What's the deal with Anarcho-Capitalism?

So as the title says, what's the deal with it? I've heard the phrase before that they can't be anarchists because there would still be a hierarchy. Is that true, and why would anybody by into such bull?
Why do they think this is a good thing? Inform me please.

Other urls found in this thread:


It is true and they buy into it because ancap is a thinly veiled excuse for pedophilia and feudalism for autists that think they would be kings.

But why would anybody think the whole police force thing would be anything but a disaster.

They see themselves as kings and other than fucking prepubescent children haven't thought it out. They'll just go fascist anyways so other than making fun of them it isn't worth taking seriously.

I see

I once again fail to understand how that is not feudalism.

Okay, I used to be an ancap before I really thought this through. Basically, I assumed that private property is some sort of natural right that doesn't have to be justified (because without it, you would literally lose right to your body and even your toothbrush, amirite?) Then I saw someone memeing Kropotkin and decided to read Mutual Aid, and it all went downhiill from there.

They don't really think or they wouldn't be ancaps.

No, anarchism is lack of a state, hierarchies are a naturally occurring feature of life. Humans have naturally different abilities so you have hierarchies of competence, that's why you have the CEO at the top of companies and workers at the bottom, because the CEO has the skill and intelligence needed to run a company while the workers don't. Even in the animal kingdom you will have hierarchies among social animals, with one animal being the alpha.

What a strange statement. Police aren't concerned with right, only wrong. And it's not the police's job to punish people, that's the job of the court system. What's most plausible is that you would sign up for plans with private security agencies which would insure you against damages to your person and property, and be liable if they failed to protect you.

And there you have the answer, falling for the "human nature" meme, and a popsci understanding of biology are the winning recipe for a retarded Ancap.

You don't have to have an advanced knowledge of biology to observe basic features of life.

To who? To themselves? They're the police force.

Fuck you, I have the guns.

I'm sure that would be a thriving business model.

You know, phrasing it that way makes it sound like the entire world is governed by arnarcho capitalism.

That's a mighty big assumption.

The argument there is that there would eventually be no choice to be had.

Can we have a quick discussion on the human nature thing? It seems to me that in order to properly organize people, you have to at least take their nature into consideration.

You do. As a biochemist, your assertions are completely false. Hierarchies only form when the society is in competition over lacking resources. As soon as a society becomes independent of scarcity, hierarchy is undermined. The whole 'alpha wolf' myth was debunked by the very person who spread it. Also, let's for a second assume you're right about animals forming hierarchies. As humans, we are much smarter and much more aware of how to organise a non-hierarchical society. Don't degrade humans to animal levels of intelligence

Nigger what part of guns dont you understand? He who has the guns can steal the money


Society is always in competition over lacking resources. People will always in some way be a result of their experiences, and we have no way to guarantee that everybody would have the same experience. People have different temperaments, so it is possible for two people to be put through the same situation and yet have completely different experiences. Because of this and temperament, they will see different resources as having different value. i.e. one person enjoys talking to other people and sees it as enjoyable and important, and the other person doesn't. If everybody wants to talk to everybody, this task would be impossible because people can only talk to each other one at a time (you can't have a dialogue with a crowd) and there would be a competition for people's attention in conversation.

But animals do. Intraspecial hierarchies are observable. There are more or less two different extremes. Animals working together or animals competing for territory. In both these instances and all instances in-between, there are hierarchies.

Trying to implement a non-hierarchical society in and of itself imposes a hierarchy that places the non-hierarchical societal structures as superior to hierarchical societal structures.

Intelligence isn't what differentiates people from animals, it's self awareness. You can be perfectly self-aware and yet be completely unable to do anything. The opposite also follows, as that seems to be what's going on with animals. They're completely absent of significant self-awareness yet they do whatever it is that they do so that the environment is stable.

