Ancap here

What a dumb thread. Saying "convince me" without giving any points to your understanding of socialism or why you are against it is like making a thread saying "I did something good, prove me wrong".

How can anyone be free when they are coerced to sell themselves on the market to meet their basic needs? How can you have peace under capitalism when every major war of the past couple centuries have been motivated by the lust for profits?

no it isn't by upholding private property you sacrifice your own self, your own happiness because you must now devote your entire life to defending and maintaining that property. You have now made yourself subordinate to the economy.

i want to inherit company of my stepfather

my skills and monies

monopoly on violence=state

kings property is not legitimate

what does he do and do you have any siblings

doesnt matter what you think about it, who owns what is determined by who exercises physical power. if the king has the biggest stick then his ideal of property is what will be enforced by society

what makes legitimate property then?

How the hell could ancapistian ever come into existence. The state and actual capitalist will never let it happen. You would need large scale violence against the state, i.e a revolution.

media.8ch.net/file_store/330018d60bd3b560472e518fb91ee74a48b446f86c556fb0691dea71ac36133b.pdf

Read this.

nuclear apocalypse gone awry and the aliens went home

I'm glad you agree that when the now non-existing government can't stop a security company like G4S or Blackwater from gaining a monopoly on violence that they will become a state.

So you only posess knowledge and some amount of a social construct. You don't own property you retard.

Freedom and peace literally cannot exist as long as private property exists. Without property you are a proletarian, as the vast majority of the population is and will remain so, you being a proletarian puts you under the complete and total authority of the proprietors, whose property you need to use to survive. With the power they have over you, it becomes impossible for you to have any rights or freedom at all, except the freedom to starve. This eliminates freedom, and this absence of freedom will inevitably lead to class struggle and warfare, eliminating peace.
How is that when you do not likely own any, and if you are the average person, never will, except possibly your house if you're lucky? Upholding property is upholding your servitude to your employer and landlord.

If you were to actually become a proprietor, then this guy's post applies. Now instead of you being a slave to a human, you are now a slave to Capital itself.

It already did happen and it was called feudalism

Ask yourself the what and why of property, then read about mutualism Also no socialist ideology in history believes in absolute material egalitarianism.

Even if you got your ancap society, organized labor, now free of any state oppression and with easy access to military grade weapons sold on the commercial market, would turn anarcho-capitalism into anarcho-syndicalism.

Property that is not occupied and used/labored is illegitimate.

Who will enforce your private property rights in ancapistan?

1. Read Stirner's book. Page 133. T
2. Then the Mutualist thread.
3. Then fuck off and think about all you learned before sleep.
4. Comeback tomorrow.

You're not going to inherit shit. His biological children will. You're not his son.

yeah i was about to say…

oh so you are also coerced to find a girlfriend to meet your basic needs, are you opressed by it?

i like having property, you say it because you have nothing

not your business commie

im not nihilist

not stolen

we have agorism

stopped reading there

commies can have their towns in ancap if they buy the land

guns

competition does not mean you will win lol

Capitalism's a bitch.

How does it feel having an even worse track record for failed experiments than socialism? There are plenty of lifestylist communes around the world that work somewhat well but every no-taxes all private property experiment crash and burn horribly.

Just read the book don't be lazy. You said you wanted to learn then learn. Its pointless to discuss if all you're going to do is "nope I win, nope".

what if I have a gun + a friend with a gun? What if you have more land than one man with a gun can guard? What if people you hire to guard your land kill you and claim the land as theirs? Have you thought any of these things through?

wild west was OK so was iceland

security agency will not be immoral because it would lose clients

shhhhh no, don't even bother. he has to read.
everyone ignore him so he has time to read.

How does it feel to get ripped off by your employer every day you go to work? Does receiving less in pay than you produce set your loins a fire?

but the king didn't steal it, he gives his employees bread and military protection in exchange for it.

How the fuck do you decide who owns anything then? Is everyone in america going to have to pack it and go back to their acenstral home to find their own property?

dude doesn't knows that. he doesn't works.

well im sure when stepdad hands his business over to a competent person instead of his teenage son you'll experience a coming to christ moment

And you people call leftism idealistic.

What is stopping an organized group of people from surrounding your house and deciding it's theirs?

There's no way you're the OP. What you just said in this post is dumber than all your previous statements and also historically inaccurate.

what if no one buys the shit you produce?

he has slaves not employees

homesteading is ok

my private security agency

explain the difference

lets go to other more interesting threads.
this retard needs to read first. The tools were already posted, it's his problem if he wants to learn or not.

This retard is not your responsibility.

whats the difference between a slave and an employee if you pay them both

i like abusing the mentally retarded though

voluntariness

you don't need a girlfriend to live, under capitalism you do need employment.

that doesnt explain anything. infact history has thousands of accounts of royal subjects defecting or rebelling

in capitalism you can take food from bins for free unline in communism

how are the serfs not doing it voluntarily?

