What do you guys think of ancapism?

AnCap seems very ideological, as it gives everyone the appropriate freedoms and abilities to express yourself without any intervention except from society. In theory, it could work when everyone pitches in, but communism is supposed to work in theory too.

I would rather choose AnCap over Communism any day, but would prefer National Socialist society over AnCap. But, AnCap can also be seen as a means to an end, due to the massive power vacuum it creates. Whether society can actually end up creating a stable state out of Anarchy that is able to appeal to natural forces is up to the people within the area, but it can also go the other way. AnCap also has the fault of it being taken over by outside forces, for if everyone but one doesn't comply, that one can simply take over if it is powerful enough.

The problem is that AnCapistan will never last as people are assholes. And those who WANT a government will organize and create one via force. And will win because they have more organization and more clear goals. As has happened all throughout history.

ANCAP will only work in an honor society, seeing as all the fags want to live by rule of man's law and not nature it is completely unworkable. I mostly blame Rothbard for pushing his stupid NAP for it being absolutely worthless. Though there is a lot to learn from those who influenced that ideology though.

I believe every American here on Holla Forums would be wise to read Albert J. Nock who was of significant influence on these types.

AnarchoAnything can't work because power vacuums are always temporary.

AnCap/Libertarianism are "live and let live" Ideologies that would let degeneracy flourish. Just because someone isn't doing physical harm to other individuals doesn't mean it isn't doing cultural harm to society. Degeneracy is weakness that poisons nations. The Soviets used it as a weapon and the liberals/libertarians welcomed it with open arms, calling it a western value.

Hitler (Stalag edition):

Hans-Hermann Hoppe (from memory):

More typical ancap:

so why not a stateless (as ancaps see it) state (as Hitler saw it)?

Hitler, same page:

Yes, and no state doesn't work for humans of any form, hence it's not favourable in any way. Learn to read before you make a fool of yourself.

If people are assholes, then you at least admit that government is dangerous by nature? Because assholes will be drawn to power.

But as for a state organizing out of individuals in a free society, all you have to do is look to competing states in the USA, aka gangs/mafias. Their primary source of revenue is going around government regulation. All other services reputable businesses take care of. No government = no regulations = no source of income for violent groups.

No. Ancap will NEVER work.

It is viable for Ancaps, but probably only on the open sea oder literally under ground, because you need borders to enforce your "non-rules" of market capitalism and voluntary association.

The idea is that you aren't required to associate with those faggots, you can even keep them away from you via force. The problem is Rothbard tried to dress up the Golden Rule because Jews just can't leave well enough alone.

No. You can start it but you can never maintain it because collectives are always stronger than individuals and most people have an absolute need to be part of a heard, regardless of what they've been told to say they want.

Basically ancaps will always get fucked over by people who are willing to play into the instincts of the masses and tell them that it's their divine/moral duty to fuck over the ancaps for god/king and country/people/humanity/whatever.

An Anarchist state is pretty much an oxymoron. As soon as you have a state, you might as well call stop calling it anarchism. Anarcho-Capitalists are not anarchists, since they have a certain set of beliefs. The only way it can work is by having a society where people agree with you on the basic premise of private property and voluntary associations, but even then you need to keep people out, so if you don't have a natural barrier there's no way for your society to function.

Anarchy is just the absence of hierarchy. You can have an anarchist state, but it would be drastically limited in scope due to no hierarchical structure of authority.

Yeah, the state is a problem, but so are humans. Whereever humans are involved you get problems, because we're not angels. It's not statist problem that anarchists face, it's a human problem.

Well… The state is always hierarchical, so it's not really possible to have an anarchist state by definition. You can have an organization that patrols the border, but that's not a state, is it?

Irrelvant and untrue. Communism has various internally consistent ideologies, all of which fail miserably, because they approximate humanity to a few variables. You can't have a functional system, where your elements are reductionist approximations.

Why is there periodical shilling of fagcapism on this board and by whom is it carried out?

What are some reductionist approximations of AnCap?

No, the State isn't always hierarchical. It's just that States function better and allow for far greater scope when implemented in a hierarchical manner. BTW I'm talking legal fiction here. Obviously IN NATURE there is always a hierarchy of fittest to weakest.

It's the least petulant of the Anarchies.

The state is a function of human society. It cannot not exist. Of course the state will be imperfect, because humans are imperfect, and humans make up the state.
And I never claimed that humans were perfect or that the state is infallible. A bad state will always be more favourable than anarchy.

