Capitalism is voluntary

If you don't like your job you can be self employees or beg. Capitalism is a voluntary system.

Other urls found in this thread:

sounds good to me ;^)

Yes we know, it's your God that changes everything. Invisible deity of the market.

Not starve. You can always be self employees.


Nigga read ethics then talk.

But your not exploited when your self employed.

Uncle Joe put it best

Even if you don't have the starting capital?

Socialism requires coercion.

Can you plant a seed? If yes congrats you can grow chives and sell them.

But Socialism is also voluntary system.

If you don't like having Proletariat in charge you can work in gulag or be executed.

it's not you that is doing the exploiting, not even the boss really. Its the system

That still requires capital user

part of life babbby, depends on your ends

Capitalism is a machine to produce coercion in large unequal quantities, now go read ethics then comeback.

Land is capital, you realize that? Most people don't have lands, you fuck, just a fucking flat at best.

If so, then mind telling me where is the contract according to which I accepted the existence of private property rights?

Property is a natural right.




You know, when this board wasn't fucking shit this thread would have dropped off to page 2.


Just Operate my fucking conditioning fam
It's hardly voluntary if my decisions are restricted to a capitalist system alone.

WTF I love capitalism now

Co-ops and communes can exist with in anarcho-capitalism.

im oppressed by capitalism

Does nature act within the system as an independent force from within?


What happens in nature.
Work or starve

Property is theft from the commons. Do you believe that land "naturally" has the owner's name written on it?

Go join a commune if you don't like capitalism.

Property has always existed.


Capitalism requires coercion.

No it doesn't.

fuck you got me
why should i care if people are dying from a preventable cause! infections are part of nature and we just need to let them be! its not like we could cure them and elongate our lives
t-you c.1606

Why should the right to own by the fact of owning(like the absentee ownership) override the right own by the fact of using?

You are both ethically and economically clueless, work for the many by the many, not for the few by the rest, R E A D ETHICS AND ECON

No, we nuke property rights not derived from use and have only co-ops and communes.

You can't uphold private property without a state. States arose exactly because the few owners needed to protect themselves from the masses who had nothing. Anarcho-capitalism is a paradoxical set of beliefs.

OP cant into anthropology


So you are oppressed by nature?

What about private defense firms?

This is empirically false. There are still secluded tribes on Earth who have no private property.


Even in caveman times people still had some concept of ownership.

of cores! you are sooo right! the logical conclusion is to dictch this stupid society stuff and go back to throwing shit in the trees! it's just nature guieeesss!!11111

Communes are restriced to working within capitalist market principles and as such would still mean working under a capitalist system or are likely to fail as such. There are very few of the around within my country for me to join anyway and it's almost impossible to raise loans for them to start a cooperative of your own.
Badmouse actually did a fairly alright video on the topic

Basically Feudalism with competing lords.


No because you can choose not to pay for any private defense firms and then defend your justly acquired property your self.

Well a capitalist market is a meritocracy so if your co-op/commune is good and profitable it should have no trouble staying afloat. Banks don't give loans to co-ops because they don't work.


Really made me think

Against someone's private army? Is this a Rambo movie masked as political theory?


I wonder if i'll ever met someone more stupid than an ancap.
No comunist, fascist or feminist can't even compare to you peoplpe, oh 'murica

How are you going to defend yourself against a billionaire who has his kitted out private death squads armed to the teeth.

Also how would you go about obtaining the arms to defend yourself with if the private businesses own the materials to create them which they could refuse to sell you.

Unfortunately the ayncrap is not going to answer…

Other company will have competing private army's.

Because I had to work hard to acquire my property so just because someone else uses it doesn't mean it isn't mine.

best part about all of this is
companies hire you by how useful you are to them, its their own choice and they have same rights an individual happens to have, even more

Cooperatives have a duty to treat their workers with some degree of respect pay them well and give them a democratic voice in their work. Private business does not and can use all kinds of cheap dangerous materials to create there products so it's likely they will come out on top. Yet of course this is not a good thing unless you support private tyrannies

This. you always see these "Communists" protesting capitalism, demanding the powers of production be returned to the people.

Ok, there is like 30 of you here, pool your resources and start a company, share the profits equally among the members, each employee gets an equal share of profits and costs, that's literally what you want , you just want someone else to do it for you.

always the temporarily embarrassed billionaire

does it matter? if an army of workers want to take your property for a commune does it matter if you worked hard to get it?

So you want to resort back to kingdoms in which there is perpertual warfare between compiting business like in coloniel times?

Also what makes you think there wouldn't be business mergers where they decide to work together or pay off other competing private army's.


So you suggest replacing efficient private firms with inefficient co-ops?


Violence is expensive.

makes me laugh every t8

When did I say they weren't efficient?
And I don't think planned obsolescence and environmental destruction is exactly efficient do you?

What a beautiful dystopia you have concocted.

So let's say you buy all the arable land in a country, but decide not to use it just so you could jack up the prices of the food you import. In your system the rest of the people should just accept this because >muh natural rights.

Yes. I deserve that property they don't.

but cheaper than legal disputes

Not as expensive as you might think it is.

