Are you a libertarian or an anarcho-capitalist? Can you explain the merits of your ideology?
>>24775644
>not being a National Bolshevik
ISHYGDDT
anarcho-capitalism doesn't exist because anarchism means no rulers and not just no government
t. anarchist
Libertarian. Having no govt would be super fucking stupid, since private enterprise can't be trusted to do half the stuff that govt does. Anarcho-capitalism is for 12-year olds who have no idea how the real world works.
>>24775644
I'm not an anarcho-capitalist, but my understanding is that it operates under the premise that you don't consent to the law therefore it is immoral.
>>24775905
holy crap you can almost see her butt
well with no more daddy government the poor dumb people (NOT me I am smart) will all die and we'll be left with an intelligent prosperous society.
>>24775644
why are u trying to give me homework breh
>>24775644
Libertarians are usually retarded. An caps are always completely retarded.
I don't think people, when they get into something like anarcho capitalism, understand that this is basically where humanity started off. Ultimately the end game for anarcho capitalists is just another, shittier version of governments.
They don't realize they're not advocating for no government, just a different sort. If anyone's there to settle legal issues, enforce laws, etc. they're the government. If you don't like a republican democracy, then you get some form of weird corporate oligarchy.
Think of a government as a big company and all the citizens as shareholders and that's essentially the reality of the world.
Libertarianism superficially makes sense, and typically a shallow conversation with a libertarian makes them seem reasonable and straight forward, but once you get into the weeds you realize it's just a meme ideology and they really don't comprehend economics or just about anything else.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CUoZBfz7r0U
Do you support the use of violence against me?
>>24776238
What do you suggest we do then?
>>24775644
Anarcho-individualist.
>>24775644
Both are wishful thinking ideology that don't take into account human greed and stupidity. They would never work in a real world setting
>>24775644
Socially conservative, fiscally leftist.
>>24775644
anarcho-"capitalism" (you mean free markets) is what we have. You're living in it right now.
Don't believe me? Because groups of people in a lawless orderless world banded together and formed societies with governments? No shit.
Is the government going to stop governments from forming? Is there going to be a law against laws?
Dumbest high school shit ever.
>>24776983
Anarcho-capitalism != free market capitalism.
In anarcho-capitalism what you said would definitely be true. There would be nothing stopping some corporation from taking over.
However, we are not living under either. What we're living under is what some would call corporatocracy or state sponsored capitalism.
In essence, the government has allowed itself to be subjected by large corporations. The corporations have their hands in government and the government gets a little cut because of this.
This is why we have those bailouts and subsidies. It's protectionism. The government is protecting its interests and the corporations are doing the same. Those companies that have been bailed out should have died off.
They were and still are inefficient. If a company, corporation, business, private enterprise or otherwise can't keep itself afloat then it should not continue to compete in whatever market they're in and certainly shouldn't be propped up by some government. They should either close shop or move on to some other market.
Ideally, in a free market, competition would be high enough that the playing field would essentially be leveled. Of course, you would still have people at the top, but it would be less of a monopoly like there is today in so many industries. If a company is unpopular or their services/products are shit, then they'll lose customers and profits eventually dying out. If another company offers the same product or service but for a cheaper price and higher quality, then that company is going to get more customers and their competitors will either step their game up or die out (they're more likely to step their game up though).
As for myself, I'm more of a minarchist/libertarian and follow the non-aggression principle. Ideally, the government would only provide for emergency services, law enforcement, a military, and enforcement of contracts between individuals, corporations, and other economic entities.
I wish we could use the word "Minarchist" instead of :"Libertarian". Communicates what it's about so much more.
Any system would work if we had white people only.
>>24775644
zero government is fucking stupid.
Short of charity and non profit aid organizations, there are no other organizations that put helping society over profit.
If a company can figure out how to make more profit at the expense of the quality of it's services and get away with it due to a monopoly, then it will.
Ideally you want a form of government that won't tolerate the exploitation of a nation's land or people, while still recognizing that private enterprises are vital to the health of a nation. But that means a lot of regulations, something you don't get from either two of OP's governments.
>>24777695
>put helping society over profit
Trust me there is no one in the government not making a profit. they are playing with other people's money. everyone would be better off not having their money stolen by a huge unproductive economic drain on society.
>>24776238
found the shitposter
>>24776983
>You're living in it right now.
obviously not, because the state exists
>>24775644
Anarcho-capitalist.
No, I'm not bothering. I'm too old for political talk and don't give a fuck.