Agreed. To back that up

In ancom you have a "non-hierarchy" hierarchy forced upon you. At least in ancap you can choose which hierarchies you take part in.


They don't understand economics

… quantifies how poorly agents understand future policy and its impact.

Such as

You can only choose what hierarchies you take part in to a degree. There are hierarchies that are absolutely there regardless of society. ie. It's better to not be starving to death than than it is to be starving to death.

Rats, chimpanzees, dolphins, anything that exists in a group. Almost invariably there's an alpha of the group.

There are also animals that resolve territorial disputes by comparing who has more brass.Those lizards you see doing pushups all the time are doing that. Apex predators have to be relatively disperse or else their food resources are unsustainably consumed. This is resolved by their establishment of territory by shows of dominance. It's still a hierarchy, it's just not well articulated.

Then there's sexual selection. Peacocks and birds in general are a great example of this. The female discriminates who she mates with by her response to which male puts on a better display. That right there is a hierarchy.

Abstract hierarchic aren't relevent, the point is that in theory you could be an isolationist and not take part in any social hierarchies.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that you don't know what you're talking about and haven't devoted any significant amount of time to studying the subject.

Sure whatever, there are species that are social that don't have well articulated hierarchies, but it's at least true for rats and chimps. Generally the smaller the groups, the more distinct the hierarchy.
Source your claims and I'll source mine.

Not if you want to live in society. Sure you could fuck off and die in the woods alone, but you can do that now anyways.

You're the one that made unsourced claims, you colossal bell end. If you weren't talking straight from your pisser to begin with you'd have lead off with them.

It's pure ideology

Maybe I'm a hardass. Thought of that?
Gimme a minute, I gotta take care of a few things real quick.

An- (root) [greek] meaning "without"
-archos (root) [greek] meaning "leader"
You are wrong.

How do you know it's bad without a hierarchy?

Which Curtis documentary is this from?

You know that hierarchy has different meanings, yeah? Sure, classifying things as good and bad does create a hierarchy, but this "hierarchy of ideas" isn't what anarchists are targeting when they say they want to abolish hierarchies. Rather, they are referring to the vertical arrangement of human beings.

In an ancom society, one would still be allowed to prefer certain things over others.

And there are no "leaders" in ancapistan, because your boss isn't your "leader" because you have a mutuually beneficial contract with someone: you will do what he wants, usually perform some sort of task, and he will do what you want, usually give you some money. This is voluntary and can be canceled at any time. But if you want to go with the trivial sense of "leader", as in someone who tells others what to do even if they have a choice not to, in the sense that a tour guide or sports captain is a leader, then anarchism is just impossible, because people can naturally exert more social pressure to get other people to do what they want. And I'd like to see an functional army where every soldier has an equal ay in the decision making process.

Hierarchies of ideas and the hierarchies they're referring to are not distinct enough to do away with one and not the other.

Just make it a requirement that workers and tenants of apartments sign an agreement to use the court, police, and prison of the landlords' or Employers' choice. It's that easy. The proles don't have a say by the end of the day and the bourgeois can benefit and even collaborate mutually. That's how I see it working.

Businesses deal with more contracts than the average person. They have a better incentive to fund courts, police, and prisons. Contracts are the laws of business that inherently need force to back it. You will quickly find that in ancapistan that upon employment and becoming a tenant of an apartment, you will have to agree to the court system, police, and prison the property owner chooses. This is to ensure that you can be forced to go to court if you violate it. Of course you can just "change" you property owner but by the end of the day the vast majority of people cannot do so. You'll just find yourself in the same situation today. It's even worse sense private prisons needs more prisoners and courts need more cases to to profit. You'll find that the rules under the property will be more strict in order to fit these quotas. More people will be found guilty. More people will be arrested and sent to prison. Also this doesn't change the fact that you can sky rocket the leaving price to where it is financially impossible to leave. This can be done at any moment. You can't sue the landlord either because the landlord already pays a shit ton of money to the court already. The court will lose money. Your case will just be dismissed.