If no one buys the products produced by the company employing you, it goes out of business. However, as people strive to make a profit under capitalism, you will spend most of your time getting totally ripped off. When you are working for an employer losing money, you are merely wasting your time because you are producing goods or providing services which don't fulfill any human need at all, no matter how inefficiently.

that's actually illegal in many parts of the world

like is a varangian a slave if they can just murder the emperor and install a new one at any time

vs
very voluntary

You clearly have never gone on /r9k/

Are you just going to arbitrarily designate Latin America, Africa, and most of Asia not capitalist?

feudal lords did nothing wrong

was odoacer a slave or just a disgruntled employee, op. i need to know your deep, college level analysis of ancient history and feudalism

Read PJ Proudhon's "What is Property? An Inquiry into right and government." Not in a condescending "lol you don't read" way, but because many here derisively call Proudhon a crypto Ancap, so I feel he would be a good author for you to read to became and left anarchist rather than a right anarchist.

In the book he argues against property rights and the state.

These are all Proudhon quotes:

...

And what happens if you can't afford private security, what if the private security turns on you? And don't give me the whole "they won't have customers if they steal from people" crap, violent gangs have been and are a thing.

If guns become the means by which property is enforced then Stirneresque "might makes right" system will emerge where those who are best at taking and organizing will be the owners of property.

lol ok bud

LMFAO. Who's guns? You gonna defend you property yourself? Or you gonna hire a private "security force" to defend your property? And could you explain exactly how that is any different from the state and an army, and totally not at all the same thing as feudalism and lords?

like how the ussr fell because cybernetic planning came too late, feudalism fell because brainwashing implants were impossible. but in the brave new future of 2055, neuralnet inc sold its first product

So it's ok to just turn up on somebodies land and steal their property?

The original anarcho-fascist.

What is a fascism anymore than a union of egoists?

they could have been forced to do it

not my problem

blame your parents for bringing you to existence

there is crony capitalism

there is also a possibility of not making a profit and not starving in capitalism

you organize neighbour militia

in nonconsumerist society i would find another job

state is monopoly on lawmaking
feudalism is based on farming

unowned=noones

...

Reminder that this is a real book
amazon.com/Anarchist-Individualist-Origins-Italian-Fascism-European/dp/0820457175

Nod an argumend :DDDD

under what definition of force

what's forcing them? if they don't want to work for our lord, they can just go off to another kingdom or starve by themselves.

forced = subsistence farming and giving up a share of the product to the lord
not forced = wage labor and giving up a share of the product to the landlord

Wait, you're telling me you're going to have to provide something to somebody in order to get something in return?!?!?!. what a crazy idea.

OP, I know that you believe that freedom and property rights are the same thing, but what importance do you place on actual freedom (i.e. the ability to do what you want)? Under capitalism everyone is free to move up or down in social status due to the way that it treats property, but in reality only a tiny number of people can actually rise in status. There's only a limited number of people who can actually rise up under capitalism because of the inherently hierarchical structure that results from the unequal distribution of capital. The people at the bottom have a low chance of rising to the top, and additionally they also lack the ability to do the things they want to do. If can't do what you want and you can't do anything about it can you really say you're free?

they should suffer for being stupid
and you should suffer too for having genes of stupidity

if they can then they are not forced

you can choose not to pay taxes, so you aren't forced into it

Now why the fuck wouldn't everbody make sure they own all the unowned land in the first place? Somebody who is a rich property holder can easeily hire men to claim it and use his avaible force to control it.

Victorian Britain didn't have much in the way of regulators to co-opt or tax breaks to apply for, and it still managed to be a pretty shitty place to live.

Yeah, but taxes is totally different because there's a threat of force if you don't pay taxes. If you don't work you're only threatened with starvation which is completely different somehow. Wewlad

How is depriving someone of the ability to feed themselves and their family not coercive behavior?

What are your thoughts on the ability of non anarchist thrests using capital to gain control over the populace of an Amarcho Capitalist society?

The destruction of your state does not mean the destruction of others. Under the false mask of finance a foreign nation or organization could grab your society by the throat.

How would you combat this?

Feudal lords and the monarchy definitely made and enforced rules.

And what happens when that militia decides that someone's property is theirs?

Also, you didn't respond to my more important points in my earlier posts.

Just admit your a closet fascist.

If I don't want to pay taxes I can just stop making an income, therefore it's voluntary.

WEW LAD. Feudalism is based on a bit more than farming. See what I am getting at is the scenario presented by ancap logic is largely glorification of property. Your property, your rules. If you were rich enough to buy a private security force, and enforce whatever rules you like on said property (assuming of course you don't violate the NAP of others), you would essentially become a lord, and function like a state, since your security force has a bit of a monopoly on violence against those inhabiting your property.
It not only does nothing to resolve the issue of the state, but devolves humanity back into a feudalist society of the lord/vassal relationship.

it's funny because he doesn't realize that the only person forcing him to pay taxes is his boss.

mein Gott, how our education system has failed us.

there is threat of physical violence if i do not do it

it is not a problem

same with north korea m8

im antinatalist

it will be more beneficial to trade with ancap

depends on whether property was legitimately acquired

ok so why are some people born with congenital diseases? life is brutal

protip: property is taxed too

depends on whether people voluntarily step into this property

iq is inherited

there is threat of natural death if you do not eat, does that mean people are forced to steal food from others if they cannot get it by other means?