>>24775644
Capitalism means making money off of other people's hard work. No thanks senpai.
>>24777836
You're right I guess, you can't avoid greed but I still think governments even modern-day ones that have to pander to corporations, still place more importance on society than corporations would.
>>24775644
Both of those are stupid and only appeal to idiot anons
>>24777505
How can a government exist without violating the non-aggression principle? If it's only funded via donations, you're talking about the same thing as voluntarism
I was a liberterian until I got educated in economics and finance in my undergrad
Right now I have to write a paper where I compare and contrast the Keynesian school with the Austrian (Liberterian) school...It's literally painful to write the arguments on the Austrian side. It's so ideologically charged and full of retarded shit
>>24775644
I thought that "minimal government" were "minarchists"
...Welp
>>24778720
Kek, let's have another round of "stimulus" shall we, consumers "create" value, don't forget to break some windows
>>24775644
National Socialist.
I would say no to gassing people though.
Just a massive militarist technologically advanced Alliance of Western countries would be nice. We would be more prosperous and therefore more NEETbux to my friends here. Also I would get my dream government with thousands of men marching lock step in shiny black boots.
>I actually tear up when I think about it. It actually turns me on, imagery of Nazis. The solidarity, Unison.
Although anything so long as it seals Western Economic and Military hegemony on Earth is fine by me.
>>24777592
>Any system would work if we had white people only.
Communism didn't work. Socialism didn't either.
The only system that works is Capitalism. You can debate it, but there's years of proof to back it up.
>>24775644
filthy commie here,
Only idiots advocate for anarchy in any form
>>24777592
explain the american school stystem
>>24779886
>what happens under anarchy
>things that are not anarchic
Man whoever made that sure had no clue
>>24779913
anarchy is impossible. That's why those things happen.
>>24779828
Any system works so long as it doesn't succumb to bureaucracy or lack of resources. Capitalist nations are always born out of rich resources. They are also the least likely to succumb to bureaucracies because of lack of influence. Although like anarchy it loses its shape quickly.
Can't say it works because it never lasts. Pretty sure North Korea could last forever if left untouched.
Anarcho-capitalist at heart, but only because deep down I wish people weren't reliant on an authority figure to function.
So in reality, I'm far more libertarian in modern practices - which, ironically, has swung me into fairly Conservative views as American Liberalism drives itself off a cliff and into the fucking sea.
>>24779886
>criminal activity like drug trades
You realize that, without a state to prohibit substances, drugs trade is as legitimate as any other commodity.
>>24779965
and you think they won't also compete in the market?
Even that aside, there is still human trafficking and extortion
>>24779954
if North Korea is your idea of an ideal society... I don't even know man
I don't think an ancap society would be too different from ours now, just more business opportunities
Imagine for example a company that would consolidate all your small purchases of the day and pay them for you
The world would be a bit more advanced I guess
BTW there is literally no proof that a monopoly would form it's never happened before ever (Except when government regulation rears its ugly head)
>>24779981
not to mention literally everything else illegal will form a black market (hitmen). Unless they want to legalize all crime, large crime syndicates will always exist
>>24779981
yes they will compete, in the market. you don't see coke and pepsi shooting each other do you?
>>24779983
Never said Ideal. It works though, as much a beater as it is.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CKRidQJQLrs
Also as long as you are faithful to the state life isn't so bad.
>>24779993
>I don't think an ancap society would be too different from ours now, just more business opportunities
then you're retarded.
just flat out pants on head retarded
BTW there is literally no proof that a monopoly would form it's never happened before ever (Except when government regulation rears its ugly head)
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA FAGGOT
>>24780002
coke and pepsi don't have their hands in illicit activities such as prostition, kidnapping, bribery, extortion, loansharking, slavery, etc.
Unless of course you want to legalize child slaves, abolish the age limit of your legal prostitutes, and want to hand out meth like it's candy with no age requirements.
>>24779983
Well, the plebs are contained and helpless and the power is absolute. It has been completely unopposed for several decades now... I'd say it is stable.
I can;t say it is -good-, but it is stable.
>>24780013
Fuck you really got me beat there
>>24780025
*Unless of course you want to legalize child slaves, abolish the age limit of your legal prostitutes, and want to hand out meth like it's candy with no age requirements, cartels will maintain a presence
>>24776058
Underrated reply
>>24780030
why should stability be striven for? entropy is the natural state of everything.
>>24780095
What do you mean by natural state?
>>24780095
Stability is the success of man over nature.