Violence must exist in relationships?
Violence isn't an accident tho. It's a chosen act. And if humans are imperfect I don't see how that's an argument for giving a group of them unlimited power.

Tell that to starving ruskis under Bolshevism. They could've fed themselves without the state - state murdered millions which would work fine without any.

Sadly, self-defense was on a low level there, so overtaking it was no biggie.

SAGE AND REPORT FOR ZERO EFFORT.

It’s shit, by the way. It’s communism that pretends to believe in the restrictions that are required for capitalism.

Best system ever.

yes, actually. Well. More specifically the threat of violence
What exactly is your point here? Violence, or more specifically the threat of violence, is a necessary aspect of states to keep order and prevent degeneration of that society. Violence/the threat of violence isn't bad by virtue, it's the context in which it is used
Where did I advocate giving unlimited power? If humans are imperfect, then anarchy will be hundreds of thousands of times worse than the state.

what a fucking idiot. Bolshevik-type groups would be the norm in an archist society where different groups are vying for control in the wake of the power vacuum. The only force strong enough to put down such groups is a state much larger and more powerful to keep order.

Change the cash money to bit coin

Or arming every single household as is (was) the case with much of USA. Anarchism doesn't mean there's no organization.

Lolbergs somehow even more retarded little cousin

Well, for starters, why should I care about the Non-Aggression Principle when its not in my interests to do so?

It's a utopia, not a viable means of government. If everyone magically got along (as in a utopia), sure.

All anarchy just leads you to be the same government as your most powerful neighbor.

Any attempt at successful anarchy or any of its various flavors can only happen with white people. Anarchy is open borders or at least lacks the power and authority to control immigration. So even if you could create an ancap nation, it would soon be invaded.

Note that these are just the reasons of why ancap itself is fundamentally unstable and why we really only see it as a transition during societal collapse. I won't begin to go into all the myriad of issues that present itself within an actual ancap society itself.

this, we need to eliminate the rampant stupidity and degeneration of our society that (((they))) are responsible for, wake people up, wait a few generations, and then we'll be ready

And which one of your personal or professional relationships do you threaten violence in?

ITS A MEME YOU DIP

What is a government's source of income? Taxation. These groups will simply impose their own taxation. Don't pay, get a bullet.

The only way for white liberty minded people to survive the real world is to organize around our own interests.

Dumb as fuck, tbh.

A state is nothing more than just another organization that has jurisdiction over some body.

Imagine your local soccer league. A state isn't too much different than that. A soccer league will essentially collect dues, manage fields, manage people, and try to work for their benefit.

A state will collect dues put down roads and manage people. The difference, obviously, is that you can't escape the jurisdiction of a state unless you leave it's boundaries. That's what irks people, is that there is no choice in the matter. With your local soccer league, you can choose to not play, and you can choose another sport entirely.

Ancaps are stupid because they believe that the state is some super special phenomena, when in fact organizations that govern shit occur all the time in free markets. Why is there a governing body for medicine or even chiropractic medicine? These things arose spontaneously, much like a state would.

Once you have enough people with guns acting under the pretense of protecting your ancap borders, a state will emerge because those men will be managed as they define and defend those borders. The organization that does it will need to collect revenue and well.. Yeah a state.

Ancap society would eve bizarre as they try and abolish all forms of organization out of fear of a "state" forming. Say goodbye to your local soccer league, that could be threatening if they gain enough power. So in an ancap society enjoy shitty pick up soccer games forever.

They next glaring problem with ancap is that states exist in defense of other states. How long will anarchy last in the US when the Mexican army comes in and reclaims Aztlan?

Everything about it is dumb. It takes smart people to defend such a stupid fucking idea

violence will exist, so it's pointless to design a system based on avoiding it

...

Thag guy will let go of his ancap shit pretty soon

It's as retarded as communism. Anarchy is never going to work, ecept in the minds of edgy 14 year olds.

I don't hate it and they seem to be pretty chill with the idea of exiling and repressing cancer. The big thing that makes me wary is how obsessed they are with property. Making sure your society can compete and produce is not enough to hold it together and its members aren't necessarily worthy human beings. The other big problem I see is that the circumstances needed to make this last would need some kind of armed rebellion and in the West I think most people would prefer to subvert the institutions that are already in place.

But IDK, a lot of the problems people have with this look very solvable to me. Those with some amount of military power/protection squads are better served collaborating than pillaging.

Fair, NAP is 100% autistic.

