Anarcho Capitalist Crtiticisms Thread

There is no such thing as "natural rights" therefor there is no basis for such thing as private property.

So it's a personal definition? Because the state cutting off welfare for a lazy drunk would be cutting his booze funds, thus reducing his quality of life. I need an objective definition.

The only statement I can link it to is short term decision making or to satisfy the moment rather than plan for the future. But that expands the word into categories it doesn't belong in.

No objective morality, no buy.
Freedom is a property of culture, not the goal of society.
Realism, not idealism.

Those are my critiques. And you'll never agree with me.

Do you have solo ownership over your penis?

...

wew lad.
Are you certain you just aren`t some form of Hegelian fatalist who can`t live without his skydaddy?

Go *tip* yourself.

1. State(s) would form out of gangs or companies.

Not all of them, you are equating gangs with mafia. Gangs are low-life thugs, most often with legal jobs. Being a Eastern-Europoor I can personally vouch for this.

That may be true in a long-term perspective f.e. Coca-Cola starts putting cocaine again in their product, and informs no one (the recipe is a secret), but in a short term scenario when AnCap is installed morality (no matter how you look at it) will still be around f.e. no one would just outright sell heroin to children from day one.

Who would enforce the result of the lawsuit - force them to actually fulfill their punishment?
Who would actually look into such misallocations?
Who would stop the company from hunting down such convictors and forcefully removing blacklists?

Here in eastern europe, those with money have a lot of power to hide results of lawsuit, EVEN WITH a government.

2. Government is needed to avoid monopolies.

You can't elect different people into a company.
You can't just a CEO by popular vote.

3. No previous examples of anarchy.
case in point.

4. Anarcho Capitalism / Voluntarism is utopian.

Also, I have not ONCE read a good argument against the following scenario -

what stops me, and my friends (who are well armed) from forming a clique and just instilling our own form of government? People favor order vs chaos.

btw sage for bbys first ideology

UPB does a good job of defining secular ethics.

So if I agree with you, you're right, and if I disagree with you, you're still right? Why even try to discuss anything then?

Holy shit you sure showed me, also I wasn't implying that Hitler was a smart man.

The basic problem with lolbertardians and ancaps is you're too autistic to understand that harm comes in many forms, not just through physical violence, and therefore so does aggression. if you were to acknowledge that someone getting high off heroin instead of being a productive member of society harms his fellow citizens and is therefore an act of aggression that must be retaliated against, then maybe we could get somewhere.

So was the Soviet Union, which was called State Capitalism. You being pedantic about words is just further proof of your autism.

If I were wasting my time rather than learning, discussing, & teaching, then you'd be correct.

No it's an objective definition. It depends on the definition of Quality of Life, which is what you should have asked for. Quality of Life is the ratio of time that you spend doing things that bring true joy and fulfillment to your life vs. time that you spend solving problems. The more of your time you can spend doing the former over the latter, the higher your Quality of Life is.

Anarcho-capitalism is an oxymoron first of all.

Anarchism is the abolition of all rulers, and undemocratic top-down organization.
A work-place where the capitalist shareholders own the business and make all the decisions is an undemocratic and top-down organization, therefore the concept of capitalism and the concept of anarchism are directly in contradiction with each other.

Secondly, it is in the direct interest of capitalists (meaning owners of enterprises) to have a state in order to protect and enforce their property-rights.

The state can also be lobbied by the very same rich capitalists to establish and maintain monopolies if these do not form by themselves; therefore, the main antagonism within "anarcho"-capitalism, is that the main group that is actually supposed to benefit from it, is not interested in it in any way, shape and form, and any business that establishes itself and grows big enough will try to establish its own state as fast as possible, if not in name then in praxis.

In other words, AnCaps are liberals that think they oppose the state, but in reality they just oppose the organization of people against international capital.

Only so long as the government gives me rights to my dick. It is only trough the will of the government(whatever its causes might be) that I currently have any temporary rights at all.

