What's Holla Forums's best arguments against anarcho capitalism?

A classic of the genre, dating from the earliest days of online political shitposting:
world.std.com/~mhuben/faq.html

theanarchistlibrary.org/library/the-anarchist-faq-editorial-collective-an-anarchist-faq
this is a pretty good source for debunking capitalist shit

You can only change people's minds if their worldview and beliefs are compatible with your ideology. Ancaps and libertarians who genuinely believe the free market and property rights will create the freest society for everyone can convinced into real anarchism if you show how them how property rights will just lead to another form of tyranny and that real freedom can only exist under communism. Ancaps and libertarians who have an elitist and "fuck everyone else my property is mine" mindset cannot be convinced, because at their core they do not really care about freedom for everyone, just freedom for the slave masters.

Kevin Carson in general is a pretty good guy to use to btfo ancap arguments, since he uses their own reasoning and standpoints against them. Markets Not Capitalism is another good work, and the Ethics of Labor Struggle shows them how the government intervenes on the proprietors behalf and how their dear free market allows their greatest enemy == Unions ==

nice bait thread

Yeah of course. Its called a bullet. You'd be surprised how quickly someone can change their theories when they have a .45 right in their face.

might makes right

Simply put point out that Sengoku Japan was the result of multiple property owners going to war with each other for complete dominance. You can't even trust property owners to respect each other NAP. It's a fantasy to believe that property owners without a centralized law or state they have any reason to respect the borders of other property owners.

If you're going to abolish the state why not abolish the international monetary system along with it? Why half-ass it?

I went searching for a book that tackled Capitalism, I think I found a good one.

It only works in theory.

Not an argument but I don't know why anyone would support it, the ideal ancap nation seems dystopian.

Everyone's already posted the good stuff so here are some miscellaneous links.
libertarian.co.uk/lapubs/legan/legan028.pdf
theleftlibertarian.wordpress.com/2013/10/15/critique-of-austrian-price-formation/

This is breddy good.
theanarchistlibrary.org/library/the-anarchist-faq-editorial-collective-an-anarchist-faq-07-17
I first found it on 0ch, I'm not sure if n1x edited it or not.

I don't know how convincing an actual ancap would find it but it's a pretty good rundown for the standard layman on the chasm that there is between them and historical anarchist philosophy and practice.

I'm really fed up with people following utopistic ideologies.

Ayncrapism in a way actually has been tried, and lead to disaster: King Leopold II. He bought a bunch of land in Africa and made it his private property. Since those nigg-…I mean, "workers" were his "employees" they had to do what he said, they were living on his property, after all. Refusing to work and living off his land is trespassing, which is a violation of the NAP, for which they were brutally beaten and massacred, because according to the NAP a violation of property is a violation of right, since objects and human life are equally equated. The "employees" were given work quotas and if not met were brutalized by the poli-…uh, I mean, "private security force."

Leopold decided to "tax" his Congo subjects by requiring local chiefs to supply men to collect rubber. Yes in ancap land, humans can be used as payment for taxes. But don't call it taxes, call it "rent", again, respect muh property. But don't worry, it's V O L U N T A R Y!

These are also the same people who think it's ok to sell children because the parents own the property rights to their children.

This would be a good example if Leopold didn't break the NAP in order to get the land. I would really like if there was a real event that followed every aspect of ancap ideology and led to horrible consequences, just so they could say "yes, this is a perfectly acceptable situation".

...

Ancap isn't even possible because of the bourg state magically withered away, there would be a power void that would be filled by more bourg. The world would balkanize into thousands of micro-states that are run by corporations that are functionally states.

The flaw of ancap thinking is they take Weber's idea of 'Monopoly of Violence', which says 'the state is whatever entity has the power to use violence and not answer for it'. For example, when a pig kills civilians, they have no one to answer to because they are representing the state. If people went in the street and started killing cops, the people would have to answer to the cops and the punishment of the state.

so the flaw of ancap thinking is they take Weber's idea to mean "ONLY violence by the state is considered violence, bourg violence against the people isn't violence, or at least not the same kind".

But if you were living in some type of ancap corporate compound, and that corporation forced you to work, and beat you if you didn't, they would be a state.

Private property only exists when there's public property as well. If the whole world was divided up among corporate warlords, into private compounds, the people would have to live somewhere, and the corporate entity would have to provide for the people. This makes the corporation a state, even if there were thousands of such states, instead of a couple hundred

...