Its the proper utopian end game of society but that is when we reach some hypothetical future where we master the universe and have no need to use violence against others.

Never gonna happen. He's trying the same thing Lew Rockwell did in the '90s.

No one on this board has ever read a book on anarcho-capitalism and none have any idea of what it actually is besides their dissection of the name and reading jewpedia.

I myself have only just begun reading through this stuff, but it's not anarchy in the traditional sense at all. In fact as far as I can tell having a governments existing wouldn't interfere with the ideology at all (especially not ones that aren't enforced monopolies, and thus subject to market forces), it's just placing as much power into the private sector as possible and refraining from artificially altering what naturally occurs in a free market economy.

I personally think it'll be fine and great once we get into the space age, but not right now.

How useful.

Germanic militarism is the only way forward. I do not care what government facilitates it, but our survival is dependent on an honor based society that celebrates the warrior.

sage
/int/

no, ancap is dumb. The problem with every system of government is and always will be the people who run it seizing power unlawfully, the people allowing it to happen, and/or out-groups invading/attacking. Ancap solves only one of those problems (politicians), and even then only temporarily most likely.

And more importantly:
The best form of government will never be the same for across the board for every nation. Its why globalism is such a fucking disaster. The best form of government will be whatever makes the most sense to a nation's people and traditions. White people need ethno-nationalistic governments and high-trust societies. Kebab thrives in just the opposite.

Who arms the households? Where do the arms come from? Where are they manufactured? By what means are they acquired? How is such a militia organised? Wouldn't such an organisation and the unequal distribution of authority constitute the creation of a state? How do you ensure all of the militia are on the same side? What mechanisms are stopping one group of the militia from forming a unified state and ceasing power from the rest?

this is irrelevant. We're talking about the relationship of the state to the citizens of a nation. This is a false equivalency

It's not about keeping them away from me. It's about keeping them away from society. It's about not having pride parades or fags on TV constantly.

our argument is our boots stamping on your faces - forever.

"Everything exists because of the State" hurrrrrrrrrrr they did a good one on you in that State school you attended

sage
Fucking responding to this thread

state are corrupt as fuck

No it's not. The "state" is made up of individual people. The "country" is made up of individual people. A uniform does not change what a person is. The only thing that exists is people. So if violence is justified in their relationship to you and I, where is violence justified in your relationship to others?

It's somewhat more viable than communism. That is, it could possibly be made to exist, but there's no way it would last longer than a day or two.

Ancap, just like ancom, exists as a philosophy because of utopian teenagers who deny aspects of human nature. Ancaps deny that there are any incentives except for monetary incentives and those incentives required to live. This is simply wrong. Incentives vary wildly.

Some more incorrect assumptions of the Ancap revolve around the NAP. Is the NAP a good moral philosophy? Yes, of course it is. Do most people follow it by default already? Yes, of course they do. However, there are some bad people in the world who won't follow the NAP if not required to. And there are very few people who will actually go out of their way to enforce the NAP when they see it being violated. This means that in an Ancap society, when Tyrone decides to come around to beat the shit out of little Timmy, unless little Timmy possesses the weapons or strength required to protect himself - and he probably doesn't -, he's going to have the shit beaten out of him. The NAP simply will not protect innocent people from bad people.

Deep argument.

Really made me think.

This is sort of OT sort of not, but everyone should read The Second Realm: Book on Strategy

...

This is a pure false equivalency. The state is the administrative body with the monopoly on force designed to organise society and keep the nation strong. The relationship between the population and the state is a two way street. The state provides order, security, safety from foreign threats, insurance of property rights and many other benefits in turn for its subjects respecting laws, contributing to the betterment of the nation, staying healthy, paying taxes, not engaging in degenerate lifestyles, and other social responsibilities.
No. A country isn't just an amalgamation of abstract individuals. A country is a nation, which is a community of similar individuals with shared culture, ethnicity, history, identity, etc., that has secured itself territory of its own and has control over itself. The Human struggle is the not the story of abstract individuals interacting and competing with each other, but of nations of people with similar cultural, ethnic, and historical identity interacting with other nations with different identities.
What do you mean by this? Just because people are part of the material world and the concept of a state is not, does not negate the validity of the state in any way. The state arose as a means of organising human communities and ensuring their survival.
You're creating idiotic and carefully constructed frameworks designed to arrive at the conclusion you want you. The state requires the monopoly on force and the threat of violence in order to keep order and ensure no group tries to usurp that power and destabilize the nation. If the state developed as an evolutionary survival strategy in the first place to organise communities, then it serves little purpose if anyone from that community could impose their own personal will over that of the state will using force. Also, without the monopoly on force, the state is incapable of organising society effectively and ensuring that order and security is maintained.