8ch.net/overman/res/74.html

"Their entire philosophy is logically constructed from the non-agression principle: a distillation of most basic European enlightenment principles that all modern political thought, from communism to fascism to capitalism, are based on.
It is impossible for adherents of these other philosophies to refute libertarIan ideas, because libertarianism has made a more logical conclusion from the same common foundations that all these ideologies share.
This is why libertarians fail to see the one flaw in their reasoning: no one they debate is willing to deny the core enlightenment principles of universalist morality and egalitsrianosm, because to do so would undermine their own beliefs as well.
Despite my love of libertarians, and enjoyment of personal liberty, we must recognise that globalism and egalitarianism are our greatest enemies; to combat them we must combat libertarianism which promotes these ideas.
To do so, we must abandon values deeply ingrained into our own morality since birth. We must abandon values accepted by every major political party, taken for granted by almost every person we know regardless of their political alignment.
To prosper, we must build our philosophy and political structure upon an older, pagan set of values, those held by the Greeks and Romans and all previous groups of men for all of the paleolithic.
These are the classical, master morals of antiquity described by Neitsche in The Genealogy of Morals.
"The essence of master morality is nobility. Other qualities that are often valued in master moralities are open-mindedness, courage, truthfulness, trust and an accurate sense of self-worth."
In The Way of Men, Donovan distills manliness to a set of Martial (warlike) Virtues, which allow a man to effectively cooperate with other men in a group for both personal and tribal prosperity. These are:
1. Physical Strength
2. Courage
3. Mastery
4. Honor
It is important to note that altruistic actions should only be undertaken with discretion outside of your immediate group. For example, being honest with a friend or family member builds trust and loyalty; however being honest with a stranger or enemy is not always wise. Similarly, violence against an enemy is extremely enjoyable, and men enjoy a fight, yet violence against a member of your family results in a loss of tribal cohesion."

So whoever is in power governs your preferences? Would that mean that your preferences shift with whoever takes office?

I am waiting for a reply OP

Not really, but those in power dictate the morality,direction of society and indirectly control our framework of politics and everything that is outside of our persons.

All these utopian ideals always fail to address the practical political reality of how.

Dude you show no respect for my time with that textwall. I'll respond to something but there's like 5 other people in here I'm talking to so you gotta pick one of the arguments to hone in on.

and yet you expect us to communicate on an intelligent basis with you?

I imagine you don't like reading books, if you cant read 300 words

Wait, are you seriously trying to go by some le rules of le grandeour debate duel because that's not how we do things around here faggot. Go back to Reddit and debate about which pony is superior.

So you can le debate about the precise definition? I think we all know what we mean by degeneracy. How on earth could that be a concept that needs to be precisely defined for you?

First of all, the guy only harms himself, check your altruism. Secondly, you assume that people would want to to business with a guy who at any moment could start randomly attacking people, if the cost of doing business with someone is greater than the benefit of doing so then no one will do business with that person.

Get the fuck back to Holla Forums, seriously, this is an argument that only communists use.

And how do you know that you aren't wasting your time right now? there is likely a thousand things more productive you could be doing than arguing with me.

So you are saying those in power should be emulated? well in that case its perfectly moral to murder them since they exist solely through the initiation of force.

Well it's like pushing water up a hill in terms of political activism. You saw that with Ron Paul in 2012. No institution of power is going to elect a head that wants to start knocking that power down.

It has more to do with horizontal activism like making videos, writing books, discussing it with the people around you. Like the inevitable dollar collapse, that's a good opportunity to educate more people about fiat currency.

True libertarianism is a loooong way away because most people don't even believe taxation is theft. It's possible the destruction of the RNC will give way to more candidates like such but I doubt it.

I`m not saying that you should do it, but I`m saying that you`re doing it by being passively member of society, accepting the social contract and all the laws and rules that follow it.

Without the state there is nothing but anarchy and perpetual cycle of endless violence. Life would be short and brutish.

They dictate neither morality or "society". If it dictated morality, there would be no split in public opinion. If it dictated society, there would be no split in political ideology.

No, once again, trrue "libertarianism" is a long way away because the people who are supposed to benefit from it are not interested in it.

This is why syndicalists and mutualists have actually achieved stuff and AnCaps never have.

when are you going to reply to my post?

you just replied to a comment, that replied to my post.

If you read my post, your comment is incredibly naive - even with a flawed Foucaultian theory, you still need to divert power and more so those in power have the ability to change opinion of the masses .
If you had any sense, you'd realize that your backwards ideology is only attempts by higher powers to conquer and divide the common sense ideologies f.e. National Socialism

if you haven't read my post, the comment flew way over your head

200,000bc-10,000bc?

So you admit you didn't even read or comprehend my Argument Against Degeneracy above. Why even bother posting then? What's the point?

This is completely unrelated to what I was talking about. The heroin addict harms society by being less productive.

It wasn't an argument, it was a statement of fact to point out that your statement of fact was also not an argument. Pretty basic stuff.

This obviously fits into the category of "discussing" among the things I listed. Productive discussion makes the world a better place because it helps people arrive at the truth and to spread that truth, and truth helps people to make wiser decisions that improve their efficiency and productivity.

Laws dictate morality.
Public opinion is formed by culture, what is in most societies under the watch of state, or state somehow regulates it.

Political ideology does not rise form questions of morality, nor does it necessary rise form values either since it can be born of things like identity,association etc.