I don't disagree with you there, but why doesn't the example of victorian britain show that "cronyism" isn't required for capitalism to have unpleasant outcomes?

It's more beneficial to trade within ones own nation but do companies always do that? No.

Antinatalism is the belief that conscious life shouldn't be created, it doesn't justify letting people to starve to death needlessly.

Good post.

yes there is a threat but nature is not a person

it was not unpleasant for everyone

why?

i think earth is overppulated

You're in the middle of the desert. The only well in 100 miles is privately owned. The man who owns it will only give you water if you suck his dick. He's weaker than you, and you could easily beat him in a fight. Do you suck his dick, or claim some of the water which he is monopolizing?

who owwns is irrelevant
whether it was legitimately acquired matters

Based on what? And why should it be the poor who die, why should the rich be spared? Does owning capital make you better than people who don't?

what does it mean to legitimately acquire something

If he homesteaded the area around the well, then would you suck his dick? Also, please indicate any area besides a few pacific islands that was not conquered from someone else at one point or another.

And how do you decide and enforce what is legitimate property without a state?

I'm not talking about medical issues, I'm talking about the fact that you think people should suffer from others people's actions because of their birth.

Then just don't own property, become a vagrant.
Just don't buy things, scavenge them and make it yourself.

Once the rich use their money and "security forces" to acquire all the land then people will have no choice but to become new serfs to survive.

How is this relevant? High Autism Level doesn't mean you'll be good at business.

But it's not, not on a global scale anyway. Overpopulation only occurs in localized regions.

also what does it matter if its nature vs a person. a person is a part of nature and the threat of force, whether it be work or starve or steal and be shot remains which renders the system involuntary

Whos is going to do the bureaucracy to determine the legitimate owner without bias?

Well spooked, my property.

the private courts, associated with some sort of international corporation… perhaps one that all companies must join to trade with eachother… and the head of this corporation is infallible and wears a funny hat

It's nature to bleed when shot

What are your thoughts on confederations of voluntary unions composed of workers of a certain trade?

implying that wanted to non-violently crush your enemies is bad thing

based on my estimation
owning capital means you have skils and it is a good think in ancap

not stolen

many ancaps decry such trickery

social consensus

this is how life works

but humans destroy wildness to feed themselves

im ok with it

what constitutes theft

involuntary transfer of property

So property legitimacy is determined by who can afford to run the biggest ad campaign?

So basically you're full of shit.
But why should someone not owning capital mean that it's ok for them to starve to death?

like seizure of native land or enclosers?

What makes you think you can enforce private property laws without a state?

Here you go.

according to hoppe and rothbard- no

he can sell his kidney

you mean indigenous' people land?

What of he’s already done that. You only have two kidneys.

he can sell his lung ;)

Sure, but he needs one to live and selling your kidney is a one-time thing. And anyways coercing someone through poverty to sell their kidney is essentially coercing them to give up their property, which is what ancaps claim to be against right?

it is not my fault that someone is poor lol

...

thats an incredibly retarded way to think but i guess youll grow out of it

Social consensus changes, conflicts in a culture emerge and escalate. You can't rely on consensus alone to do the job.

It's one thing for emergent forces to screw people out of as high a quality of living as another, it's something else entirely to go out of your way to hurt people who did nothing.

owning capital means you have skils and it is a good think in ancap
Then you're an idiot. Owning capital means you're good at owning capital, it measures nothing about your contribution or practical productive skills.

Literally a neo-feudalist.

This is in no uncertain terms worse than being forced to pay taxes.

If you siphon money out of the economy through capital acquisition and take the money your workers made the business because "muh property" then yes, you are the reason people are poor.

I'm speaking on a systemic level, obviously it's not your fault people are poor, but capitalism as a system is coercive. If you think that dystemic coercion doesn't matter why oppose communism then? Communism allows people to have personal property, private property wouldn't be a thing tho. It's not individuals preventing people from owning private property, it's the state fam

i do not force you to live in ancap
but i do not want you to force me to live in socialism

In other words, you don't actually care about protection of one's property being forcibly removed, only jerking off about the spook of le well trained elite. What a surprise.

Oh boy, child slavery man? Why?

yea ofc Capitalism doesn't forces anyone to anything, ofc you don't
retard

But peace can only come when the opposition to socialism has been eliminated. You do want peace don't you user?

lmfao. the transformation of feudalism to capitalism was literally a long involuntary transfer of property

...

...

you may say it, but your executives won't

capitalism is conflict. it's antithetical to peace.

im simply not a pussy

why?

i do not hurt anyone

prove

hoppe likes ancap more than monarchy

nope

money is made upon selling not upon producing

nature is coercive
in capitalism ppl will help- charities, churches etc

he is not forced to sell his kidney

do you want to take helicopter ride?

not my fault

other humans are conflict. mass non-me genocide is the only solution

Nature isn't coercive. There isn't a law of physics at says you have to work for someone else and watch as they reap most of the benefits of your labor. Sure, you have to forage for food, but you don't have to give a share of the food you find to a landlord who maintains an arbitrary claim to a patch of the woods through force of arms.

good one

but would you want to live in a system where the same thing could happen to you to? that's why it's retarded. if your system doesn't work well for humans as a species and all you can say is "i'm simply not a pussy" then you didn't design a system that works.

how is nonagression principle a conflict?