This doesn't mean there is no authority, this means authority is redefined to change it's meaning from actual to contractual. Under this logic, any horror of total control can be complete freedom as long as it is perfected.

Coming from a bourgie family it's always hilarious watching ancaps spout their ideological nonsense. It's evident that most are just kids or at the very least have no actual experience as an employer.
Try having a business and see for yourself how "free" workers are under capitalism. In a society where labor is plentiful, but capital scarce, the worker is at the mercy of whoever controls that capital. If a person is employed and has expenses you may find that their standard of living is dependent on their status of employment. You don't get your wage, the bills don't get paid. And under capitalism that actually implies starving if you have no access to social security or a family/community that can help you out.
This is why most people can't just quit, even if the surplus value they create is being exploited. Because not everyone owns a large farm or has a family with deep pockets that can help them out if they fall on rough times.
This is one of characteristics of capitalism as Marx described it: People must buy their sustenance through markets. Which involves selling their labor power, which implies employment. Most cannot sustain themselves unless they have the ability to live off the grid, and that just isn't possible for everyone everywhere.

Read Wage, Labor & Capital.

Rude sage for pure ideology.

The motto of anarchism is "No Gods no Masters"

Your presumptions about an ancap society are just that, presumptions. Contracts like that don't need to be backed by force. It's simply a matter of if you don't abide by the terms, then the other party withdraws. I.E. you get fired. It's also unlikely that there will be any extensive prison systems in ancapistan, prisons are a very ineffective and inefficient way at keeping criminals from causing harm to society. The reason why prisons are bloated in America like they are now is because the prisons lobby the government to make victimless crimes to inflate the prison population, and the prisons are paid per prisoner. Obviously this is a horrible economic model that creates perverse incentives, and would not be the model used in the free market. You can't crowd people in to prisons or court systems in ancapistan for the reason that laws aren't malleable - it's based upon inalienable natural rights under the framework of the NAP. You can't send people off to prison because they quit their job. And who wants to actually spend tens of thousands of dollars a year to detain a prisoner? No one. That's why it's much more likely that justice would be predicated upon restitution rather than punishment - people would have to pay for the damages they had caused rather than serve some arbitrary sentence. If if they were to be detained, it would only because they were such a danger to society at large than the only option would be to lock them up.

Then why doesn't the NAP do it's magic today?

Because no one follows the NAP today.

Then why would they do so in ancapistan?

Follow the NAP

*Because that is the framework upon which the society is based?

People will follow the NAP in ancapistan because ancapistan is based on people following the NAP..

In my kingdom of Anonymous everyone will do perfectly as I say and will feel happy for it, because everyone doing as I say and being happy for it is where my kingdom will be based upon. Perfect system, isn't it?

I'll use my nap to fuck your wife while you watch.

People will follow x because x is based on people following x

Like in state societies, which are only possible because most people consent to them. Or in literally every other conceivable system. Did you just figure this out? Well done.

No. You're conflating it with your own system. In my system, I don't tell anyone what to do, I just tell them what not to do. Only you have the pretense of thinking you can mold human behaviour to your whims.

You're still giving 0 reason why everyone will agree to this society.
Complete semantics. Property controls their life all the same.
You're the one who wants to create a society whose entire basis and purpose is complete sanctification of your violent fabrication called property.

People will follow my system because my system is based on people following my system. I can mold human behaviour to my whims because molding human behaviour to my whims is what me molding human behaviour to my whims is about.

Got a fun book for you.

Why would I try to? Obviously you prefer tyranny and privations over liberty and prosperity.

it is literally the result of autism and understanding nothing more than """"basic economics"""""

It's a lot more than any of you can claim.

/r/ing the pic of ancap reading "basic economics" and ancom reading "advanced economics"

Fun fact: all the economics hired by Wall Street firms are Marxists. Why? Because they understand how the economy actually works.

