Roads?
where we're going we won't need roads
>>79423014
Every time there's a pepe like this, I try to match his expression.
>>79423014
people build roads, not the government
>>79423014
Corporations
the NAP will build the roads
>>79423014
>>79423239
>>79423208
>>79423185
>>79423086
>>79423014
THAT WILL BE 5 BUCKS IF YOU WANT TO SHITPOST ON MY ROAD GOYPATRIOT
>>79423014
>when the government tries to initiate force on you
>>79423403
then someone else will just build a road next to yours and charge 4 bucks
rinse & repeat until the best method is established
>>79423403
>>79423527
+ you'll have plenty of extra income from not going to taxes so the extra cash you're spending on things are actually being spent on what you're using and not going to waste
>mfw troll threads like this work errytime
:^)
>>79423014
>muh "roads are socialism!" meme
wew
>>79423208
>>79423239
I'm afraid that there's a private property on the way. And the owner doesn't want to sell. How do we expropriate? :(
>>79423715
>its never happened before so it can never be done
what a dumb (((((((((scientist)))))))))))
>>79423793
Rothbard actually has a pretty decent answer to who would provide the roads in "For a new liberty"
I would have to look it up, but im too lazy desu
How do Ancaps resolve the environmental issues? "Fuck everything give me money"?
Figure that first and maybe you'd convince me.
![military1[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/i83bqNV.jpg "military1[1].jpg")
>pilot hovercraft on private toll roads
>"actually im above your toll road not on it"
>they can't do shit about it because NAP
smugpepe
>>79423086
DONT NEED MONEY
Fuck the roads, who is going to make sure we don't drown? 800 years of governmental water management isn't because infrastructure sorts itself out...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_board_(Netherlands)
>roads
Roads are a luxury. You can buy them yourself..
Shit guys I built my house out in the acreage, but I forgot only the government builds roads, now I cant drive to my house :(
>>79423951
Why do greens often think importing millions of rapidly-breeding third-worlders with no environmental conscience will help the native environment?
>>79424923
Because rayciss
>>79424726
isnt your country gonna be sea in less than 100 years anyway?
>>79424935
le spooky spooks
>>79423951
Why do we have to care about the environment if it harms humans tremendously? I mean, I'd hope you'd agree that humans come before everything.
>>79423185
That's autistic as hell.
>>79425088
I don't see now.. It's under water as it is, and it's not like we were expecting that to magically change.
Though I suppose it would help if you'd stop digging at our beaches, Fritz.. It's not the Atlantikwal anymore.
>>79425368
>now
*how
>>79425368
This picture looks like a cities skylines screenshot
>>79425368
>that huge seagull-shredder array
RIP, birds.
obligatory
>>79423793
You profess to be a libertarian or ancap, and yet you don't know who Rothbard is? U trolling or just retarded, m8?
>>79423951
Which issues? How has government solved these issues?
why do libertarians hate roads so much?
>>79423715
Do people seriously think some entrepenuer wouldn't have come around and went "Hey guys I'm building a faster and more convenient way to travel!"
I mean yeah you'd probably have to buy a membership to the road to use it but think about how nice it would be, there would be rich people roads, poor people roads.
I mean you already "pay" for roads with taxes anyway, at least with privatized roads the nicer more efficient ones would have less people on them
>>79423014
I though anarcho capitalism was a meme
literally a world without morals, complete chaos
>>79425569
Fuck seagulls, they're a plague anyway
>Ride bike through city at 5:00
>Fucking gulls, crows and pidgeons everywhere
>At intersections, just chilling with their torn bin liners and garbage
They make more mess when they're NOT shredded.
>>79423951
You privatize parks, forests, rivers, etc. and you can sue corporations or people if they damage your property, in this case parks, forests, rivers, etc.
You could also sue these corporations if the smokes affected your lungs and so on (they'd be violating the NAP).
>>79425569
>>79423721
build around?
>>79425835
I don't know, why do statists like government roads so much when they're A) Expensive and full of embezzlement B) Often built in completely nonsense areas like deserts which aren't planned for habitation for decades which are a waste and C) Break down all the fucking time
>>79424923
Why do you think I'm a green voter? I'm very conservative with the sole exception of environmentalism. It is the Achilles' Heel of Liberalism and if I could be convinced that environmental protection could be secured with minimal or no governmental regulation than you'd have a convert. That being said I don't approve of global government being the answer either.
