It will lack the ability to perform compulsory taxation, which is theft.
>>67972112
>...collective of fragmented private interests would defend itself against a sovereign nation if they decided to come after it's resources?
Private defense agencies.
>>67972192
Fair enough. Thank you.
>>67971398
>You have assumed that he will be able to contract the services of a rogue defense agency.
Everyone has a price. If he can´t pay for the monopoly of defense agencies, then he can´t. This example was assuming he can.
> If he begins to initiate the use of violence of others, which no individual likely wants done unto themselves, it is unlikely that he will continue to acquire the amount of wealth he did prior to hiring such mercenaries.
He can always tax the population if his money goes down. What if they refuse to pay tax? Then they can be jailed, just like in real life, that way trump would not use violence against others.
>Natural law. Another way of phrasing this is "You may do as you please so long as you do not initiate the use of violence, force, or coercion against others". The NAP evolved out of natural law.
This doesn't work in real life, humans are prone to violence when resources are scarce. Every time a government is destroyed, chaos ensures and some else fill the vacuum of power through violence. Either other country absorbs it, lead to infighting of warlords for years until is stabilized, or most people die of famine and the territory remains fragmented.
I'm out to sleep.
>>67972112
>Surely you realise that groups of privately owned soldiers with no centralised command structure is hardly equipped for such.
No I do not concede to this assumption. Why would such be the case?
>>67972351
>...then once that is cut off they will pillage the rest of the area
They will have to fend off the well-equipped private defense agency and citizenry. If such were to occur, the philanthropist too would be likely apprehended and charged with some sort of crime for enabling these people, which may serve as a deterrent for others who are considering performing an act similar to that performed by the philanthropist.
>>67972416
>He can always tax the population if his money goes down. What if they refuse to pay tax?
Taxation is a form of theft. One who violates the rights of others opens himself up to attacks from others. In an anarcho-capitalist society no man has the authority to perform theft.
>Then they can be jailed, just like in real life, that way trump would not use violence against others.
In an anarcho-capitalist society individuals cannot be jailed for not allowing others to perform theft against them.
>Every time a government is destroyed, chaos ensures and some else fill the vacuum of power through violence. Either other country absorbs it, lead to infighting of warlords for years until is stabilized, or most people die of famine and the territory remains fragmented.
An appropriate dissolution of the state could occur to ensure that the free-market would not be overwhelmed in attempting to provide the plethora of services formerly provided by the state all at once.
I do understand the issue you are raising, however. This is the reason why I have made this thread and why we are having this discussion, so that we may at some point have a sizable population who share the ideals of non-aggression and respect of property rights.
>I'm out to sleep.
See you in the next thread.
Alright everyone, I've been at this for 4 hours so I'm done for tonight. Hopefully I'll see you all in the next thread!
>>67958830
umm, you kinda had to work m8 or no food
>>67972933
>They will have to fend off the well-equipped private defense agency and citizenry
You assume they will be well equipped.
>If such were to occur, the philanthropist too would be likely apprehended and charged with some sort of crime for enabling these people
If the philanthropist has enough money to fund a refugee camp, he can probably afford a PMC of his own. You'd have a hell of a war on your hands trying to arrest someone who denies any wrong doing. He might not even live anywhere nearby so it would be even more trouble to find and send enough people to apprehend him. He might also have powerful friends who will help him as well.
>>67956793
Not enough data to form an opinion since it's never been tried. So I say we test it out and see what happens.
>>67973505
Well, we saw Anarchist societies in Spain. They weren't too bad and nobdy looked too deprived.
Capitalism can only exist when people can easily exchange capital. To do that, you need organized production. e.g. companies and factories. Without a unified currency (which couldn't exist without an authority to force everyone to use that currency) everyone would have to barter because no one would agree on the value of goods and services. With nothing but barter, factories and companies become impossible. You'd literally have to barter every trade deal, every wage and salary. everything. Under barter, you are reduced to what you can individually produce and trade. Capitalism would no longer exist.
Posted this multiple times with no intelligent response, and this thread pops up every day.
>>67973727
>Capitalism can only exist when people can easily exchange capital.
Capitalism is an economic system in which the means of production are privatized. It can exist without a centralized currency.
>Without a unified currency (which couldn't exist without an authority to force everyone to use that currency)...
What you are arguing is that spontaneous order does not and cannot exist. There was no centralized body that created order, it arose and established itself spontaneously.
Have you ever seen Canadian geese fly? Do you think that before they take off they communicate with each other and decide that one of the birds will fly in the front and the rest will take off in an orderly fashion and form a perfect V-shape? No; some of them begin to take flight and the others follow, and while in the air they form the V-shape. These are phenomena that occur via spontaneous order. Your assertion is that spontaneous order does not exist, and that if it were not for a centralized power we could not have capitalism. We did not have a federally issued nationally used currency until the late 19th century, and capitalism in the United States predates this era.
A tool for which we can determine the value of a good or service is absolutely necessary, and so this demand would exist. When a demand exists a supply will always exist.
Furthermore, I reject your argument that a universally recognized currency would be necessary for capitalism to occur. In the same way that different states use different currencies and cooperate and trade with one another, different sectors of an anarcho-capitalist society could use different forms of currency and still cooperate with one another.
>>67974472
>*There was no centralized body that created language, it arose and established itself spontaneously.
Sorry.
>>67973549
Socialist anarchists ironically.
And the reason they weren't deprived was mostly because they killed or drove out the capitalist class members in their territory.
>>67973727
Did I address your question anon? I don't want to leave any questions unanswered and I apologize for not addressing your question in the other thread if I was still in it when it was posted.
Where the hell is this infinite supply of private defense agencies coming from?
>>67972933
>no man has the authority to perform theft
No one has the authority to rape or murder, but that still happens. You can talk about principles and natural rights all you want, but that doesn't solve the problem of warlords forming what is essentially a state through force.
>>67967099
>For the most part people are good
Exactly, so what's to stop those who aren't without a thorough system of laws and enforcement? With enough capital, any sociopath can do these things.
>>67974472
A single currency wouldn't work because a government organization would need to create that currency. Multiple types of currency definitely would not work for obvious reasons. People at the heads of the private businesses are all different and value different things. What one business sees as currency another sees as worthless. This basically makes it so many businesses wouldn't be able to trade with one another. This basically creates mini states based around businesses and resources tied to their respective currencies similar to countries, and blamo now you have separate governments with corporations creating their own currencies at the heads.