This is such a tired old argument. You sound just like Stefan. "Do you support violence against ME?"

...

No shit.

AnCap is good if you don't have jews, niggers, and spics. If we were an all white nation it could very well work. Why people say it wont work is because they are assuming that non AnCap people would be instantly put into an AnCap world. AnCap relies heavily on morality and not initiating force on others. It would take a massive cultural shift(hundreds of years) to even be able to be attempted.

I'm pretty sure we were.

Asking a bunch of questions isn't an argument.

The questions are poking holes in your ancap bullshittery. You clearly can't answer me, so I'll accept your concession of defeat.

This is actually a very valid point that you just danced around.

Your stance seems to be that the animating spirit of the volk grants the authority of the state to use violence and only the worthy can wield it like mjolnr.

His point eschews all magical thinking and asks you to reduce the problem to a question of logic and ethics.

For bonus points don't use the words "nature of man" or "greater good" in your answer. Assume I don't have any idea what those things mean. because I don't

How does ancap not inevitably lead to monopolies sprawling and occupying market niches to the point where they completely dominate their sector, and from there work towards using their power and ressources to further their domination and influence.

Basically, I think ancap inevitably leads to some form of totalitarian government at the hands of whichever corporation/company manages to outcompete first their market niche, and than everyone else.

Stop being disingenuous. I never implied anything to do with an "animating spirit of the volk" or "worthiness" or what you would call "magical thinking". My argument was based purely on the evolution of humans and how societies form, and the natural function of the state in said societies. My argument was based purely on logic alone.
Well this is an idiotic stance to take. How does one argue the merits and vilidity of certains structures of society and the state without taking into account human nature and what that implies?

where have alllll the good threads goneeee

Natural monopoly is a myth, not only is it not an economically sound theory because it ignores the entirely dynamic role of competition when there are no artificial barriers to entry and assumes one firm being dominant for a time is a monopoly. In addition, the idea is completely ahistorical, Standard Oil was already losing to foreign competition when it was nationalized under the anti-trust act, and the combined revenue and dominance of the oil oligopy that resulted from Standard being split into Chevron, BP, etc. ended up creating a state protected oligopy of big oil interests, backfiring completely. Most of the examples of early monopolies also had dozens of competitors. The closest thing to a "monopoly" in a free market is invention because it pioneers completely new markets that the inventor/entrepreneur has control over for a time, an example of this is Henry Ford, who dominated automobiles for a while until his competitors caught up with his technology and took market share. The most lucrative reward in a free market therefore goes to inventors, and rewarding invention, even with billions upon billions of dollars is completely just because it the fortune of true innovators is completely dwarfed by the benefit they give to society in their innovation. In addition, very large companies inevitably suffer from diseconomy of scale as much as economy of scale, they cannot adapt to consumer demand on short notice when they have so much productive capital to restructure to do so and minor miscalculations create enormous losses as economic calculation becomes increasingly difficult, this is what gives smaller businesses an advantage over megacorps, small entrepreneurs can adapt very dynamically to consumer demand and sweep up big chunks of market share rather drastically, which gives them a good competitive edge over bigger competitors.
mises.org/library/myth-natural-monopoly
analyseeconomique.wordpress.com/2012/08/04/murray-rothbard-monopoly-cartel-and-size-of-the-firm/

>>>Holla Forums

Classic shit response, would I turn it to you in today's situation you'd get even more troubling picture.

How much shit you eat? What if government is corrupt? What if people don't care to fight? What if you want to save them regardless? What if you suck? What if you can't respond properly? Who ensures that you do? What if your uncle accidently drives over the president? What is the meaning of life? How do you ensure that dumb proles don't rise up?

It has the same issues anything using Marxist terminology, and Capitalist is a word that Mr Marx popularised.

What Holla Forums does not realize is that a true ancap society systematically selects for extreme K-strategist humans, it is anathema to any r-strategist humans which is the root of nearly all leftism. The selective pressures would gradually physically remove undesirables. Also, equating ancap/libertarian to open borders is a fallacy, if all land was privately owned association or integration would be voluntary, borders under state control instead of being defined as the boundaries of private property inevitably cause forced integration and mass immigration.