Yes, that's why imperialism is so widespread?

Not in the long run. You destroy your enemies and control the markets, making more profit at the end.

Where is the proof that the fact of discarding said thing still makes it your own? In the primitive "natural" communities a bow I made is mine because I actively use it to hunting, not because I made it. If I discard it, then somebody else from my tribe might take it. This is a constant existing among all primitive societies, be it amazonian Indians or Siberian hunter-gatherers, so there is no room for arguing that the right to own by using is the one that is more natural.

They put workers before profit making them less efficient.

Because of states.

So, the solution is to force communal property rights on everyone?

This was for

Yes but perpetual violence is expensive so they would either work it out non-violently or just not start any violence.

An argument normally consists of a premise and conclusion champ. That's not an argument.



What would stop your lovely private armies to wage war against poorer regions?

Provide some evidence for that claim also you didn't refute my previous points.


Like what the state is doing right now?

that doesn't matter does it? It don't matter if you worked hard to get it that doesn't change a thing

States can steal stuff so they can continue violence forever as long as they can keep on taxing.

If violence is so expensive then why do Saudi families keep funding different military offshoots.
Besides this dosen't address the main point being how are you or small private owners going to defend against a billionaire with his private army when the tanks role in. He will simply take your land creating his own "state" of sorts

People's Militia.

taxing is voluntary like surplus value is voluntary

Not in a private court

States controlled by capitalists.
You must understand that capitalism leads to the creation of the State, as a way of protecting private property and enforcing a way of life that benefits the wealthy. In an Ancap society a billionaire, or a group of them would finally create something similar to a State (after endless war) just to protect their property.

we should physically remove ancaps

ergo the state is not stealing you because you are giving them your approval.

No its not. You can't just get up and leave the country.

How are these militia funded?

it still requires one to depend on the outside capital, you can't just make money out of absolutely fucking nothing; you still need to sell your fucking goods
what the fuck are you even on about OP.
and if you start telling me to start growing crops I'd like to see your basement dwelling ass feed a family of 4 with crops alone.

Against high-tech tanks and drones? Seems like it's the same imperialism we have now.

ok, educate me then. What's wrong with doing this if it's what you want?

You want the system to change but expect everyone to change to suit you rather then putting your own butt on the line.

OP here. To be honest I was just LARPing as an anarcho-capitalist.

yes you can! lazy bones just walk

But big business owns all the manfacturing plants for weapon production for example

Do I have to motivate you to respond every fucking time you ancrap retard?


really? are you crazy?, how would a group of guys with some cheap guns defend against drones, tanks, bombs and all kind of heavy weaponry?

literally the only political direction other than Ayn Rand that is a living breathing fucking meme, and they are even on the same side

you just don't get it don't you?

really? are you crazy?, how would a group of guys with some cheap guns defend against drones, tanks, bombs and all kind of heavy weaponry to achieve a socialist revoultion?

So, communal property rights would exist without state enforcement of property rights? I thought humans were greedy and would accumulate wealth to themselves?

Larping or not, into the gulag you go!

Clearly not since I asked

It's the cheapest way to power

They wouldn't, that's why you need the State and global revolution.

The flaw of socialism is the fact it is a system designed to allow lazy people sponge off of hard workers (the taxpayers).

There is a point where taxpayers pay so much in tax, that it becomes an incentive NOT to work, but to leech off those who do work.

When enough people stop working, poof! There goes all the tax money that provides free stuff for everyone, and then you get sent to the gulags (slave labor camps) in order to maintain the economy so it doesn't all come crashing down.

Though it may be luxury in the short-term, socialism becomes insolvent and unsustainable in the long-term and leads to human misery.

Socialist revolutions happen when the Bourgeoisie has filled the army with workers, so ultimately it's the revolutionaries who are in control of the heavy weaponry.

If humans are by definition greedy, then how do you think we are going to live in a society without state enforced property rights? Wouldn't a strongman just take things for his on benefit.

*Or without non-state enforced property rights.

i gotta get back to work TBH so direct any questions to my other famr8's.
But i will say that buying property to turn into a co-op is not our desired goal being that we will still have to act within the market. We wish to do away with all that

That's a very believable attempt at enacting socialism = welfare meme

niqqa wot

You get your rewards according to your labour and not wages like in capitalism

Ok you're a troll

Humans are greedy as most socialist say. This is why when you eliminate all competition and create a single state system with total control, the leaders or leader just takes everything for himself. What socialist fail to see is that the leaders are just as human and greedy as everyone else.

But why not just change the Market then.

I would assume that if your business model is successful, your working partners would be making a higher wage then they would as employees in a private company. This would attract more workers to your business.

competitors would have to follow suit to maintain their workforce. This is all legal and possible within the current system.

I'll personally find and rape any fucker who gives him a (You)

That is what socialism is though, a big welfare state (wealth distribution among the masses). It works for a while, until people decide they are better off not working and collecting handouts instead. The economy then dies within the next decade or so.

So are you are implying there is no welfare state or taxes in a socialist society? I thought that was communism, not socialism.