We should always strive for it.
>>24775644
Feudalist
>>24775952
>private enterprise can't be trusted to do half the stuff that govt does
Private enterprise is far more accountable I don't know what would make you think it's not.
>>24780132
What do you mean over nature?
we ARE nature, it's unescapable
Actually, Zizek has some nice ideas...
>>24780163
Nature was a concept born of the mind of man. It is the base primal state of things uninfluenced. That is why we don't call a plastic container natural. With the ability to modify nature into un-nature. We can surely master the art someday.
>>24780219
In the future maybe we will be able to become more artificial, but we still cannot escape the idea of nature
>>24780109
I mean default
>>24780132
idiotic, if a few hundred years ago man had "succeeded over nature" we wouldn't have electricity or any other modernity. innovation is the success of man over nature,
>>24780277
Evolution of society and technology is a natural urge of humanity which so far has been unabated no matter the damage to the environment. Much like a shark doesn't care if it over eats, it just does.
Stability, an unchanging state no matter the time passed. Is success over nature. Innovation is merely more advanced exploitation of nature.
>>24780249
If you can't get away from an idea, you have not yet achieved stability.
A common joke is that the only difference between libertarians and ancaps is a year. I'm struggling to go from minarchism to ancap myself though, and it's been quite a while since I became a minarchist. Frankly I just feel ancap is something that would work in a world where humans didn't have human tendencies, much like communism. But humans have way too many bad traits to make either really viable.
>>24780044
>monopolies don't exist outside of government corruption!
Guess what dumbfuck, back in the stoneage when people had to hunt for the shit they ate, monopolies arose in the form of not sharing food with cunts who didn't help catch it.
The basic premise of a monopoly is just manipulating supply so that you fulfill the vast majority of demand. Government regulation or involvement isn't necessary on even the most simple level.
The only argument that anarcho-capitalists have that would seemingly validate a non-governed society is that modern advances in technology, education, and etc have made it so that the general population of such a society could defend itself from being manipulated by individuals in such a way - and as someone with ancap leanings myself, if anything the exact opposite appears to be true.
>>24780355
The primary difference is that anarcho-capitalism creates a system wherein unequal humans can use equalizers to prevent themselves from being taken advantage of.
Communism, as a counterpoint, seeks to simply equalize everyone from the start - which, clearly, doesn't work, and then any people who can "slip through the cracks" have their inequality multiplied many times over. Ironically, in a communist system designed to make everyone equal, the wealthy tend to get wealthier and the poor tend to get poorer.
>>24780333
we are not sharks, see: the many environmentalists and people with their panties in an uproar over damage to the environment.
which is beside the point, even without human intervention nature will continue with entropy, to try to abate this is to hinder itself.
>>24780358
>monopolies arose in the form of not sharing food with cunts who didn't help catch it.
that isn't a monopoly
>>24780401
I get the difference, trust me I do. But humans aren't rational all the time. I wish it were so. But humans are emotional beings. It's just a simple fact that after long enough a new government would form eventually and start doing the same old shit as before. Likely with lots of bloodshed and force.
>>24780358
You didn't describe a monopoly m8o that's tribalism
>>24780456
pre-supposing that an anarcho-capitalist 'regime' would eventually come to an end kind of defeats the point though, doesn't it?
I mean, every single government or society has been formed with the implicit knowledge that there would be an expiration date - that doesn't, and shouldn't, inform the validity of their founding.
Politics aren't meant to be nihilistic.
>>24780421
So you tell me a slave to nature can never rise above it. On this we agree. I am not talking about humans that are as base as this though.
I am talking about humans rising above changes forced upon us. Moving beyond human will, becoming a state that is order. To attain order and stability. This itself is what it means to separate oneself from nature, rise above it.
I forgot I made this topic, since it was meant to be posted on /pol/
Goddamn, /r9k/'s average quality of posts is so much better than the stormfags over at /pol/
>>24780485
I support an anarcho-capitalist society. But the end date would begin the day after it began. Greed and lust for power and the want for control will always win. It's always been that way.
>>24776960
Exactly because human greed and stupidity exist all other systems don't work.
>>24780496
no idea what any of this means. no more cars or internet?
>>24780358
I'm sorry to blow you off with the tribalism comment I do understand what you are saying
People did share food though I'd like to point that out, food wasn't the only thing vital to a tribe.
I agree with you definitely that education would hinder anarchism but because education is done by the state for the msot part, of course it would promote itself in that way.