>>79425985
This is absolutely false, especially when people are connected as communities. Groups of people can just choose not to shop at Person A's business, or hire Person A because they are a child abuser or whatever. Person A is losing money fast, and knows exactly why. He then fixes his shit to appease the market, and people might come back. People might not come back, either.
>>79425985
>a world without morals, complete chaos
>yfw anarcho capitalism is already functioning as we speak on the international stage, and yet magically the world isn't complete chaos or without morals
>>79426403
>implying monopolies won't force them to buy needed goods from one source
>implying a monopoly will not begin to dictate other rules and people have to follow them to gain what is produced
>implying ancapism doesn't lead to statism
>>79426304
>LOW QUALITY
>OVER BUDGET
>5 YEARS OVERDUE
The story of the repair of a county road near me.
>>79426612
>won't force them to buy needed goods from one source
Force them how?
>>79425478
Just quit cities skylines 5 min ago, such a raging boner right now.
"anarcho-capitalism" makes no sense, the state and capital rely on each other
>>79426612
>Implying predatory monopolies can exist in a truly unregulated market
Monopolies are due to government regulation and corporate lobbying.
>>79426699
by being the only source for that good, and if that good is necessary for survival, well
Also, land ownership exists in ancapism. A company that owns the land around a community owns that community, as they can charge and tx the hell out of anyone leaving or entering the community
>>79425985
thats a lot of heroin and a lot of kindergartener prostitutes
>>79426392
>and if I could be convinced that environmental protection could be secured with minimal or no governmental regulation than you'd have a convert.
there are a few points to that, like i said go and read Rothbards "For a new Liberty" it does explain it in some detail there
What i remember from the top of my head
>conservation of resources would happen because exhausting all the resources at once just isnt profitable (ie you would like a steady income over as much of a time period as possible)
>>79426801
Come back when you understand English, Ahmed.
Do ancaps celebrate Easter?
>>79425368
oh man, the netherlands has GOAT land management
>>79426920
Not an argument.
>>79426806
free markets lead to monopolies. Supply and demand is not a constant, and can easily be influenced by the company to affect how other companies perform. Besides, how do you plan on dismantaling the pre-exsisting structures that contribute to monopolies? Redistribute all land?
Must suck for people like me who live in low-income low-population density areas to get roads built. It's not profitable for companies and the people can't afford to pay for it.
If only there was a centralized authority that could ensure that all citizens had access to infrastructure.
>>79423014
You can drive on my road for a little more, but theres less traffic because not everyone wants to pay that little more.
>>79426612
How do you achieve a monopoly?
How do you force people to buy things from a monopoly?
How is this better than the GUARANTEE of a monopoly under the actual statism status quo?
>>79426978
Do Statists celebrate the NAP?
>>79426612
Read more Rothbard.
>>79426992
It is though, if you can't assimilate you should fuck off.
>>79426304
>literally getting triggered by memes
>>79423014
People fucking pay for billboards near the road
Or cars pay per usage
You retarded kraut shit
>>79427108
NAP?
>>79427090
>How do you achieve a monopoly?
by controlling a portion of the market
>How do you force people to buy things from a monopoly?
by being the only provider of a needed resource. Read my fucking posts, cuck
>How is this better than the GUARANTEE of a monopoly under the actual statism status quo?
It literally leads to a state
>>79427223
East Silesia?
>CAPTCHA: 420
>>79427006
If free markets lead to monopolies, then what do you recommend? A state-run monopoly, also known as Socialism or Communism?
Would you rather have someone you can fight against or someone you can't?
>>79426992
Wrong kind of capital. Capital in this context is the profit from a combination of goods and services. You are thinking a state or country's capital, i.e the location where much of the governmental buildings and officials reside.
>>79427248
To crash a monopoly you literally need one entrepreneur that has a better product. To stand by his company and not sell it to you
>>79427238
South Tyrol?
>>79424347
DON'T TAKE FAME
>>79423185
Are you autistic?