Evolution is a biological process, not a philosophy or argument for anything. Evolution gave us jerking off, which is what you're doing when you accuse me of disingenuity.

The reason you balk at the idea that abstraction and ideology is less valuable than real people is because you seem to base your interpretation of reality on those abstractions.

That spits in the face of my peoples values of philosophy and science and bothers me greatly.

No m8, Holla Forums understands perfectly. Your garbage is the same as communism which requires the entire world to follow you or you will fail/get wiped out.

Funny how it was Teddy Roosevelt who put in regulations to bust monopolies.
The kikes at mises conveniently ignore that. As always.

lefties are not capitalist dude

Anarchy is survival of the fittest. OP you would not survive.

Anarchism in any form is usually babby's first political ideology. Until you realize that by removing completely the state, you're stuck having to fight for survival constantly which will stagnate human evolution and technical progress, if not outright regress it. A structure is a necessary evil if you're to develop large-scale projects. Also, the NAP is a fucking joke because it's not enforceable if there is no state.

As overbloated the state is currently, it'll have to get far worse to the point people will revolt and remove every form of parasites before we can even consider going back to a minimalist state. Otherwise we'll end up with the same mess on our hands.

Which completely backfired, turning the declining Standard Oil company into an oligarchy of state-protected business interests under nationalization. Not to mention the de-facto monopolies of the patent system, which suppress innovation and enforce exclusive production privilege on any new products. How does Teddy Roosevelt's Anti-trust platform contradict the fact that natural monopoly is a myth? Anti-trust legislation is anti-trust in name only, just like "free trade" "Freedom act" "common sense gun laws" and other legislation misnomers.

...

Perennial D&C slider.

Ancaps for the most part have avoided the pozzing of the fucking commie 'left-libertarians,' but it's not really important at the moment.

interesting. you convinced me and won me over user. thanks. i'm even screencapping my and your post because i think there's a lot of value in your reply.

didn't think that there are some genuinely smart people on Holla Forums lol

I'm an ancap.

No I do not think that anarcho-capitalism will be realized in my lifetime.
No I do not strive for anarcho-capitalism, at least not in a "straight path" and direct path.

I like Anarcho-Capitalism and a "perfect libertarian goverment" basically equally.

And …. I think many Holla Forumsacks are low-iq rabble, especially the ones who don't even understand basic libertarian arguments.
I like those who can at least mentally comprehend them, but too many people here came to Holla Forums before its libertarian days and making them meme-sprouting retards with any kind of thought drowned out in their hugbox of ever increasing authoritarianism and basic nationalistic phrases.

Basically the current refugee situation and similar events made Holla Forums overall much more retarded.

We no longer talk about the Central Bank, inflation and deflation, most people here probably don't even know about the broken window fallacy and fell probably victim to it.

Just a daily fucking reminder that if you get rid of the welfare state, you fix the refugee situation instantly.

Oh and taxation is theft.

Just morons believes in anarchy.

Seriously you think you got a chance against China because of your little collective.

not an argument and ad hominem

not an argument and gramatically incorrect

not an argument

not an argument

not an argument

not an argument

not an argument and we aren't a little collective

Stefan Molyneux would HANG you for using this kind of sophistry. The last thing you're going to hear as your neck snaps is: "NOT AN ARGUMENT" as humanity will ulimatively DEFOO you.

pic related is me putting you into custody

No you don't. You are going to solve the unemployement-crisis either because of your precious capitalism is not loyal to the people and companies aren't existing and living by the moral code of doing what's best for the people, instead it's earning the most money.

Money is god and therefore they either going to continue outsourcing their factories to third world shitholes where the employees are cheaper. Or they are still going to let immigrants in because there are economic interests in wanting them here, competing for jobs and lowering the wages and living standards so that they can earn more money with less expense.

And most of these are kikes btw.

No you're wrong. What your opinions or for that matter ideology have nothing to do with how smart you are. Just dumb people decides to define themselves and their opinions around a pre-defined ideology, get your own opinions.

What demands intellect and especially honesty is questioning set rules and the "morally right" way of thinking. /Pol has an overabundance of people like that.

However i personally could do without the massive hate for different white people. I think most are d&c's, but still joining in on hating either germans, brits, burgers, swedes, slavs or whatever is just illogical and a wrong assesment of the current situation all over the western world. We're all in the shit together, in different ways and depth.

Fact of the matter is that we're going to lose control over our countries within our life-period if something is not done. How do you solve this with your precious an-capitalism?

no

The fact you think so highly of yourself and admit it publicly is proof you're most likely not that smart.