Yes he is. The alternative is dying of starvation. Why is this not coercion?

The ancap ITT is in that exact echo chamber

go away you weirdo

nigga when all other anarchies tell you, you're retarded is because you're retarded.

Anarchist or Capitalist. Choose you can't have both. You either have no hierarchy or you have hierarchy. Fuck off and read.

As does feudalism. You don't necessarily need to be a serf to one lord or another, but you will be somebodies serf. So once again, care to explain how its any different from feudalism?

Capitalism produces class conflict.

m8, his ideology is based upon those who supported the purchase and sale of other people as property, as well as the right to kill those who violate your right to own them as property. Don't expect too much.

A few questions:

How will you enforce traffic laws if there will be no public funding towards road signs?

How will you make sure that a giant multinational doesnt buy out all the land and proceed to act like a state?

Also, say if your NAP was violated and your neighbour with an M1 Abrams conquered your home, therefore making it his property, and you dont have the means to punish him for violation, who enforces the fact, if not you, that that land is your property?

Will you have to pay to call the cops? Also, who will handle emergency services?

If there is a private police force, what right do they have in exerting authority over others, thereby violating the NAP?

Lastly, what authority declares someone's ownership of private property?

other races produce race conflict

the french revolution violated the NAP, are you opposed to that?

Why wouldn't he be, Ancap is basically neofeudalism.

that's incorrect
racists produce race conflict

everyone violates NAP. it's anarchy.

NAP aka this invisible, non-existent fucking law/rule.
That somehow everyone will respect in anarchy. Not even other corporations will, they will take over like Coca Cola with it's superior power.

For the reasons I listed in that same post.

And yet he has on more than one occasion praised feudal monarchism.

This is what happens when you value property above people.

And that selling is by the business which is operated by employees. Money is still being taken from those who did the actual work.

Using this argument you might as well never improve anything and revert back to a tribal hunter-gatherer society. Hell, it could be used to justify taking property by force, which you claim is illegitimate.

If he doesn't want to starve he could be.

Capitalism is not defined by the NAP. The NAP itself could not be enforced except in isolated instances without a central body that monopolizes force.

The more likely outcome of ancapistan would be anarcho-syndicalism as a result of organized labor.

can't be racist if there is only one race

meant for>>1955958

can't be racist if you're dead either

Explain statues of "raysiss" persons such as General Lee.

What do I have to explain?

out of curiosity what are your anarcho-primitivist views

forgot my shitposting flag

if it is his property then you should

what thing?

he is not coerced to be alive

“Capitalism is the fullest expression of anarchism, and anarchism is the fullest expression of capitalism. Not only are they compatible, but you can't really have one without the other. True anarchism will be capitalism, and true capitalism will be anarchism”

can i become a lord?

nope
laborer can earn and set up his own business

owner of road will take care of it

people will revolt

community fears for being next and they help me

now in the usa there is a private police and you do not have to pay them to get help

private companies/charities

market will tell

im opposed to killing peaceful ppl

labour is being taken and they get money in exchange

then humans take property by force not nature

it is not my problem that he does not want to starve

0/10

Why do leftists always want to take down these statues?

It is though.
youtube.com/watch?v=Hb6dXR6AfXE&t

but isn't that taxation which violates the NAP?

Capitalism is defined by free exchange by consent.

When capitalism cannot be reached, war happens.

And fuck yeah, you can maintain NAP with guns and nukes.

starving and denying due to not having a job
but the kings were peaceful

why do I have to explain what other people want?

So you think people should die. Tipical of a capitalist.

...

Sure, and some slaves were able to earn their freedom and join the ranks of the upper class. So what?

I mean, that's the fucking ideology right there.

If you don't care about what people want, why do you care about them starving?

I love Alex Jones.

Post more Alex Jones.

So it means clean your room and get a job, nerd.

No it's not. By that retarded logic, pre-cash tribal society, the slave systems of antiquity, feudalism, mercantilism, and barter in the DDR were all forms of capitalism, which is false and would get you laughed out of a room by anyone with a highschool level understanding of history. Capitalism is a highly specific system of ownership and exchange that has existed for several hundred years of human history.

yes, a modern equivialent to it, that's the fucking point. But odds are your business will get bought out or outcompeted by a richer one and you will end up a serf. Money naturally coalesces and the free market is a fucking sham.

I care about living in a system that has the potentiality to cause me or my loved ones to starve.
I know you cappies don't like thinking ahead, but I do.

Except all of those are capitalism though.

Heck, the DDR was state capitalism.

So you do care about what people want.

So why do leftists always want to take down statues of "raysiss" people, you can't be raysiss if you are dead right?

That's Alex Jeong tho

Yeah! These nerds just need to pull on their bootstraps a little harder and then they won't need to work in dangerous conditions in order to avoid starvation! It also sounds to me like you just defended slavery.

...

Not an argument.

Get better at business.

Because the statues are symbols of racism.

Oh boy ain't you a retard.

This is anarcho-capitalism. It's not anarchic AT ALL.

I don't know? I couldn't give less of a shit about the statues.