The problem with ancaps is that unless you tackle their methodology (praxeology) they will never ever yield an inch. Even empirical evidence wouldn't convince them, moral and ethical arguments usually wouldn't (since they believe they're on the right side anyway), the only way is to show them how the conclusions which their thinkers fed them are false and are based on a faulty methodology. That, or simply finding answers to the main problems they view in having any sort of non-market economy.

To be fair, this isn't that far away from how leftists view their ideology. The main difference is that when the USSR and other arguably socialist states are presented as failures, a real debate from within and without socialist circles is sprung on whether it was anything remotely leftist and how/why did it fail. Ancaps would simply deny empirical evidence if presented with a failed society that strives or comes close to their principles and not have another word on it.

Why do you care about arguing about politics with retards on the internet to begin with? But to the point: you're supposed to force them into going into positive stance where they explain how is ancapistan supposed to ascend from heavens to bless us, this pretty kills every single ancap since their starting point wasn't asking how currents state of came to be and how can it continue to develop, but rather certain principles.
Seriously, try looking into ancap(or even generally lolbert) praxis, it's laughable, they're a tier below utopian socialists.

They're not even worth arguing with.

that screencap is just too good

Hold corporations to the same standard as you hold the state and you will be ancoms.

It isn't worth arguing against as no one takes it seriously and it will never pose a threat to anything we wish to accomplish. Anyone who can fall for ancap ideology is either too dumb to be useful to our cause, or will grow out of it on their own.

...

Reality

this, there are no more arguments.

I know that a good leftist is supposed to approach debate with reverence, but truth be told OP, some things just plain aren't up for discussion. And anarcho-capitalism is somewhere between creationism and world ice theory.

Or rather, let's put it more fairly. Think of every proposition as having a "cap" on how much effort and debate it merits, whose height we establish after a cursory glance at its ersatz abstract. Something like the abolition of pivate property has a very very high cap indeed. Some, like anarcho-capitalism, have caps that aren't simply low enough to touch the floor, but are actually located somewhere close to Earth's center of gravity.

You realise that if somebody is unironically an AnCap then there is literally no reasoning with them?

It's like saying, "I tried to convince this Neo-Nazi that the Holocaust happened, but he just wasn't convinced". You can't convince these delusional cunts.

The ONLY reason to engage with an AnCap is to ensure that onlookers won't be convinced by their nonsense.

if 1929 didn't, then nothing will

bump?

...

you cant because basically they see capitalism as meritocracy, or the closest thing to it, and communism as jealousy and complaining of the meritless

Works every time.

are you implying private roads do not exist?

This. Strict Keynesian manufactured demand policies were the only thing saving the American economy back then. World War 2 was a blessing in disguise which allowed for immense spending without public outcry. But since no one currently in power has read and understood Keynes. So they probably do not know how to apply to the current economy. A second 1929 will wipe the American economy off the map. It isn't going to change their minds since whatever desperate measures by the American government are going to be "socialism" ruining the economy.

That seems easy to break apart. Just show them capitalism isn't a meritocracy, you're not jealous and you're not meritless.

I vote for violence. Violence is good. Organized violence is better. Plausible deniability is best. On both levels.

No. For example, you seem still believe that organized crime syndicates (which is what Capitalist organizations are) that had been robbing and murdering people for generations will somehow stop, if you ask them nicely. If there were universal arguments that disproved this nonsense for everyone, you would've been exposed to them already.

People aren't rational nor are they unbiased. In some cases class consciousness (PB/Capitalist) will negate any arguments, in other cases people are just too set in their ways to budge. Remaining tend to have wildly different circumstances that form their opinions and will require individual approach.

I'd say "using Keynes is actively disincentivized in the upper circles". You can read Keynes and understand it. It's just nobody in power is personally motivated to take responsibility and use it. Situation might change, should US be faced with the full-blown Revolution.

name one person that is publicly demonstrating that leftism isnt meritless
if you are out there, all you see is pink hair students and basically a whole bunch of utter meritless vermin advocating for communism
just an endless sea of utterly worthless, scrawny, visibly deficient people advocating for communism in the west

its like someone out there is finding all these pathetic people, and paying them to should slogans and be weirdos they naturally are in public, but with a t shirt

You seem to be lost, here's where you should go:
>>>Holla Forums

...

Ancaps get the bullet the hardest

It’s not in my best interests.