NO REPLIES, UNTIL HE REPLIES TO
NO REPLIES, UNTIL HE REPLIES TO
NO REPLIES, UNTIL HE REPLIES TO
NO REPLIES, UNTIL HE REPLIES TO

Reply to my post OP

Stop being such egoist.

a society based off of free markets would just be like what we have right now, a mindless, empty, consumerist culture. Capitalism does not value family, tradition or honor. It only values self gain and profits which is why we have fucked up trade policies and no jobs. Under a free market we would be working way more, and we would have no social safety net. People say welfare is bad blah blah but try supporting your self when you get fired from a job in a free market society. you and your family will starve on the streets.

read

I refuted his central points with concrete examples and questions, his response? I show him no respect, because my post wasn't short enough for him to understand

He is a weak willed, intellectualy meek leftist cuck, and no one should reply to this infantile idiot.

That post was directed at

Yes, the argument from effect failed. The world runs on right and wrong, and all successful ideologies identify and focus on a devil. The communists have capitalists and the NatSocs have the Jews.

Anarchists have the state, but most people still believe the state is moral. You can list off the benefits of doing something but if you can't hook into good vs. evil, nobody will stick with it.

Previous political ideologies all run on a state, which makes them easily digestible, and the argument that they all run on a flawed basis is a much larger mountain to climb.

you're on the wrong board

NO REPLIES, UNTIL HE REPLIES TO (You)

NO REPLIES, UNTIL HE REPLIES TO (You)

NO REPLIES, UNTIL HE REPLIES TO (You)

NO REPLIES, UNTIL HE REPLIES TO (You)

(OP)

Reply to my post OP

to any objectors read his genius reply

...

lololol

Reported.

yeah, no, this is a shill thread if I have ever seen one

I have better things to be doing with my life

Deus Vult you fucking degenerates

Anarchism is fundamentally unsound.

It can't exist in the real world. Without an nation to rally around, an organized military, and an economic regime to back it up, they are easily conquered.

The Commies and Nazis have wiped the floor with them again and again.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutionary_Insurrectionary_Army_of_Ukraine

Anarchism is dead.

What's left is a reeking corpse filled with larping, posing, and attention seeking "intellectual" vermin who are nowadays laughed at instead of shot.

...

And here is where your entire ideology falls apart. Without any rulers to enforce property rights, no one has any reason to respect them. Why should I care about respecting your property rights when I can just kill you and take what I want?

Why should all relationships be voluntary? People are not fully rational beings. Humans more often than not don't make the best decisions. If one belongs to a society, then they should be obligated to follow certain rules and live a certain way in order for that society to function. No matter how much you'd like to fantasize about your abstract, hyper-individualists living side by side in accordance with the NAP, humans will always be irrational and tribal, and in need of strong guidance and a set of rules to live by.

This is based on a single arbitrary cherrypicked definition of what a gang is, and completely ignores the central point of the argument. Small scale governments will form because people are stronger that way. An organised group of people with a hierarchical governments is simply more efficient, better at getting things done, and more powerful than any individual could ever be. There's a reason why states and governments appeared in the first place. They're simply much better than anarchy. States provide protection and safety. States guarantee property and other rights. States safeguard culture. States provide people with a sense of belonging and kinship. You seem to be operating under some stupid assumption that "the state" was forced down on people from the outside, rather than an organic expression of human communities.

Lawsuits require a government to enforce. No government, no rule of law. Do you think any company will "voluntarily" subject itself to a lawsuit? You're delusional if you do. Also, without a state to guarantee any law enforcement, stability, or property rights "companies" wouldn't even function or exist. Without any government to delegate the responsibility of policing, protection, and the rule of law to, people will be too preoccupied with guaranteeing their own survival and ensuring they have food to eat. Your fantasy land would collapse immediately.

false equivalency. The government is not a private organisation with the purpose of acquiring as much profit as possible. A government cannot be compared honestly to a private corporation.

I don't think anyone claims this. There is a previous example of anarchy - neolithic times - and it quickly got replaced with tribalism, which in turn got replaced with nations and states. Anarchy is the the pit out of which human society has been trying to elevate itself.

Yes it is an argument. Your entire worldview relies on the assumption that all humans are perfectly rational actors who will work in accordance with your precious NAP out of their own volition, and all factors will simply fall perfectly into place so that your anarchist society pretty much an oxymoron will function.

Your counter arguments are incredibly weak and full of holes. Anarcho-capitalism is babby's first contrarian political ideology, and is typical among teenage redditors. Lurk a while and you'll probably become fascist sooner or later.

lol? how is government a monopoly. We have state governments and the federal government and municipal governments. There is a lot of competition.

you rewrote, yet admittedly with great finesse and style, what I wrote in

note, your post is longer than mine, and by admission by the OP

you show no respect to him with your textwall

sage goes in all fields, do not respond

Oh and i forgot, we have three branches of government that keep each other in check. The executive, the legislative and the judicial.