Actual capitalists today don't give two shits about your NAP. It's in their self interest to follow the profit motive and use the state in their favor. They'll kill as many as they can just to preserve their position. Why should the rich today (who you might believe to be corporatist) go against their self interest and lost money just to follow a social contract?

do not talk to me or my son ever again please

Fun facts: #1 you're full of shit

and #2, 90% of mainstream 🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧economists🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧 are as full of shit as this guy.

can the mods pls physically remove this dumb ancap from my safe space pls

That would imply there was some sort of hierarchy and that there was private property that I wasn't entitled to. Isn't this a public space where no one has authority over anyone else?

exactly, hierarchy cannot exist in anarchy, glad you understand it now, private property is hierarchical, hence ancap is a contradiction

you have brain damage

It's a shit ideology for sociopaths

>Humans have naturally different abilities so you have hierarchies of competence, that's why you have the CEO at the top of companies and workers at the bottom, because the CEO has the skill and intelligence needed to run a company while the workers don't.

Lmao yeah ceos sre there purely because of skill and intelligence, nepotism has nothing to do with it


Michael Hudson isn't particularly "mainstream", and he was one of the few people who actually predicted the 2008 financial crisis.

It's frightening how many people genuinely believe that class equals competence, that people who are in higher positions must be in higher positions because they're the best possible people for the job. This is the most fundamental misunderstanding someone could have and the root of either understanding class issues or being a class cuck, and you see it everywhere. I'm not 100% sure where it comes from, since media and other american propaganda often portray bosses and businessmen as being corrupt or shitty. I think it's people just straight up making shit up that they feel would be more comforting then the reality, which is that random people fall ass first into these positions and in many/most cases are tremendous screwups that don't deserve anything but a punch to the throat.

Nepotism can land someone a job that is out of the way and where it doesn't really matter if they are not competent. Not when they are the most important element in a multi-million dollar corporation. Shareholders give no shits about about family ties, they will boot you faster than you can say "CEO" if it looks like you're making bad decisions. Not to mention that average work hours of a CEO is 60+, it's an extremely demanding job.

The absolute lack of any common sense is the reason you're a communist in the first place. brainsize.wordpress.com/2014/07/18/the-iqs-of-fortune-500-ceos/

These niggas don't read Lenin


Nigger the reason we're ancaps is because we long for feudalism
At least gave the dignity to admit it.

Look at this chode who thinks a CEO works harder than the people at the bottom

Love too talk about group Dynamics using terms from a debunked study

This is true, the days of the leisure class are over. Cleaners aren't doing 80 hour work weeks.

Neither do CEOs hth

Depends really, especially in the financial sector, they do.

Anarchism, as distinguished from Marxism, has always been a movement and an effort to harass workers and hinder the working class movement. Consider the known anarchist, Bookchin, who said it is most promising when workers "turn on their fellow workers."

The main thing that distinguishes anarchists from Marxists is that they believe that "hierarchy" and "domination" or some other idealistic notions come first not class, so they can use this bourgeoisie notion to attack workers. They can claim that the worker or the poor man is the oppressor because of domination of the family or some such notions totally unrelated to class. Anarcho capitalism is a natural result of the bourgeoisie tendencies of anarchism, when anarchists simply stop pretending to be anti-capitalist and they outright embrace the system that they actually support.

No, on the contrary, I prefer liberty over your tyranny of property. Liberty cannot exist under property, other than the "liberty" to rule over others, and optimally, to choose your ruler.

Don't be a faggot and stop encouraging the mods to ban people for having the wrong ideology.

Ideally. Unfortunately Holla Forums boards cannot function under such a system.

That's not an argument.

Please try to be less ignorant/retarded.

Any other examples? I seriously doubt Wall Street is full of Marxists.

I dunno but that's what Hudson says on a number of interviews. They're Marxists in the sense that they understand where value comes from (labor), and they use that to predict good investments more accurately than other economists.