Not everything revolves around money, you fucking kike. Every central banks needs to go, we don't need to repeat that 20 times a week.

Anarchists are morons. Simple. Don't care about breaking the rules. Like you have to make arguments for bronies aren't completely retarded. It's lowering yourself and just a waste of everybodies time by argumenting that, when it's just that simple, they are retarded. Just like anarchists is, because it's not going to work like that, ever. Society isn't going to revert into some small collectives where you help your fellow friends or whatever out. It's just another stupid fucking ideology which distracts people from what's really happening, while they are argumenting over their differences in opinion, someone else is holding and extracting the power.

Understand, ideologies are ultimately the ultimate Divide and Conquer-tactic in the nation. You have people ready to fight eachother because of it. It's fucking stupid but effective. Especially because of the ideological differences and whatnot is "blaha". It's pure imaginary bullshit.

Democracy is a lie. And instead of being a united people, we are at eachothers throats because of made up ways of how a society should work.

P.S.
Molyneux can suck a dick. Fucking E-celeb-faggotry-cancer.

I like you.

take your meds you idiot
we're not out to get you

Because you want to associate with non-violent people, who will push you outside of society, if you say crazy shit like that with the intention to act on it.

lol

You know nothing, Jon Snu.

stupid stormweenie

Completly retarded

I

You realize that your neighbours can just randomely choose to kill and sodomize your butthole, right? Your precious state won't save you from that.

Stupid leftist nonsense just like communism.

You can't be this dumb. Going to prison for life is obviously a huge disincentive for this. In anarchism there is no disincentive. I just pay off your private security firm under the table to allow me to rape and murder you and then everything is fine. The security firm would probably even benefit further through some insurance they would have set up.

And the world has been constantly at war since nuclear weapons have existed.

Broken window fallacy is not even really a fallacy. Calling it a fallacy is itself the true fallacy because it assumes that people care about the economy as a whole rather than specific sectors of it and it assumes that having a "good economy" on a universal level is desirable. Neither is necessarily true. Same fallacy behind free trade.

Anarcho-Capitalism is a white idea. Muslims, Hinus, Japanese - they'd never invent it. Therefore it comes from white culture. When there is no state and aristocracy to enforce culture, people atomize and culture decays. Besides being an impossible thing to implement, if a genie granted us one wish and magically made it so, it would still not work out. Through a few generations, without a legislative body, a government to standardize expression of our white culture, people would lose this culture and white people would become no better than any other races. Dysgenics and degeneracy would prevail. Much like how people today flock to ISIS because they lack a strong reason for life, an-cap would be sabotaged by bitter and resentful populous.

To paraphrise Dostoyevsky - If man, flawed as he is in this earthly state was transported to heaven, he'd praise it for five minutes before taking the apple out of boredom. Even if it wasn't an impossible pipe dream no more different from other inane ideological ideas - for example, if men didn't fought there'd be no war! - it's still an idea that doesn't perpetuate itself. It's a result of culture it doesn't carry over, merely express. And if you don't recreate, but only signal the final product, it's unsustainable. Also, this pic is completely right.

Incorrect. It is a Jewish idea.

I just hate stupid people.

lol

voluntarism isn't a ideology, it's a philosphy

the philosphy of: "like how in real life I won't rape, steal or murder from you, I won't support special humans who are above those rules".

bluepill alarm

hilarious, because you can totally buy off the neighbourhood watch and all the friends and family of the victim

not the world that matters

???

I am. I just want to discuss with you and society about solutions which doesn't require theft, rape or murder :3

Stop welfare payments.

wow, the meme has manifested itself

JACK! JACK, the meme has taken over the body of a Holla Forumsack! We have to help this poor soul. It's consuming him!

Stupid leftist nonsense like National Socialism.

Evolution determines human behaviour, meaning it determines how human societies organise themselves, you defective little nigger. Only an idiot would consider irrelevant in this argument
Although I'm sure you thought that was a clever little jab, it's still not an argument.
No. I base my interpretation of reality on human nature and historic precedent. Not fancy little ideas pedaled by teenage redditors with more holes than swiss cheese.
Jesus Christ. How pretentious. You think I give a shit about your feelings or what "bothers" you? My arguments are not here to make you feel comfortable

Now how about you start arguing any time, or shut the fuck up.

Radical individualism works both for Jews and Anglo-Saxons, sou you're kind of right.