Read the Cyphernomicon. Crypto-Anarchy is coming and nothing can stop it.

kill yourself

The biggest flaw with anarcho-capitalism is this: people who don't obey the laws of the state also won't obey the NAP

That's not the only flaw. I used to be an ancap. I became an ancap because I realized that all government, whether it was totalitarian communism or libertarian democracy, had a monopoly on force and used force to enforce all it's decisions. I viewed the use of force immoral, and became an ancap. I stopped being an ancap when I realized this important fact: sometimes, coercive force is justified. The government uses force, it uses coercive force to keep drunks off the road, it uses coercive force to stop pedophiles from setting up their own pre-school centers, it uses coercive force to stop people from selling you a box of garbage that you thought was an actual product. These are good uses of force, and I'm glad the government uses this coercive force.

vid related

No matter how many times this is proven wrong, some ubercuck will defend the idea of being led by a stranger. A hierarchy only guarantees bribes or death threats for the people in control. If there is organization, it's for the good of the people at the top while everybody suffers for them, you gimp.

It's completely natural to have government. The strong rule the weak and the plebs need to be told what to do and when to do it.
Anarcho-capitalists are trying to fight nature. That has never been a winning strategy.

It's completely natural to gimps. Anarcho-capitalism would weed them out.

Holy shit, kid if you're gonna focus on structure that much and need precise definitions so much you're probably too fucking autistic to understand why ancap ideology is bound to fail in the current world. It has way too many assumptions on the good will of people, their rationality and their simmilarity.

I'll just give you a simple example: if a modern nation was to live in an AnCap society, absolutely nothing stops another nation from declaring war on the AnCap settlement and annex it NAP? The other nation doesn't give a shit about the NAP, they are not living by the AnCap mentality. The UN would stop them? Then it would violate the idea of AnCap since it would be a form of government protecting the AnCaps. The settlement unites to fight the invaders? Wishful thinking there is no way 1 million warriors can unite without a form of cohersion preventing them from shirking, going rogue or siding with the enemy.

hahahahaha

hierarchies are how human communities of any genuine size naturally organise themselves. The goal should be to ensure that the most competent and capable individuals are put into positions of power throughout the hierarchy, not to completely deconstruct the hierarchy at all.

Ah yes. The autistic an-cap hyper-individualist mentality. Sorry bud, but humans are not hyper individualists. Hyper individualism is the antithesis to a healthy, prosperous, and functional society.

That's why an EU is needed. To stop those sorts of things. Good point. :/

The EU is a government, though, which counteracts your ancap views

Also, the EU is not necessary at all. It's a filthy globalist experiment designed to mongrelise the people and turn them into slaves to the (((international elite))).

Hello Reddit.

sage

This is caveman thinking born from superstitious times. People are not chosen by spirits from above to lead others like cattle. Nobody understands their problems better than the people themselves and their neighbors. Without an understanding of the problem, it can't be solved.

If you can solve your problem yourself, then go ahead and solve it. Hierarchy is there to solve the problems that can't be solved by just one person but rather require the coordinated effort of multiple people working in tandem. It's strange for an AnCap to argue against hierarchy given that all corporations work through hierarchies. The reason they do this is because it's efficient and effective.

anarchism was a defining part of "caveman times", you dunce. Human history has basically been a long process of elevating ourselves out of anarchism, and yet you seem to think it's a good idea to thrust us back into it.

This is a strawman considering I never claimed they were. Human societies are NATURALLY hierarchical. Humans simply evolved to live this way, and it is thus the most effective way of organizing society. The vast majority of people are not capable of leading, and for the most part, are not very rational. Most people are simply much better at being led and being guided in the right direction, and in general, do not really care about or want absolute freedom.

Many problems are much larger than individuals and their neighbors, and should thus be under the control of a larger, hierarchical state. Also, not everything individuals or the communities could do is particularly beneficial to the society as a whole.

Again, you're making a strawman considering I never claimed the state should be involved in solving everyone's problems like a giant parent. That simply eats up resources and creates overbearing bureaucracies like in communist societies. small scale problems should be dealt with on the small scale, and large scale problems should be dealt with on the large scale.

The problem with what you're suggesting, is you remove the mechanisms to deal with the large problems, which are arguably more vital and important than small-scale problems.

Feel free to give concrete examples of the wisdom of the oligarchy in improving the lives of its people.

Even chimps have a form of government. Kill yourself.

No it was hierarchy. It still exists in the animal kingdom today. It was democracy in America that created the best era in human civilization before it was subverted by monopolies.

Each nation can have it's own military, no need for the EU and european countries aren't AnCap, retard.

I was being sarcastic. The EU is the most perfect example yet of the failure of an elite oligarchy to not destroy its own people and let muslims waltz in and destroy things further.

See, this is actually false. There are two examples.