>>79427223
Yeah I imagine you'd see free roads littered with billboards, tho I know some people wouldn't use them cause ads trigger people for some reason.
>>79427425
Switching something?
>>79427362
>A state-run monopoly, also known as Socialism or Communism?
That isn't the defintion of either, and I advocate anarchism
>Would you rather have someone you can fight against or someone you can't?
Ancapism and statism are a common enemy - because they are both states.
>To crash a monopoly you literally need one entrepreneur that has a better product. To stand by his company and not sell it to you
Like I said in an earlier post (read the fucking posts), supply and demand are not the only determining factors. A competitor needs access to the smae resources to build similar (but better) products. If an electronics monopoly controlled all sources of rare earth metals, competitors are screwed
>>79426612
At least with corporations you know their end game is money, with the government god knows what the fuck they want.
"Better the Devil you know yada yada"
>>79426869
Name some goods that are necessary for survival that can only be produced by a single source.
As for creating a de-facto tyranny by barricading someone into a tiny area wouldn't be supported by most people in any society, and therefore wouldn't be supported by the largest courts and protection agencies. Any company who did that would get fucked.
Remember, the NAP is a principle, just like "don't be an asshole" is a principle. It's not some airtight doctrine that you must blindly obey to the letter even when it ceases to make sense.
>>79427052
If only there were some way to travel on surfaces other than fresh, clean government pavement...
>>79427433
DON'T NEED A CREDT CARD
>>79427810
>just don't have paved roads lol
This is why no one in the world takes you seriously.
>>79423086
WHERE WE'RE GOING WE DON'T NEED EYES TO SEE
>>79427948
Or, you know, have the industries that rely on the roads pay for them directly? And have them hire QUALITY, INEXPENSIVE, EFFICIENT workers to build the road?
>>79427770
>we should let people exploit us because at least we know thier reasooning behind the exploitation
If corporations exploit us, and the state exploits us, and we do not want to be exploited, we should fight against both
>>79427810
>Name some goods that are necessary for survival that can only be produced by a single source.
Food
water
That's survival, of course. A company may also control the electrical grid, or communications, or weaponry
>As for creating a de-facto tyranny by barricading someone into a tiny area wouldn't be supported by most people in any society
Obviously, that's why the force would be used
>nd therefore wouldn't be supported by the largest courts and protection agencies
Only if they're guys can fight the company's guys
>Remember, the NAP is a principle, just like "don't be an asshole" is a principle. It's not some airtight doctrine that you must blindly obey to the letter even when it ceases to make sense.
Yeah. It can also be abandoned completly, by, say, some organization interested in gaining profit from people through say, some form of taxation instead of selling products
>>79427716
all the Easter posting messed with my brain
>>79427730
>and I advocate anarchism
So presumably you're an ancom?
>>79427948
You're the retard crying about not having roads. I just gave you a solution. You realize that even first-world nations have cheap gravel roads in rural areas, and everyone seems to manage just fine?
If there is such a demand for paved roads, people will cough up the cash. If there isn't, suck it up and drive on dirt roads. It really isn't bad, you effete Yuropoor cuck.
>>79428198
I'm not saying we let the corporations exploit us, I'm saying since their end result is profit there is at least a clear, not necessarily easy, but clear path to depriving them of their goal.
>>79423185
I do the same
>>79428352
>So presumably you're an ancom?
Correct
>>79428365
>I'm saying since their end result is profit there is at least a clear, not necessarily easy, but clear path to depriving them of their goal.
I am glad to see someone I agree with here. Are you an anti-capitalist?If so, greetings, comrade
>>79426403
But why would I care if Guy A likes to shit on toddlers and decapitate puppies if he sells stuff for the lowest price and highest quality?
Money speaks louder than words
>>79428502
Why don't Americans celebrate Easter?
>>79428502
No, I'm saying that if capitalism were abused to such a degree that an oppressive monopoly formed that did more harm than good it could be fought by depriving it of profit, whereas with a government the only way to fight an oppressive regime is to violently overthrow it.
>>79428198
>Food
You mean the thing that can be produced with dirt, sunlight, and water?
>water
You mean the thing that can be produced with a shovel, some arms, a rope, and a bucket, literally everywhere on the fucking planet?