I wonder how these nerds are doing in their twenty.

Oh wait, they become successful laborers in their twenties, while you are shitposting on the internet.

No difference between it and petting.

So, what makes you circumspect about just outright admitting that you're a fascist?

niggers

So you don't know shit about shit, why do you say people can't be raysiss if they are dead?

Oh boy, but they are statues of dead people.

because people can't be racist if they're dead?

Actually, that is an argument

I love that everyone ripping this guy a new asshole are actual anarchists.

Hope that you don't get cheated. To your fellow anarchists labor power is the amount of power needed to load a rifle.

It's not an argument, because you can indeed bust yourself ass out of prison.

The fact you don't want to because of fear is not anybody's problem.

So anarcho-capitalism is just fine because under it a steadily shrinking group of people would be able to maintain a high quality of life while everyone else gets to fight for the scraps? Unless you have a sizable inheritance, an Autism Level of 180, a five plate deadlift, know 10 languages, a couple advanced degrees, and a magic charm I wouldn't want to get too confident in the security of my position in the elite of ancapistan.

But they can be, as seen as their statues can be symbols of raysiss.

taxation is done by state

but im egoist

im ok with it

well politicians seem to be peaceful because they do not kill anyone directly

0/10

i think that children of slave should not be a slave

free market does not mean that everyone is rich

picrel

i dislike fighting so im not a facist, im not a tribalist

Slaves can be and were freed if they worked hard enough. Is slavery good too?

it is in your own best interest to not bust out of prison 90% of the time

then you're a cuckold, that's fine.

it is good if it is voluntary

Anarcho-capitalism is just fine with equality of opportunity, not outcome, bruv.

This is the only good post ITT.

Being able to eat without having worked makes you a parasite, which is worse than a cuckold.

So it's also your best interest to remain a wage slave, because you fear risk, my bitch nigger.

in capitalism workers have high standards of living too

Except you support a system that requires coercion (violence) simply to exist.

To quote Adam Smith, the guy who coined the term Capitalism:

Adam Smith didn't coin capitalism tho.

violence as self-defence is legitimate

He coined the term itself.

you can't just call everything voluntary, we already went over this earlier in the thread

If an employer collects profit from the surplus value their employee's produce, is that theft?

Adam Smith believed that before money there was Barter. This was completely wrong, in fact before money there was primitive communism and only barter between people that did not trust each other

Stirner was against property.

No, he didn't. Capital is an ancient word.

Violence is violence. The Roman Empire conquered the entirety of the civilized world in "self-defense".

Honestly, I'd rather be oppressed by state institutions than private institutions because at least oppressive state institutions don't try to pretend they're some sort of humanitarian effort or some shit

...

But you still support slavery.

He's so against property that everything is his property?

You are a psychopath who cares nothing for other human beings and justifies it using sophistry about freedom.
And you aren't?
Still exploited
It is impossible for everyone to get to the position where they run their own company. There will always be people on the bottom getting screwed over. This is an inescapable part of capitalism. Even if the means of production were distributed perfectly evenly and held on an individual basis, they would all just consolidate again. This love for hierarchy is why you lot turn into fascists so quickly. I'm done arguing with you. Have a good night.

So what do you call taking a portion of people's earnings when it's done by the private sector?

Yes, but capitalism was coined by Adam Smith.

I'm aware fam, but that has nothing to do with the point.

agree. I understand what you mean.

Thats the same reason why I prefer Benie Sanders WAY fucking more than Trump/Hillary. Lesser evils exist.

We are getting into moralist shit here.

Why in the holy fuck do I have to care about other people? I'm an individualist.
And it's not needed for everyone to get to the position where they run their own company.

Equality of opportunity, not outcome.

You mean defense of the property that is always and forever yours because you say so and have a gun?

Are you illiterate?

Without a government most people wouldn't.

I to can make totally baseless philosophical statements.

Not everyone can be a business owner.

You are literally advocating a Mad Max tier society.

That's because the government pays the private police companies.

Charities don't make enough money to do anything you think they will, and even if they did you're not tkaing into account the fact they're hopelessly corrupt.

Nope, that's not how dividends work.

If humanity actually lived by the rugged individualism you seem to believe in we would have been extinct before civilization ever arose.

Explain how my statement is false.

It's not a matter of free shit, it's a matter of it's failure to effectively distribute products.

What part of "money is stolen from the employees" and "work for another or starve" are you not getting?

it is good if it is voluntary
We've clearly shown it's not voluntary.

Only thanks to government intervention.

Stop using your shitposting flag, it's confusing.

Except when the rich have the money to send there kids to expensive privet schools and the poor can’t afford any privet school so there children are uneducated vs. the children of the rich are supper educated. Great “equality of opportunity” you got there.

You mean like the NAP?

It actually wasn't.

Except that is equality of opportunity.

You see thousands of trash collectors becoming millionaires.

The NAP is not out of moralist, it's out of self-preservation.

Even if you don't care about anyone else, you still get cucked out of the value you create whenever you work for someone else. So much for rational self interest!

It's my self-interest to get into position and cuck everyone else of their delicious juicy "labor value".

That's my rational self interest, famalam.