You have Somalia in the 90s, which degenerated into a bunch of small tribal or gang-based governments until eventually a new central government rose from the chaos. I'll grant you that those are somalis so there's not much they're capable of succeeding at, but really they're humanity's dumber cousins; there's bound to be some parallels in the nature of somalis and the nature of humans.

The other example is medieval Iceland. Medieval Iceland had no central government. But wherever people congregated, they formed local governments. Cities and counties and whatnot. Under voluntarism, wherein people can do whatever they want so long as nobody is coerced or aggressed upon, people are allowed to do that. Of course, if you didn't like living under the government you could move out into the country to farm or whatever, as there was no government outside of cities. But guess what? That shit didn't last. The people who folks paid to protect them took on a role like local chieftains. And they started fighting one another, conquering one another, because there's always going to be people who want to force their will upon others. Those poor farmers who lived outside of the cities didn't have the means to resist, so they got conquered. Some of these chieftans recieved support from the king of Norway in exchange for swearing fealty toward him. They fought for Norway and conquered the whole island, and Iceland became nothing more than a colony of the Norwegian Empire. And there the anarchy ended.

Anarcho-capitalism, much like marxism AKA anarcho-communism, relies on pretending that human nature doesn't exist. Both are inherently self-defeating ideologies. Marxism ignores that humans need to compete in a world where resources are scarce; its heirarchy-less society could only exist where people can prevent it by force, which creates a heirarchy. Voluntarism ignores that there will always be those who wish to impose their will upon others. If people want to form their own small state in a voluntarist society, well who's going to stop them? They have every right to do so. But that small state will be more powerful than individual families eking out an existence in the countryside, and eventually an ambitious and power-hungry lord will come to rule that small state, and he will conquer those families and create a big state. That's how it happened at the dawn of civilization, and that's how it'd happen again if you were to erase all states from the earth.

An inherently self-defeating ideology is pointless and not worth implementing into practice.

I don't support oligarchy so this a non sequitur. But feel free to provide any counter-argument to the arguments against AnCap I've made in this thread.

Monopoly on the use of force in a given geographical area.

the list goes on, sonny. You're clearly blinded by your own bias that you can't see the blatantly obvious. It seems to me you're advocating the destruction of a large state and replacing it with small regional governments. This system is weak and easily overpowered, and does not provide the same kind of necessary structure like a more fleshed-out government provides.

You're a blithering idiot, user. Absolute anarchy and a lack of hierarchy is UNNATURAL. You admitted that yourself right now. The "anarchy" I'm referring to is the lack of any organised government to secure and maintain everything necessary in a functional society, which was definitely the case during "caveman times".

This is pure conjecture and based on nothing other than your own biased assertion. Democracy is a flawed system because it assumes all individuals are equally perfectly rational actors basing their judgements on sound, well-reasoned logic. Humans are not very rational, nor are we all equal. It's also important to add that the "democracy" in America used to be limited to land-owning white males, which was by far a better system than the universal suffrage we have today. I would argue more that the vigour of the white race coupled with access to new vast stores of resources with little competition from outsiders, and the free market system, played more of a part in the success of America than democracy has. In fact, I would argue that our modern democracy is one of the prime causes of our demise.

Also, I find it incredibly rude that out of my entire argument, this single point is the only thing you respond to. At least have the courtesy to make a well-reasoned response to all of my arguments.

Nothing else needs to be said.

The EU was a failure not because it was a government, but because it was designed from the beginning to be a globalist experiment built around the mongrelisation of its own people in the name of "internationalism". The whole system is built on flawed liberal ideology, and was controlled by kikes from the get-go.

You seem to misunderstand. The EU is not a failure. It's working EXACTLY how it was intended to.

You can't call what's happening anything but an utter failure of government by elites.

That wasn't a failure. It was the plan from the start

Fuck off. If all you want to do is make one-lines and not engage in a debate, then don't make arguments in the first place.

Elites tried to stop Henry Ford from making cars. How did Henry Ford win? By a display of superior reasoning to those in power? No, he took his case to the press. Once popular opinion was on Ford's side, a judge who valued his life let Ford continue making his cars. America back then gave the people the greatest amount of control they have ever had. It's not a coincidence it was also human civilizations greatest period of innovation.

Nothing else needs to be said. But I'll throw you a bone anyway since I was once a young autistic AnCap like yourself so I feel bad for you. The example is Nazi Germany.

Chop off the head and the whole system goes system goes down. Again, early America is a better example. If the British managed to assassinate George Washington after he became president, the system would live on because Congress had most of the power.

None of what you said actually supports your statement that "It was democracy in America that created the best era in human civilisation before it was subverted by monopolies. For one, financial elites like we have today would not be allowed to exist in a fascist society, and two, a judicial system is not unique to democracy.