That is objectively true though. CEOs aren't bourgeoisie anyway, I don't give too much shits about them, it's just artifical outrage from SocDems who want higher taxes whenever CEO salaries come up.


I was shooting heroin and reading “The Fountainhead” in the front seat of my privately owned police cruiser when a call came in. I put a quarter in the radio to activate it. It was the chief.

“Bad news, detective. We got a situation.”

“What? Is the mayor trying to ban trans fats again?”

“Worse. Somebody just stole four hundred and forty-seven million dollars’ worth of bitcoins.”

The heroin needle practically fell out of my arm. “What kind of monster would do something like that? Bitcoins are the ultimate currency: virtual, anonymous, stateless. They represent true economic freedom, not subject to arbitrary manipulation by any government. Do we have any leads?”

“Not yet. But mark my words: we’re going to figure out who did this and we’re going to take them down … provided someone pays us a fair market rate to do so.”

“Easy, chief,” I said. “Any rate the market offers is, by definition, fair.”

He laughed. “That’s why you’re the best I got, Lisowski. Now you get out there and find those bitcoins.”

“Don’t worry,” I said. “I’m on it.”

I put a quarter in the siren. Ten minutes later, I was on the scene. It was a normal office building, strangled on all sides by public sidewalks. I hopped over them and went inside.

“Home Depot™ Presents the Police!®” I said, flashing my badge and my gun and a small picture of Ron Paul. “Nobody move unless you want to!” They didn’t.

“Now, which one of you punks is going to pay me to investigate this crime?” No one spoke up.

“Come on,” I said. “Don’t you all understand that the protection of private property is the foundation of all personal liberty?”

It didn’t seem like they did.

“Seriously, guys. Without a strong economic motivator, I’m just going to stand here and not solve this case. Cash is fine, but I prefer being paid in gold bullion or autographed Penn Jillette posters.”

Nothing. These people were stonewalling me. It almost seemed like they didn’t care that a fortune in computer money invented to buy drugs was missing.

I figured I could wait them out. I lit several cigarettes indoors. A pregnant lady coughed, and I told her that secondhand smoke is a myth. Just then, a man in glasses made a break for it.

“Subway™ Eat Fresh and Freeze, Scumbag!®” I yelled.

Too late. He was already out the front door. I went after him.

“Stop right there!” I yelled as I ran. He was faster than me because I always try to avoid stepping on public sidewalks. Our country needs a private-sidewalk voucher system, but, thanks to the incestuous interplay between our corrupt federal government and the public-sidewalk lobby, it will never happen.

I was losing him. “Listen, I’ll pay you to stop!” I yelled. “What would you consider an appropriate price point for stopping? I’ll offer you a thirteenth of an ounce of gold and a gently worn ‘Bob Barr ‘08’ extra-large long-sleeved men’s T-shirt!”

He turned. In his hand was a revolver that the Constitution said he had every right to own. He fired at me and missed. I pulled my own gun, put a quarter in it, and fired back. The bullet lodged in a U.S.P.S. mailbox less than a foot from his head. I shot the mailbox again, on purpose.

“All right, all right!” the man yelled, throwing down his weapon. “I give up, cop! I confess: I took the bitcoins.”

“Why’d you do it?” I asked, as I slapped a pair of Oikos™ Greek Yogurt Presents Handcuffs® on the guy.

“Because I was afraid.”


“Afraid of an economic future free from the pernicious meddling of central bankers,” he said. “I’m a central banker.”

I wanted to coldcock the guy. Years ago, a central banker killed my partner. Instead, I shook my head.

“Let this be a message to all your central-banker friends out on the street,” I said. “No matter how many bitcoins you steal, you’ll never take away the dream of an open society based on the principles of personal and economic freedom.”

He nodded, because he knew I was right. Then he swiped his credit card to pay me for arresting him.