Thats not even how Capitalist would oppress it would be way worse. Child prostitution, Black "Nigger" Slaves, etc.

Hell labor doesn't gets paid since they don't have to, no outside stronger force regulates their power (aka the state). It all rests on Slavery, the only workers paid would be the armed security workers watching they don't run away or thats a dead nigga.
Shit is awful.

The assertion that aggression against a person or the property they lay claim to is illegitimate is a claim about morality.

You realize fascist states almost usually frame their wars as acts of self-defense or self-preservation. Hitler's invasion of Poland was in nominally in defense of ethnic Germans supposedly being persecuted by the Polish government.

the NAP only applies to humans

...

It's for self-preservation, because if no one violates other property, they would preserve themselves.

Nah dude. Smith referred to it as "commerce" or "the fourth age of man". Blanc coined the term capitalism in the 19th century.

Ok then being a slave who had to fight in a circus for his life is totally ethical and voluntary because he had the chance to escape slavery by defeating enough enemies.

By being a good worker.

The fact you can't become a manager or a landlord is your problem, not mine.

And is that working out for you? How many businesses do you own? Why do you thinking licking boots all your life so that you can have a truly minuscule chance at one day being the owner of the boots getting licked is a good deal? And isn't this also a justification for any sort of hierarchical society, not just anarchocapitalism but also fascism, feudalism, slavery, and roaming barbarian hordes?

You might see it as pragmatic, but that doesn't make it not a moral claim.

This just results in the theft of money made for the business by the workers.

Yes, better workers should receive more. But hey also shouldn't have their wealth stolen from them because the law recognizes a business owner's arbitrary claim of ownership.

It really isn't.

This is a bold-faced lie and you know it. Any system describing how people ought to behave is moralist by definition.

It's in most people's self interest to take your property by force.

Managers are workers, landlords however have no legitimate claim to their property.

i know

i do not force you to self-defend when needed lol

yes because bdsm people are people too m8

donation

property must be legitimate

we will see

yes if you do not want to you will probably not be one

i did not know about this

they are MUCH less corrupt and have better outcomes than state welfare
and if ppl know that they are sort of responsible for others because of lack of welfare then many of them will pay for charities

i was not writing about them

you have no knowledge of evolutionary psychology

how?

you can work for yourself in service sector

yes i know

what if I refuse? he can't force me to give him something I worked for, that's theft.

No it isn’t

That’s luck.

"le 100% employment" is a spook perpetuated by unions who are merely bargaining to get as much employment as possible with no hope whatsoever of getting the number to 100%. Achieving 100% employment is not only near impossible it has undesirable consequences.

fucing noice garry

Are you retarded? The majority of charities take up to 99 cents a dollar. The Pink Ribbon foundation and numerous African aid charities immediately come to mind, especially the former, as it spends most of its proceeds suing those who use its specific brand of pink whilst giving under 1% of its proceeds to research.

You should quote the actual passage where the term "capitalism" is coined.

You forgot

but did you acquire it legitimately?

theadvocates.org/effective-government-welfare-compared-private-charity/

How could guns decide this? Why should I live in a society where my earnings can be simply stolen by somebody else who earns more thus can hire more thugs?

illegitimatively

who gives a shit about legitimacy if rule of force still gets the final say

This thread.
He fucked up. He fucked up big time.

It's all because Capitalism is hierarchy OP, but you don't want to even understand that shit.

only in anarchoegoism/anarchonihilism

Wow, it's fucking nothing.

Nor anyone should born as a proletarian, right? Gladiators in Rome had the chance to escape slavery, just like how proles have the chance today to start up a business.

what precludes it from having the final say in anarchocapitalism

there are no more proletarians because we left industrial economy in 1st world

It's not about wanting to, if everyone was a business owner you'd just the entire population sitting on their ass bossing around workers that don't exist.

Well you were talking about profits from a business, so yes, you were talking about them.

Humans are a social species by nature and it is through organized collective action that the society around you exists. I'm not talking about what people think, whether they're motivated to act in groups out of selfishness, I'm talking about how they act. Besides evolutionary psychology is an untestable "science", I think you're reffering to just ordinary psychology.

Because the owner takes part of the profits not invested back into the company for himself even though he didn't do any of the work that made those profits, or at best was just one of many workers who did so, in which case he's taking a disproportionate amount of the profits.

Only as a result of biological needs and environmental harm, etc. Capitalism and the inequality it creates is the result of human action.

Implying nothing, were it not for regulation workers would be way worse off than they are now. Take it from someone who believes in free (socialist) markets.

nod an argumend :D

>theadvocates.org/effective-government-welfare-compared-private-charity/
What a totally not biased source.

Which is what ancapistan would become when people realize the short term benefits of it.

I don't think you know what the definition of proletariat is. It doesn't an industrial worker and it doesn't just include physical labor.

Could you guys stop it with this autism? I had read that he coined the term somewhere, but maybe I was wrong.

It's completely beyond the point, though. He was one of the earliest capitalist economists and wrote one of it's most defining works, The Wealth of Nations

>theadvocates.org/effective-government-welfare-compared-private-charity/
To add to what I just said about this I agree with you that we should change the system to make welfare unnecessary.

bosses work too

he bears risk of product not being sold

this inequality is natural

i do not value niggers life

New meme.