You seem to have formed some kind of false dichotomy between the "evil financial elites" and "democracy", as though these are the only options out there. I can value personal freedom and the rule of law, and dislike corporate oligarchies without being pro-democracy, or at least in favour of universal suffrage.

Also, your judgement is heavily biased considering Germany, which was a monarchy at the time of the turn of the century, was at the forefront of scientific and technological advancements. The key to America's success had more to do with the vast amount of resources and little direct military competition. You also seem to forget that America's success was also heavily built on the two World Wars and the total destruction of its global comeptition - primarily the British, French, and German Empire.

Yes it does. If the elites had their way, we would using horses like the muslims. Germany's innovations were greatly overshadowed by America's. America's success lied in the opportunities available from ridding itself of royalty. All those resources weren't discovered by royalty afraid to get in the mud.

Unless of course Hitler had chosen a successor. Regardless, early America was pretty fascist, bro. They just weren't NatSoc. I don't have any particular opinion on what degree of democracy, republicanism, or socialism should be involved in fascism, because I'm not an ideologue so I just go with whatever seems to work best in any given situation at any given time. This thread however is not about any of those things, it's about how retarded AnCap is, so using America as your example makes no sense since it was never AnCap.

The last time I saw a thread on Anarcho. Capitalism was halfchan /lit/. What have we become?

More baseless conjecture. Who are "the elites" in your eyes, what are their motivations, and why do you assume that I'm in favour of them just because I disagree with your assertion that democracy is the best system ever? You're falling into that false dichotomy I

Germany had FAR less resources at its disposal, and was in a constant arms race with its regional neighbors. Do you not know that Germany's navy was about as strong as the Royal Navy right around the time WWI broke out? You're also assuming that democracy was the cause of America's success, and if Germany was a democracy, it would be better off. You have no evidence to back up this claim.

You don't have to have democracy to have opportunity for the people. I don't think I ever advocated royalty or monarchy, I just used it as an example to debunk your claim that democracy = more powerful and innovative nation.

Some of the most powerful Empires in the world were Monarchies. This very fact makes your entire argument moot. As I already described, Germany was a monarchy and yet was one of the most powerful industrial nations on Earth.

Just admit it. Your argument has no legs to stand on.

No government, but courts are around somehow.

Makes me giggle every time.
HIERARCHY is the cornerstone of Western civilization. Human hierarchies emerge as a result of the fascism of the natural law and it is the natural order from which our race learned the truth of inequality. Race-Nation-King-Noble-Guild-Father-Son, the great chain of civilization.

Your ancient examples don't disprove anything. I didn't say all other forms of government are completely incapable of accomplishing anything. The two best - early America and Europe after it adopted American democracy - were the ones that gave the most control to the people.

HAHAHAHAHAHA. You can't be serious. The decent into democracy marked Europe's decline, you complete fucking imbecile. Ever since post-WWII, and the adoption of liberal democracy, Europe has slid into multiculti cucked shitholes. You're completely delusional

More control to the people for power's sake isn't a good thing. The majority isn't rational. The majority doesn't really know what they want. The majority are incompetent and not capable of making informed political decisions. The majority more often than not don't even know what they want. You seem to be stuck in this assumption that more power to the people = good, and then have chocked up a bunch of American successes to "democracy".

The Roman Empire wasn't a democracy, yet their contributions to arts, culture, technology, architecture, etc. was well known and unmatched until the renaissance. Your argument is weak.

The only thing those two were best for was putting up "for sale" signs for Zionists and globalists. Rule by the lower classes (including materialist merchants, not even (((merchants))) either but the merchants which had always been considered unfit to direct society by traditional civilization) has always resulted in the destruction of the nation, as evidenced by the threat of annihilation now hanging over America and Europe.

That's the point, democratic elements are naturally corrosive and will always result in deviation from the "pure ideals" which put them in place. It was societal elites who formed America with a favor for their countrymen at heart (well, except for the vast riches that the merchants among them desired to gain and protect by enshrining materialist property rights into law), but handing rule to commoners meant that such sentiment died with the signing of the Constitution and was replaced by the leveling spirit of the poor and disenfranchised. The best way for people to improve their lot in life is to accept the role into which they are born and let their betters sort out society. Or do you deny natural inequality?

No, Merkel. The majority assumed democracy had brought a near utopia and stopped paying attention to government. A corporate oligarchy took over and that's why everything is turning to shit.

Again, what they did pales in comparison to America's achievements.

Waiting for the Paris Hiltons of the world to figure things out is the wrong answer. Always has been, always will be.

The majority didn't know shit from the start. Democracy puts the power into the hands of those who control the flow of information, and because people are easily manipulated and not capable of making well-informed political decisions, they eat whatever they're given right up. "Utopia" was never going to happen.

There was a corporate oligarchy from day one. Democracy is completely shit because corporate oligarchies can just waltz in and use the power of "free" media" to spread their agendas.