>Only if they're guys can fight the company's guys
In every society, there are far more people demanding protection from criminals, than there are criminals demanding protection to commit crimes. The mass of "peaceful" people outnumber the criminal element by several orders of magnitude. So does their money.
Security agencies make their money by offering protection to as large a market as possible. Since 99% of the population is "good", that's who they'll cater to. No upjumped company that thinks it's a new dictatorial nation-state will get very far in combat, becase
a) they are heavily outnumbered and outgunned by mainstream security agencies
b) their revenues come from voluntary sales; if people get wind that Wal Mart is literally murdering people or starving them to death, there go Wal Mart's revenues, straight to the next best competitor.
>>79428339
saved
>>79428564
Then that's, like, your choice, man. Who am I to stop you from going in?
>>79428502
>Correct
So how would you enforce the abolition of "private" property? Through some sort of centralized organization that could direct the collective use of force against transgressors, perhaps?
>>79423327
jej
>>79428841
>I'm saying that if capitalism were abused to such a degree that an oppressive monopoly formed that did more harm than good it could be fought by depriving it of profit, whereas with a government the only way to fight an oppressive regime is to violently overthrow it.
If the monopoly provided some needed resource, you'd have to use violence against it
>>79428900
>You mean the thing that can be produced with dirt, sunlight, and water?
>implying companies won't control all the land
Property, anon. Land can be property in ancapism.
>You mean the thing that can be produced with a shovel, some arms, a rope, and a bucket, literally everywhere on the fucking planet?
Land, anon. It can be property
>>79429060
>So how would you enforce the abolition of "private" property?
By ignoring anyone who claimed the exsistence of it.
Right now, if I went to a radnom field and said I owned it, would people pay attention? no.
>Through some sort of centralized organization that could direct the collective use of force against transgressors, perhaps?
I oppose any such organization
>>79428930
its all yours my friend :)
>>79429248
>implying companies won't control all the land
How would companies control all the land?
>land can be property in ancapism
Land is property now. Or do you think nobody has the right to live on a particular piece of land, and everything ought to be shared by everyone? Have fun watching that fail within seconds.
>if I went to a radnom field and said I owned it, would people pay attention?
The person who currently owns the field would definitely pay attention, and if you didn't fuck off he would either shoot you, or call up others to help him get you off his property.
>>79429248
Also true, but violence wouldn't be the only means along the way, and competition would presumably prevent any one source from being completely controlled. I mean how much would it cost to own ALL the water in the world? Who could ever amass such funds?
For the record I'm not Anarcho Capitalist anyway, I do think the government serves some purpose, I just think it should be extremely limited and only step in when its apparent citizens have no absolutely power to prevent being harmed/taken advantage of.
>>79426983
>GOAT
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sagQC-RGjsk
>>79429541
>How would companies control all the land?
Property, anon. Armed forces gaurding that land.
>Or do you think nobody has the right to live on a particular piece of land, and everything ought to be shared by everyone?
I do. Property is theft.
>The person who currently owns the field would definitely pay attention, and if you didn't fuck off he would either shoot you, or call up others to help him get you off his property.
I'm sorry for being unclear. I meant would my claim ever come to fruition? The odds are aginst me.
>>79429642
>competition would presumably prevent any one source from being completely controlled. I mean how much would it cost to own ALL the water in the world? Who could ever amass such funds?
True. Several companies would likely grow powerful, and as they resemble states more and more, they will appear as seperate nations
>>79427811
TO RIDE THIS TRAIN
>>79423014
>muh freedom
>supporting a system where an impromptu road-trip comes with massive bills from hundreds of different toll companies
Pick one you unpatriotic lib-faggots
>>79429806
>I do. Property is theft.
Can I come live in your house and eat your food for free if I feel like it? After all, you wouldn't want to be stealing from me (and everyone else on the planet) by owning property, would you?
How exactly do you suppose to convince people to act in a way that is entirely contrary to our fundamental nature as humans? Your philosophy might work for hive animals, but it certainly won't work for primates. If you cannot see this, you are delusional.