Not very likely, and that wouldn't matter anyway because these people have no power over the Justice system.

Yeah, the world that matters too. USA has been in almost nonstop wars since WWII.

I want people to like the idea of violence enough to be OK with using it against democrats and commies, so to speak. But seriously, the NAP I can't ever see working as anything but just that, a principle. If I hit you with a wrench in the head and then you hit me, the aggressor probably will win. Others won't want to associate with me but only if there's proof and maybe I can be subtle about it, planting evidence and bribing the right people until everybody believes you were the aggressor.

It doesn't "work" for anyone because it isn't possible. It only works as a way for Jews to get goyim bogged down in stupid nonsensical ideologies.

Well how about you answer the fucking questions, you deflecting little shit.
What?
Corruption is indeed a potential problem, but it's not impossible to minimize/avoid. Make corruption punishable by death and parade corrupt officials in the public for all to spit on, have strict checks and balances in the government, give the people the right to keep and bear arms, etc. There are means by witch corruption can be minimised. A corrupt government is still orders of magnitude more favourable than no government at all. If we accept that human nature leads to potential corruption, then we must also accept everything else that comes along with the human nature, which clearly makes anarchy an idiotic pipe dream.
What do you mean by this? As in fight for the armed forces? You should be more clear?
And here comes the bullshit false equivalencies. If you can't even provide me with answers to the simple questions I posed, then clearly your ideology is trash and should be discarded.
Well for one, don't create an underclass of proles. The State has a responsibility to its citizens to keep them well educated and healthy. The state also holds the monopoly on force, so if any proles attempt an uprising, it will be put down.

No, you don't understand. The way people live and think in Jewish and Anglo-Saxon communities already is radically individualistic from everyone else. I'm not talking merely about muh ancap or lolgergism.

Empire is going to Empire, your point?

All those war have one thing in common, they are all wars thought outside the United States.

Amazing I have to say that…

likely is not an argument

that is also not an argument and not true

Sure, you can construct such scenarios like this. But murder rate has a very very high solvement rate.

show me an example of this happening in real life and being pulled off succesfully enough during the murder event (can be busted later, since you have to show me proof)

What you people believe is anarcho-capitalism is hilarious. You just need to compare it to the status-quo and you wouldn't say stupid shit like bribing people or something like that.

Anarchy would never work, because remember that civilization falls apart the moment you run out of toilet paper.

You're losing sight of the point because I made a dumb example for the sake of effect, I think. I don't think it's particularly edgy to say that justice doesn't work the same way for everyone right now. The mafia used to have cops on payroll and if some evidence got lost, it got lost. Society wouldn't fall in an ancap world, but the institutions that are corruptible now are probably about as corruptible there.

But I'm making things confusing again. The point I was trying to make before is that you don't need to respect the NAP to succeed, simply make others believe that you're respecting it. I don't expect in an area where there's a competition for important resources that people will play fair. There may be sabotage and a third party be blamed. You could say that with the current rules things aren't better now and you wouldn't be wrong, but I don't see what the NAP solves in practice when the stakes are high.

The latter, if not more stupid

Edgy.

I hope I never end up on an island with you. I made this example with another Holla Forumsack (actually a nazi) before, who said he would kill me if he didn't like me or rape me, if he was horny.

Sure very moral.

But you have competition and no special rules for rulers.

Also competition. Like holy shit, you end up in prison or get shot if you tried to live seperate of goverment.

You know what pisses me off?
People who don't like the concept of not enforcing an organized structure of force, always say "b-but what if" "how will that happen" "UNREALISTIC IMPOSSIBLE"

Well duh, it's impossible, since if we tried it, people would use force on us.

Hur dur, go rot in the desert or at the bottom of the ocean or in anatarctica.

Yeah….

Can you at least relate to the last point? I would like you if you were actually able to do that.

Yes it would. It would undoubtedly collapse

Let us try without killing us please? :3

fuck off back to Reddit for Christ's sake, you cringey little shit.

Huh, I expected the "kill yourself faggot" line.

I wouldn't be like that personally, but I assume somebody would. I don't even trust my mailman,

I don't hate AnCaps, I would probably even actively help you if something started rolling. I have some problems with it, but I see it as mostly positive. It's the faith in the NAP that usually triggers me.

Comforting to know.

nice

How? It's exactly how you (I hope) already act in your everyday life.

Just don't steal, murder or rape people and you won't break the NAP.

Can you tell me what your probelm with it is?