Democracy is shit because it's based on false egalitarian assumptions.

You're a very naive child, it seems.

Which is what always happens when power is handed over to the incompetent masses. Remember, it was the Whig fear of power conspiracy which had created the ideological basis of the American Revolution itself, so there was no greater time for such vigilance by the populace and yet they still failed as was predicted by the opponents of democratization at the time.

Rule by the masses is always a race to the bottom.

Paris Hilton is the daughter of a merchant and would be a nobody in a traditional society. Oh, but in our glorious materialist society she is an important celebrity. Sure is a great thing we base our values off of property rights instead of the inequality of the natural order as our ancestors did when they refused to allow such nonsense.

You're a fucking idiot and an obvious child. Did you also not realise that Rome used to be a republic, i.e. democracy, before it became an Empire? During the democracy it was in decline and steeped with corruption (like we have today), so The Emperor cleaned it all out, brought Rome back from the bring and turned it into the most influential Empires in human history.

pic related. It's you.

Degenerate here. I am basically a sick, depraved, person of low virtue. I have unlike most degenerates struggled intensely to overcome my shitty genetics. In the end it doesn't matter how much you lift and that you spent an entire fucking decade on self-improvement; I am still garbage at the end of this all. The lesson I have gained from this? That your own nature is too fucking strong to overcome through mere persistence and great determination. Genetics matter so fucking much. That is why I will support fascism, eugenics, National Socialism, and all other Holla Forums ideals even while I have given up hope on ever having children or embodying any of the ideals I have loved and admired so much. It appears hypocritical – but like some men who smoke, they too will tell you not to do it, and not to get started; even as they continue to do it. It's such a mindfuck and it makes you question them. Yet really, honestly, you should listen.

Some of you in here might be young degenerates or some of you might be thinking of starting on the path of degeneracy.

DON'T.

Fight it now; undo whatever damage has already been done and if you haven't started DO NOT FUCKING START. Degeneracy is NOT cool. It MAKES YOU SICK AND DISGUSTING. Stay away from people that will keep influencing you to be degenerate (if you can) and look hard to find and surround yourself with people that are not degenerates.

Me; I am completely, COMPLETELY, surrounded by degenerates. I am also almost completely alone in the desire to NOT be degenerate and of the few that have the desire the too are too fucking weak, too broken like me, usually for the same reason; where I live it's a cesspool of degeneracy. A sodom and gomorrah. There's no hope for anyone here.

Soon the whole world will be like this. If you are blessed to live somewhere that even 2% of the population is not degenerate and you can find people your own age to be around that will share your ideals and work towards health, prosperity, purification, love, etc. CHERISH IT AND MAKE THE MOST OF IT.

The world needs fascism and I am ready to fucking DIE to make way for a better world even though I'm a disgusting broken subhuman myself that nobody takes seriously and no woman will ever love.

The only redeeming thing about me is that I hate myself intensely. I hate what I am. I LOVE the aryan ideal; and I can not stand being so far from it. Let me kill and kill and kill, I will make my hands dirty with blood, to create a new order of white supremacism. When the work is done I will voluntarily submit myself to execution or exile into a desolate place, happy in the knowledge the best of the white race will live on, and people the world with a new kind of man; a man who is far stronger than I. I will give way to this new man. I will not pollute this world with my inferior, disgusting degeneracy any longer.

For now though I wait… I wait for the Day Of The Rope. Please tell me brothers that it will be soon. Every day I train myself still and wait. It has been so long and I am ready to do my part. I probably won't live long with all the problems I have; but maybe I can endure a decade more maybe even two. It has to come soon though.

I know degeneracy very well, and you should too, it is everything opposite of virtue.

I don't smoke btw but what I am very sickly all the time and I got exploited by a psychopathic woman and have never recovered from that so I am just very fucking crazy and fap to weird stuff and don't contribute in any meaningful way to society as I simply can't. I love the redpill but redpilled people who are actually healthy and normal hate or pity me; either way I can't gain their love and even if I could then I would just be corrupting them. Like how every nigger wants a beautiful white woman; if the nigger has any self-awareness and good morals he will realize it is completely WRONG to racemix and to create disgusting mongrel children, that he will be defiling the woman. I want what is beautiful and superior; but I have to embody it myself first and I can't. So I have to simply look on at beautiful white couples, full of envy and jealousy, and wish I could be them.

FFS when can I start roping? I am like an Elliot Rodgers going mad here Holla Forums. We need to start the killing and put me to use. Otherwise I will just keep doing more damage to you all without meaning to. Degeneracy is contagious and I don't want to spread it.

AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

Republics have problems obviously. Problems that AnCap does not.

I very rarely run into people as dense and idiotic as you on Holla Forums, which leads me to believe you're fresh off the boat from Reddit.