...

your work is worth as much as ppl pay you for it on free market

You need to read The Soul of Man Under Socialism

"The chief advantage that would result from the establishment of Socialism is, undoubtedly, the fact that Socialism would relieve us from that sordid necessity of living for others which, in the present condition of things, presses so hardly upon almost everybody. In fact, scarcely anyone at all escapes.

Now and then, in the course of the century, a great man of science, like Darwin; a great poet, like Keats; a fine critical spirit, like M. Renan; a supreme artist, like Flaubert, has been able to isolate himself, to keep himself out of reach of the clamorous claims of others, to stand ‘under the shelter of the wall,’ as Plato puts it, and so to realise the perfection of what was in him, to his own incomparable gain, and to the incomparable and lasting gain of the whole world. These, however, are exceptions. The majority of people spoil their lives by an unhealthy and exaggerated altruism – are forced, indeed, so to spoil them. They find themselves surrounded by hideous poverty, by hideous ugliness, by hideous starvation. It is inevitable that they should be strongly moved by all this. The emotions of man are stirred more quickly than man’s intelligence; and, as I pointed out some time ago in an article on the function of criticism, it is much more easy to have sympathy with suffering than it is to have sympathy with thought. Accordingly, with admirable, though misdirected intentions, they very seriously and very sentimentally set themselves to the task of remedying the evils that they see. But their remedies do not cure the disease: they merely prolong it. Indeed, their remedies are part of the disease.

They try to solve the problem of poverty, for instance, by keeping the poor alive; or, in the case of a very advanced school, by amusing the poor.

But this is not a solution: it is an aggravation of the difficulty. The proper aim is to try and reconstruct society on such a basis that poverty will be impossible. And the altruistic virtues have really prevented the carrying out of this aim. Just as the worst slave-owners were those who were kind to their slaves, and so prevented the horror of the system being realised by those who suffered from it, and understood by those who contemplated it, so, in the present state of things in England, the people who do most harm are the people who try to do most good; and at last we have had the spectacle of men who have really studied the problem and know the life – educated men who live in the East End – coming forward and imploring the community to restrain its altruistic impulses of charity, benevolence, and the like. They do so on the ground that such charity degrades and demoralises. They are perfectly right. Charity creates a multitude of sins.

There is also this to be said. It is immoral to use private property in order to alleviate the horrible evils that result from the institution of private property. It is both immoral and unfair."

Also,
"The virtues of the poor may be readily admitted, and are much to be regretted. We are often told that the poor are grateful for charity. Some of them are, no doubt, but the best amongst the poor are never grateful. They are ungrateful, discontented, disobedient, and rebellious. They are quite right to be so. Charity they feel to be a ridiculously inadequate mode of partial restitution, or a sentimental dole, usually accompanied by some impertinent attempt on the part of the sentimentalist to tyrannise over their private lives. Why should they be grateful for the crumbs that fall from the rich man’s table? They should be seated at the board, and are beginning to know it. As for being discontented, a man who would not be discontented with such surroundings and such a low mode of life would be a perfect brute. Disobedience, in the eyes of anyone who has read history, is man’s original virtue. It is through disobedience that progress has been made, through disobedience and through rebellion. Sometimes the poor are praised for being thrifty. But to recommend thrift to the poor is both grotesque and insulting. It is like advising a man who is starving to eat less. For a town or country labourer to practise thrift would be absolutely immoral. Man should not be ready to show that he can live like a badly-fed animal. He should decline to live like that, and should either steal or go on the rates, which is considered by many to be a form of stealing. As for begging, it is safer to beg than to take, but it is finer to take than to beg. No: a poor man who is ungrateful, unthrifty, discontented, and rebellious, is probably a real personality, and has much in him. He is at any rate a healthy protest. As for the virtuous poor, one can pity them, of course, but one cannot possibly admire them. They have made private terms with the enemy, and sold their birthright for very bad pottage. They must also be extraordinarily stupid. I can quite understand a man accepting laws that protect private property, and admit of its accumulation, as long as he himself is able under those conditions to realise some form of beautiful and intellectual life. But it is almost incredible to me how a man whose life is marred and made hideous by such laws can possibly acquiesce in their continuance."
t. Oscar Wilde

it is a good thing, we should be generous

they should blame themselves not others for their poverty

You are moving the goalpost. A proletarian is someone who doesn't posses any means of production and has to sell its own labor power in order to survive, so it is a still existing social class.

I just said this can be the case, almost universally so with small businesses. I also pointed out that a manager owner is just one worker of many and is not entitled to a disproportionate amount of the profits just because the state recognizes him as the owner of the business.

So do the workers who's livelihood depends on their income from the business. And before you say "the workers can just get another job if the business fails", so can the former owner.

Is it really? Yeah there people who are phsyically and or mentally superior to others. But there is no evidence this resulted in massive political, let alone material, gaps between people until sedentary, agricultural society emerged. Between that and the fact that property law is the primary source of modern inequality, the isn't much reason to say the wealth gap is natural at all.

Yes, and you want to know the best of doing this, universal cooperative businesses/ property based on occupancy-and-use.