Technology though I would have to disagree, I believe technology will move us further and further away from a perceived need for a central authority, I think ideas and dependency will change completely in the future if we maintain current standards.
I would suppose I am more of an anarchist than a capitalist but capitalism would seem to be the system that would occur with no central authority.
>>24780514
you can thank us libertarians for that!
*tips objectivism*
>>24776960
>basic premise for societal advancement is the elimination of human vice, greed, hatred, etc.
>same people who agree on that will often agree that there can be no "honor system" governments, i.e. communism/libertarianism/anarchism
It's almost like the entire system was fucked from the start
>>24780544
There is greed and lust for power right now what makes you think it would break an anarchist system?
You will have to think it through a bit longer
>>24780634
>I'm sorry to blow you off with the tribalism comment I do understand what you are saying
He was trying to say that people can enact monopolies between individuals with no existing governmental system or anything.
I think, his example was pretty much completely backwards though. Either way, your comment that monopolies can't exist outside of government manipulation is just silly.
>>24780673
I am not saying they can't I'm just saying historically it has never happened
>>24780654
people are greedy so we need to grant people power over us to protect us against greedy power hungry people.
>>24780722
hehehe every anarcho capitalist facebook page ever
I think you will know what I'm talking about.
>>24778666
I never said that government should follow the non-aggression principle. Essentially, what I'm implying is that if a government is to exist because people are too fucking stupid and/or evil, then it should be minimal in nature.
And yes, you are correct that government, in order to exist, must exert some sort of force in order to exist (actually, this is debatable, but that can be for a later time).
However, a government funded by donations is not voluntaryism. In this regard it's still similar to traditional government with taxation. Ideally a government, if one is to exist, should fund itself and not rely on the people to support it. How this could be done would be the government competing in the free market. It's obviously implausible to do this.
So, with a minimal government, while it still would need to exert some sort of force, taxes and the like would not be that high. The military need not be a standing army, it could be mostly reserve forces/militia with a very small portion on active duty to respond to immediate threats. Law enforcement could be kept minimal if the right to bear arms is not done away with. Arguably, the largest expenses would contract enforcement and emergency services (fire, ambulance, disaster response, etc.).
Personally, I would like to see a voluntaryist society where the people essentially choose which government they want to be associated with. But this is still anarchy and because people are shitty by nature, they'll fuck it up one way or another. That's where the rational part of me says the at least some government should exist.
With regards to non-aggression, you could theoretical preserve this with a government. A citizen may choose whether they want government provided services or not. If they do, they pay the government taxes ("service fees"). If not, they could turn to the free market and receive their services from there, and they could pick and choose from the free market and government.
>>24780740
yeah it hadn't been mentioned yet though, either way go ahead and refute the logic, shitpost guy.
>>24780762
I agree with the logic though, but I would like to see someone argue against it. I could try to formulate something give me a while.
>>24780762
Ok so my first thought is that maybe the good could possibly outweigh the evil in the sense of government; putting some -as we all are for this arguments sake- 'shitty' people in charge of regulation could protect people from exploitation from the market
A necessary evil
Of course there are arguments that will sprout from what I have written like well are people being exploited more now than they would under no ruler, but that is not the point of what I'm saying.
Lolbertarians are a literal joke, ancaps are retarded
>>24775644
I am a libertarian socialist https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism
pros:
total personal freedom and self-ownership
no fat capitalist porky due to resources and land owned by the people, and large private property regulated by the people
cons:
none
anarcho-communism wins
>>24782985
>Communism
>Without a central government that forces people to give up their property under threat of murder or imprisonment
if there were no government where would you retards get your welfare from?
>>24775644
Anarchism does not work. Power is a resource with value thus an absence of it will result in a struggle for power until it is possessed once more. The ideal is a government which has some mechanism to keep it uncorrupted and which does not use its force for tyranny.
>>24783087
Why should I care about rich people's property rights when I don't have any property myself anyway? It is rational to support wealth redistribution if it is beneficial for you.
>Edgy kids in this thread that can't realise anarchism doesn't work, an un-unified front will just get destroyed, dismantled, then assimilated into a more organised force
See:Romans fighting Gauls
I don't need to prove its merit, that would be a meritocracy.
>>24783484
So basically it's just a band of thugs that steals whatever they want from whoever they want? And if it has to be you will murder whoever stands in your rampaging path of destruction?
> It is rational to support wealth redistribution if it is beneficial for you.
Unless of course you have morals and believe that theft and murder are wrong.