This whole thread you've been arguing against me in favour of democratic republicanism, such as the system in the early American Republic. I've thoroughly refuted every half-assed, unintelligent reply you've tried to thrown out. Finally when I bring up the final nail in the coffin against your moronic worldview (i.e. Rome used to be a democratic republic, yet degenerated due to very similar reasons as today and needed a dictatorship to bring it back from the brink), you default back onto spouting bullshit about how "ancap will fix it these problems". You provide no fucking reason why or how, you just assert it like some idiot child.

I've already thoroughly refuted every major retarded "ancap" claim in this thread right here before I even started engaging with you. At least try to be ideologically consistent, you fucking ignoramous. You can't both argue for a democratic republican government while also being pro-ancap. The two are mutually exclusive. Ancap is a shitty, childish ideology and reeks of contrarianism. You're an obvious child, which, if it wasn't already indicated by your dumbfuck ideology, is made blatantly evident by your writing style and short one-line responses

Brain dead idiots like you need to shut up if you don't know what you're talking about. There's nothing more embarrassing than a persistent, stubborn idiot.

Is it your time of the month? Because you haven't provided any evidence of the wisdom of fascism. You are wasting my time with vague ancient examples.

Even the Trump so beloved here is loved because he wants to do what people having been asking for since the 80s: build a wall.

This is already wrong before getting any further into the OP. No matter how many times you fags post it won't make it true.

There were no capitalists anywhere on Earth before the 18th century and yet the concept of property still existed. Capitalism is just an alternate name for Economic Liberalism and is more specifically the economic arguments that play out when assuming the moral arguments of Liberalism are true.

Also Anarchy is mistranslated. Arkhos doesn't mean "ruler" in almost any context. It means Authority or Rule and every other word that uses that root as a suffix it means Authority or Rule. In the original context it certainly meant "Without Authority" and it did so among the first people to adopt the term as a political ideal. This AnCap translation amounts to sophistry. If you don't mean Anarchy then don't use the word.

Incorrect. Gangs accrue funds via the use of violence which has a wide range of extra-legal applications including extortion, blackmail and racketeering which doesn't require any contraband.

Incorrect as you've already established that property exists and stolen property is still contraband. So you only eliminate black markets if you literally have no right to property beyond your own ability to secure it, which is not under any conception of the term a "respect for property rights". For there to be no market for contraband requires it to be legal to steal and resell property on the open market with no recourse by the victim to recoup their lost property and inflict punishment but to then re-steal their property either from the thief or downmarket buyer and deal out their own retribution as they see fit.

To not have a "black market" you'd literally have to eliminate theft, by of course eliminating property which is what actual Anarchists advocate making them somehow even more retarded than you are even though it's such a low bar.

Yes, it actually is an argument Stefan. To actually establish the validity or not of the argument requires an actual explanation and not dogmatic statements of refutation to "Shut It Down".

"Corruption" is your own personal boogeyman. You can't even define what it is, and ultimately if pushed to do so it would reveal that "corruption" is an extension of your Utopian scheming. Yes, the world does not work the way you wish it did. Calling the way the world actually does work "corruption" is nothing but pure bias.

To say "power corrupts" is to object to the natural form that power takes. You are making a moral condemnation of a perennial feature of the human experience. The concept that "power corrupts" is akin to attaching moral weight to the aphorism "What goes up must come down" to decry gravity as something to be abolished.

"Power corrupts" is just the cry of the weak who wish to shame the powerful and rabble rouse their fellow weaklings to establish greater equality. Of course an equality which enhances their own standing vis a vis their superiors. Something dreamed up simply to tear down the masters and raise up the slaves. After you've established your new Plutocracy the new masters will simply be facing more cries for greater equality from the new class of slaves which are just as illegitimate self-serving and "corrupt" as your own.

In my own Utopian scheme Utopian bottom feeders know their place and no one has to waste time refuting their bullshit machinations to establish a moral framework where they are the oppressed justified in the destruction of their betters which is payback for some imagined injustice. Since it is totally natural behavior to politick and scheme for your own benefit and invent self-serving moral justifications to suit your greed my Utopian ideal makes your self-serving moralistic bullshit an example of "corruption". Best expressed by the aphorism, "Absolute aspergerian faggotry corrupts absolutely."

If you don't like the "State" or any of the current rules then you have all of the liberty in the world to work towards their end and towards your own interest. You can use the same method that the State used to empower itself in the first place. With rifle, pike and saber. That's the only way it has ever been and the only way it is going to be.

Geez, user. For what it's worth, I'm sorry for you. Here's hoping you have a bright future.

Bumping for more intelligent and eloquent anons to come out of the woodwork. Some of these posts have been, frankly, poetic.

in an ancap society child porn will become a cottage industry