This idea has been refuted not just by theory and analysis, but by actual studies and anecdotes that show that hard work or even smart work does not ensure a persons ability to rise above poverty.

I love this complete 180 you guys pull when it comes to charity. This appeal to charity over welfare is nothing more than an appeal for the rich to be able to directly tyrannize over the poor in exchange for giving them the crumbs that fall off their table.

You certainly don't care about generosity when it comes to supporting a system that creates mass poverty.

Except it is the parasitic bourgeois class that creates poverty by robbing the working class of the surplus value created by their labor.

yeah, those billions of poor people in the world should've just worked harder.

Not only that but those poor people work harder than any landlord or shareholder ever does.

What a load of crap. Does Zuckerberg work harder than a Foxconn factory worker?

By the way, you will grow out of this phase. I was a libertarian at 15.

yes it is existing because industry exists
but one can work in service industry

they must get payment regardless whether products sells well or not well

it is natural because it is the result of voluntary transactions

in every business there is cooperation ;p

prove
maybe it was not smart enough

take a look at charts
capitalism lifts ppl from poverty

if workers did not need factory owner they would not work for him lol

he serves society better

By what? Data-mining and invading our private lives?

Rich shareholders are leeching of all the labour of poor workers. Without those poverty wages, they wouldn't have had so much profit.

By the way, do you support child labour?

Read the first one or two chapters of this book and learn that there is no such thing as capitalism without a state. States have always played a very important role in establishing markets.

volenti non fit iniuria

i do

do you support prepubescent sexual relations

but one can work in service industry
It exists whether you work in a factory or a bank. You are using a wholly fictional definition of proletariat.

So can the manager-owner. When the business finally goes under nobody will have their income.

"Voluntary transactions" (I'm not even going to go over why this term is misnomer again) that occur in a system where the state uses force to protect arbitrary private property.

You know what I meant.

You're the one claiming it's takes smarts to guarantee a way of poverty. You prove that first.

Yes and no, the rise of industry in previously underdeveloped countries can bring people out of absolute poverty at least on a relative level, but in the end there will still be an impoverished population that wouldn't have to be in that situation if the big businessmen didn't take as much of the profits form a business as possible. Plus this is all occurring in what you would call a "crony capitalist" system.

Depending on a variety of circumstances they might need a manager, but they most certainly don't need an owner, and those are not necessarily the same person.

The people who work at Zuck's business serve society better, as much as you can claim Facebook serves society.

Once again, "work for someone else's profit or starve" is not voluntary.

If you consider all of these things:

- Your society would likely have child labour
- Private security firms have the means to use coercion
- Crime would likely increase because of the resulting raise in inequality, and would either exist or need very authoritarian policing by private security firms
- Monopolies will be even more common than today, since there are no anti trust laws
- You would have to pay for each road of a different owner to drive on
- There are market failures that can't be solved in any way, like the adverse selection problem with insurances
- No environmental regulations will probably lead to acceleration of our extinction as a species

Why do you think this kind of society is preferable over what we have today? Or a society in which the means of production are owned by all?

because then he could have some semblance of power and agency lol

Another question:

Did you reconsider some of your views after this thread or did you find any of our arguments compelling?

jesus hahahah

Why are ancaps such an embarrassment?

because they're not anarchists. they're hierarchists.

hierarchy is consistent with human nature (psychology)

Nah, it isn't.

Not your kind

There's a difference between people having more social power than others and economic hierarchies that only exist because of laws that allow for absolute private property based on state acknowledgment, which are themselves aberrations that only emerge with sedentary agricultural societies. The left is concerned with the latter of those two.

and then you suddenly wonder why you don't have any friends. Must be feminism/"cultural marxism" ain't it?

jej. fucking rejects smh.

But can such a thing still happen in ancapistan? You might not think that a man's descendants' labor is his to sell, but people who can profit from slavery will disagree. Whose interpretations matter in these grey areas?

did you saw this post ofc the bitch wants slaves.
He is not an anarchist.

You're going to watch the video, starting at the point of the timestamp until roughly 5 minutes after, and then tell us if you have any objections to this established recorded history as we know it and where your "anarcho-capitalist" spiel comes in: youtu.be/BYaEL0Aw_Pw?t=8m59s.

he is not gonna watch it or understand it. too "advanced" for him tbh even through it's piss easy.

what is the black market
what is the unregulated market on tor/freenet

popularresistance.org/how-hierarchy-is-actually-bad-for-your-health/

You wanna try that again?

He's actually right a bit about that. Nothing in history has ever compared to trade between states and civilisations because they have population. The capital and scale is enormous far greater and that's because of the state, the very reason why states exist is because of a desire of a commune for more efficient social planning and leadership after it reaches a certain population there is no going back to communes, only a state can sustain a population at that point. That said, the best states I think are very small ones, like city-states. Very big ones suffer from dieconomies of scale.

Why do people try on these threads? The visitor doesn't care at all, he's barely responding to anything with even a little effort.

Abandoning ayncrapism will earn you the right to gracefully join the working, productive members of society instead of being put up against the wall with the rest of the fascists when we seize our property from you

That is the only real reason, it’s your call

good luck hahahha