>>79429806
This recalls a discussion about political methodologies back in high school. My teacher pointed out that anarchist societies are fundamentally impossible because as soon as even the smallest group with some semblance of a leader forms, it ceases to be an anarchy.
He is correct, even in an Anarcho Cap paradise, some form of government and nationhood would exist as corporations owned more property. It's why I lean more Libertarian than I ever would AnCap, as a limited government would in theory be able to prevent abusive corporations.
>>79430077
As opposed to having yearly massive bills for an entire nation's worth of roads, whether you took a road trip or not? Awesome!
>>79430077
>massive bills
what makes you think private roads would be more expensive than government funded ones?
there are a lot of things to critize, but private economy virtually always does a more cost effective job
>>79430158
>Can I come live in your house and eat your food for free if I feel like it?
Of course, comrade!
>How exactly do you suppose to convince people to act in a way that is entirely contrary to our fundamental nature as humans?
I don't. I expect it to emerge naturally, because the fundemental nature of humans is altruism.
>>79430170
defintion of anarchism: a political theory holding all forms of governmental authority to be unnecessary and undesirable and advocating a society based on voluntary cooperation and free association of individuals and groups (meriam webster)
Your teacher was wrong. Anarchism is not a lack of leaders.
>>79430250
Those bills are paid by those who can afford them. Your system would basically impose serfdom like movement restrictions on the poor.
>>79423014
this should literally be a non-issue, all it does is show how retarded ancaps are that the obvious communal solution escapes them. so self interested they can't understand society is founded on mutual interest, an ancap city in need of roads could spend one day working together to lay a road, the way the ancoms do, the way rural folk of yesterday and today do.
the road problem is not ancaps' big problem, that they even have the road problem is ancaps' big problem.
>>79423014
:^)
peace out fuckers
>>79430450
underage b&
>>79426403
Those are all pretty niche items that would have just enough of a demand to make it profitable.
>>79430309
I imagine it would play out almost like any subscriptive service. You can pay however much to be in the VIP road club. Then there would be more middle roads that the everyman would use. Finally there would be "free" roads full of advertisements like a free phone app.
I like the sound of it desu. Cops wouldn't pull people over cause they have a quota to fill as the traffic patrol would have a set wage from the subscription service and the punishment for violating the roads rules would simply be having your membership revoked.
>>79430309
Libertarians always say stuff like fundamental nature, but ignore the fact that the natural state of humanity is tribal anarcho-communism within small communities.
>>79423014
>This triggers the anarcuck
>>79430170
>even the smallest group with some semblance of a leader forms, it ceases to be an anarchy
This shows he had a fundamental misunderstanding of anarchism. Having a leader doesn't make a group of people into a state. If we are running together and everyone wants me to pick the route, we are not the Running State and I am not its president. If you go to the doctor and he tells you that you need a chest x-ray, he is not your dictator.
>limited government would in theory be able to prevent abusive corporations
And anarchists contend that every government, no matter how limited, will inevitably get bigger. This has already happened in your own country. Once you open the doors to government, there's no going back or keeping it in check, because you are trusting an organization that monopolizes the use of force to treat you nicely. As the line goes, once you pay the Danegeld, you'll never get rid of the Dane.
>>79425985
No. People always try to help others while following their own self interest. Haven't you ever given change to a hobo?
>>79430403
Yeah I get the idea and admire the principle the problem arises that not everyone is altruistic and willing to share.
>>79423854
>>79423715
>>79427118
>>79425649
>>79426909
>(((Rothbard)))
With Jews, you lose.
>>79430535
probably would end up paying more if the roads are full, ie going downtown at rush hour
but i think everyone would use the same roads, as building different ones in different quality sounds kinda pricey
>>79430568
what has that got to do with my point?
>>79430679
He wasn't saying that it was a state, but anarchism means a lack of government, and leaders "govern" even their smallest sects. It doesn't have to be by definition a state government to be a system where someone leaders. Yes an anarchist society is possible in the sense that there would be no state, but the idea of having no leaders in any facet whatsoever is impossible.
Cheers all around to everyone in this talk btw its been a fun way to spend an afternoon ngl.
>>79430939
sorry, was replying to a diff poster
>>79430403
>Of course, comrade!
