I finally understand why ancaps are undebatable and why it always seems to go in circles when debating them...

I finally understand why ancaps are undebatable and why it always seems to go in circles when debating them. Their view of capitalism strawmans the positive aspects of capitalism. When you criticize capitalism, they claim you are strawmanning them. They cherry pick capitalism in such a narrow way that any thing negative is considered strawmanning. They position themselves in such a way where they can never be wrong. It's pointless to debate them because their terms are fallacious and one sided.

I was an ancap for five years and I'm no longer one. The first problem I noticed was there was no way around government or governance of some kind when it came to the validation of property rights. At some point a third party has to exist that is powerful enough to settle the dispute. DRO's and other proposals simply aren't powerful enough or disinterested enough in the matter to work. By disinterest I mean they will work for the highest bidder or who ever their client and not for the general betterment of a society. It would basically be the worst aspects of the status quo but the corruption would be direct.

There are also problems with the modern world to big for ancap society to handle. Environmental crises cant be solved by suing people when they violate the NAP.

When you boil down capitalism to just free exchange, this removing every definable characteristic of capitalism itself from your worldview it is pretty much impossible to work with that person.


That is literally as nuanced as it gets with ancaps.

They only care about the idea of free market capitalism. They have no concern about how capitalism actually operates in the real world. Its not so much feels > reals, but more so ideas > reals.

You mean, as if praxeology was explicitly based on a prori axioms rather than experience? Really made my neurons sparkle.

I've re-read my post and I'm ashamed of being an obnoxious asshole for no reason at all, sorry user.

Ancaps are the utopians from Marx's worst nightmares, their ideas how to "destroy" the state and achieve the ancapistan are absolute memes.

The OP is absolutely right.

There was literally a thread showing this in its extreme, so yeah, dead on.

Imagine if Marx were alive, the amount of ass hurt he would generate off those cuckberts.

Ah, you mean the weekly "Autistic AnCap derails a whole fucking thread" episode?

Seriously though, you can't just say "but sweatshops". You gotta attack Capitalism as they see it, you wouldn't be convinced if I argued against something you don't believe in.

But how? Even if I disregard humanitarian concerns and focus on efficiency (and practices like Planned Obsolescence), they just pull the "muh free market" card. Essentially saying that true Capitalism has never been tried.

Ancaps are the fucking worst.

Anarchy means no hierarchy.
In capitalism, hierarchy is an inevitable symptom.

I finally understand why ancoms are undebatable and why it always seems to go in circles when debating them. Their view of communism strawmans the positive aspects of communism. When you criticize communism, they claim you are strawmanning them. They cherry pick communism in such a narrow way that any thing negative is considered strawmanning. They position themselves in such a way where they can never be wrong. It's pointless to debate them because their terms are fallacious and one sided.

Anarcho capitalists, libertarians and even neoliberals so this. Their form of capitalism is so utterly abstracted from the real world so that they don't have to think at all about things like imperialism, crises, state. They are not materialists since they regard the elements of current capitalist society as things that can be fixed if we just abolished the state. Here the accusation that a state inevitably forms really applies.

I don't see why you should waste your time debating them especially on the Internet, it's like talking to a brick wall.

You're an idiot.

At the end of the day capitalism made it possible for you to have that PC/Smartphone, kiddo. You also realize you're full of shit.

Why do you complain of feudalism, peasant? Why, your clothing and tools seem to hath been produced from feudalism!

Uhh and publically funded research made those technologies possible. But capitalism is not solely responsible for those technologies.

But even humoring your argument, don't you guys always say we don't live under capitalism and instead it's crony capitalism, and true capitalism has never been tried? So then how did capitalism bring us the computer?

Explain how exactly.

Perhaps the better question to ask is, "Why were they produced?"


Tell me AnCap-kun, why were smartphones produced en masse under capitalism?

...

...

Capitalism in the streets
Corporatism in the sheets.

you could argue that a whole lot of shit is coming from china so that people who are against communism cannot use them without being hypocrits.
doesn't even matter what you think of the CPC, it's sound logical reply to anyone making this sort of statement.

That's the advantage of filtering the entire world through the lens of only one, idealized, literally impossible thing, in their case, the free market. You can make up the most Byzantine schemes to solve problems and it still makes perfect internal sense, so long as the free market isn't violated, so it doesn't matter that you released a "medicine" that killed thousands but you're on the clear because you hired the best judge in town. Or even better, you just ignore it.


I salute you. Your rationale is the logical conclusion to libertarianism's premise.


It always comes back to muh money with them. Mieville nailed it in Floating Utopias: they recast their avarice regarding taxes as an heroic act in the name of freedom.

This is why Anarcho-Primitivism is the purest of ideological sciences.

Is it even possible for an-caps and lolberts to not bring up this easily refuted argument?