What's the most practical...

...

...

A government does not have to to call itself one to be one. In ancap dream land, you're subject to the restrictions placed by the owners of whatever service you're using, no matter how ridiculous they are. Capitalism invariably leads to accumulation of capital in fewer and fewer hands, who can easily fuck over competitors depending on a myriad of factors, which ultimately ends up with few on top, who seek to make the most profit. A lawless territory now has a state again.

This is also without mentioning that the state is an institution at the service of the capitalists, which not even they, the people whose boots you lick, would want to do away with.

Sage because the chances of you being a shitposter are 99.999%

6% of the US can be considered their own boss and around 96% of all new businesses fail within 10 years. Gee I wonder why.

democratic centralism

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism
This is a good start

Democratic Confederalism.

Nice meme ideology.

Its funny to hear that from the commie. As long as you can produce something the market demands, or will demand once invented you will have no problem feeding your self.

Well why would they offer a service or do something they don't like. They have a choice too.

You could get a predatory business like Standard Oil or Comcast. And even if they form, they have no authority to harm you. And doesn't even worse wealth redistribution happen in communist states.

Bad rules of the game= Too high minimum wage, paid maternity leave, needless regulations, the duration and cost it takes to get a permit, getting out competed by firms running on government subsidies given to them by corrupt congressmen.

I already have read everything Wikipedia has to say on Anarchism, and boy its mostly leftist propaganda and is very misleading, just like any other political and historical article on that website.

Ah yes too high of wages is why the US prole is unable to save and start their own business that has a 96% chance of failing running them into massive debt.

If a business cant afford to hire people, nobody gets hired. And it is very likely the buisness could become unprofitable with a labor shortage.

The only thing raising the minimum wage can do is increase inflation, and very briefly increase incomes.

So that's why the number one growing group of people going from wage work to business ownership are those sweatshop workers who get paid less than a dollar a day.

They get that wage because literally anyone can do that job. Don't be expecting perfect upward mobility if you are dirt poor and have no skills.

Have to stop using a basic service like running water because the companies which invariably monopolize a sector raised prices that are only profitable for the richest is a choice? Some things like this are presently impossible to divide to multiple companies without immense infrastructural modification.

Indeed you know they will form, and whether they actively attack you with their thugs is not important, you can no longer have access to a service because it has monopolized and becomes extremely profitable for a few companies.

And doesn't even worse wealth redistribution happen in communist states.

Totally irrelevant to the discussion and this comment alone is proof you're that retard from days ago who was BTFO when talking about poverty. You are an embarrassment.

So then tell me how anyone can just quit their job and start their own business. Cause it looks like only 6% of the population can.

can't make this shit up.

Gee, that almost sounds like slavery.

Not everyone is ultra rich, besides people can collect rainwater for free, these factors would lower the price of water to where most people can get it.

Not even close, a slave has no rights, a peon has rights. I did not say it was impossible to move up.

you haven't read hobbes have you

Well, yes, capitalism is a subtle form of slavery

...

So having the state, be it the beuracrates in a traditionalist communist society or mob rule in your impossible society.

I laughed a bit too hard reading this.

Anarchism is freedom + power.

Let's say North Korean government owns all of production. This political class owns and enforces the law to protect their power over it.

The same happens under capitalism. I recommend reading Jose Antonio Primo Rivera's exert on the liberal state. Equality, liberty, and fraternity don't exist under capitalism.

It treats both the capitalist and the worker the same despite the capitalism owning resources which the state relies on. Plus, more wealth means more access to political power.

This creates inequality of power and thus suppresses freedom to those who don't own the means of production. There is no liberty.

It is this power struggle that creates tension and divide. There is no fraternity.

...

Since when does liberty require equilibrium?

That would mean the word was always a distant hypothetical with no functional use.

Equal beginnings not equal results. That is what we all ask for. Most have the wrong idea that we want to make everyone equal. We don't. We want people to have an equal start and to grow in their own way. That is what we want.

No, you stated that a discrepancy in power means that liberty and fraternity can't exist.

It's true.

If someone has autonomous power over another like a capitalist, then I am not free.