And supposing that I want to eat all of your food? Surely you wouldn't be so selfish as to refuse, especially since the food isn't even yours to refuse.
>the fundemental nature of humans is altruism.
This is where we differ. We are social, individual creatures. We almost always serve our own interests, even though many of those interests are shared by others in our societies. Often, what's best for our neighbors is what's best for us, and achievable with less effort and expense if we work together. That is not altruism, that is selfishness, and there is nothing wrong with that.
>>79430407
>serfdom like movement restrictions on the poor
Hardly. How much money do you imagine it would cost to use a road? How much money do you think road-owners will spend to hire police to make sure every single pedestrian pays the toll and nobody sneaks in? If they did that, they'd be bankrupt in a day.
> natural state of humanity is tribal anarcho-communism within small communities
Justify this. On what grounds do you define small ancom communities as "natural", and larger capitalist ones as "unnatural"?
>>79423014
Spooks
>>79431047
Again, you're using some bizarro definition of anarchism that nobody else does. You seem to think that any authority whatsoever negates anarchism. I just gave you two examples of situations where authority is perfectly acceptable and does not negate anarchism. You choose whether you want to be part of my running group and tolerate me deciding on the route. You choose whether you trust the doctor and want to defer to his superior medical knowledge. This doesn't make you less free.
>he idea of having no leaders in any facet whatsoever is impossible
Precisely. That's why no anarchist makes that claim.
>>79431477
DESU I'll admit I was wrong in my definition, I assumed true anarchism meant no leadership at all.
At any rate I think what my teacher was trying to get at was that eventually small pockets would begin to form of statehood, that government was inevitable but idk maybe were both retarded.
>>79431688
>what is ground water
>what are rivers
>what are Süßwasserseen
>what are glaciers
are you literally this retarded?
>>79423403
oh well the $120,000 i make as a plumer after tax breaks would help
>>79425368
Jesus Christ Holland stop sinking
>>79431703
The thing is, anarchism is not something you can force on someone. If I told you "you have to be an anarchist or I'll kill you", that isn't very anarchist of me, right? If we are assuming that there is already an anarchist society, then it must necessarily be populated by anarchists, otherwise it wouldn't have formed in the first place. Why would anarchists form governments, when the one thing their political philosophy is against is government? This is why the "anarchism leads to statism" argument fails, because it completely ignores why and how there came to be anarchism in the first place.
People are free to select leaders for themselves, and delegate responsibility for anything they want. Anarchism doesn't prohibit people from doing this. What it takes issue with is when those leaders declare that they no longer need explicit consent in order to justify their actions, and that their authority is no longer optional or contingent on the original agreements.
>>79423014
If you pay me I will find people and gear to make them with.
That's exactly what the state does but they do it with force.
>>79431878
>dam the river
>poison the wells
>melt the glacier
>???
>profit
>>79434237
>shoot the person trying to kill everyone and steal their property
>???
>no more problems
>>79423014
Just fuck having them n shiet
>>79423403
government steals thousands from me every year though
>>79423014
There would be roads in an ancap society, they would all be owned and privatized by various road companies. People would pay a toll to drive on them
This is actually a pretty simple concept
>>79435079
>needing a wallet for ally our RoadXYZ company membership cards
>>79435172
Just keep them in your car
>>79423086
Came here to post this.
>Tfw most of /pol/ wont get the reference.
>>79435297
>needing a car
>not being able to just walk around
most countries aren't the size of a continetn
>>79425569
>caring about the coastal jew
>ever
fuck seagulls next time they try to eat my lunch I'll give em some with laxatives in em
>>79423086
88 MPH
>>79426920
What value is your big pile of money when a big pile of guys with guns can take it without repercussions?
>I'll just hire my own guys with guns
They'll kill you and take your capital, then fight amongst themselves for it. Ownership and property are enforced concepts, and it takes a government to enforce them.
>>79435172
Toll roads use RFID chips now, you don't have to stop or anything. It's current year, dude.
>>79436014
>>79435297
>>79435079
>private companies now keep track of your travelling history, and know every road you use
>>79436909
>>79423014
>>79435852
It takes a government, who hires police, who are individuals.
It takes individuals to enforce property rights.
Get the fuck off my board.