So you are a fucking Redditor. Get the hell out of here.

And stop being a fucking namefag. This site is anonymous for a reason. We don't need any attention whoring cunts from Reddit shitting up this place

NSA is going to get all of you. Resistance is futile.

kek, hilarious

I am also a jewish transnigger with a penis and a vagina.

You're not good at this. Stop trying

Also, if you think your name is witty or clever, it's not. It's cringeworthy and just outs yourself as the special-snowflake autist you are.

...

This is the reason we don't want little faggots like you. You turn this place into a total cancerous shitshow of self-important namefags. And the smug arrogance you cunts bring is also incredibly insufferable.

Anarchism is mysticism for materialists.
Ancap is monotheism for materialists.

thanks for your feedback

Following it isn't the problem. it's expecting that most people would be honorable that doesn't add up to me. Even if we would be better if we did. Dindus are much better served paying attention in school than slinging dope, but a lot will do just the opposite. I think aggression is something more general than just not being a criminal, in a moral sense. Like someone spreading rumors about another dude at work because they see him as a threat. I don't know, the NAP sounds a lot to me like people that say "if I'm a good person, karma will reward me". It doesn't necessarily work that way and my experience with humans says that people will take risks that will screw over others as long as the potential payout for them looks juicy enough. Risk/reward or the well being of society doesn't matter that much because it's not a rational decision, just greed.

Why do you people have to be so insufferable? why do you have to ruin every community your stick your grubby little fingers in? why can't you just stay on your shitty containment site?

I don't follow. How is that different from today?

I don't understand that sentence.

Bro, Anarcho-Capitlaism isn't a system. Stop thinking of it that way. It's a philosophy.
The philosophy of instead of using force to fix social problem, it actually is open to discussion in the free market (place of ideas).

No a one size fit all.

You and me and others will ahve to work for it. Anarcho-Capitalism is the foundation, the very bare-bones.
Atheists are only atheists, because they don't believe in god. Anarcho-Capitalists are only ancaps, because we don't believe in a special species of human being who can get away with murder, theft, slavery and kidnapping.

What do you think about that? Did it make you see things differently?

Cracker, please

Fucking kikes, am I rite?

GAS THE KIKES RACE WAR NOW

that's not what I asked, you nigger

I am not a nigger. Please apologize.

Nature abhors a vacuum.

ctrl-f summer
0 results
Come the fuck on guys.

Why don't you stop trying to be funny?

We would be better served if we all honored the NAP (which exists in some way already for interpersonal relationships as a principle even if it's unwritten) but not everybody follows it

I'm not sure. I don't think I disagree, I'm aware that different ancap societies can end being managed in very different ways and have different societal rules. But I'm lost about what's the point here. You want to be surrounded by people that will respect the NAP and that's the thing, I don't see guarantees of that. I It's 5 AM and Brexit has kept me up until now, maybe I'm just missing something.

But I gotta find a way to keep you otherwise interested then. Any ideas?

Sounds to me like you are already talking strategy.
Like how do we get to that point or make it function despite that.

People need to stop confusing it for libertarianism? I don't know, anarcho[anything] is predicated on the concept that people aren't evil deep down, and that an unorganized mob can compete with an organized military. In other words it's a trash "growing up" philosophy for college kids.

Hilarious.

So you want to give evil people actually the power of legal theft, legal kidnapping and legal murder? And you call us naive for "trusting" evil people.

Let's compare my ancap city with your goverment status quo.
Okay so your rulers would put us in prison for living life as we want, that my excuse as to why we don't have an ancap society anywhere on earth.

Let's look at your beloved statist society.
Oh. Congress has 5% or something approval rating. Politicans are generally regarded as evil power hungry psychopaths and … you let them rule you.

Who is the naive one now, slave?

Also nice ad hominem and not an argument, not an argument, not an argument, not an argument ….

What is there to answer? You made it sound as if civilization is organized by the State. That's nonsense. The State arises out of the people, it doesn't create anything. The State is a net loss and is ALWAYS the enemy of the people. The relationship between the people and the State may at one point be cordial, but that soon deteriorates with every passing year.

Again, you never made an argument to counter. You just asked stupid questions because you still believe too much about what you learned in your State sponsored school. You're an idiot.

Nigger, Libertarianism doesn't give a shit if you're evil or not. It doesn't assume either way because it doesn't give a shit if you kill perceived aggressors.

Yay, someone else here who is sane.
Hey bro, sup?

The reason why there isn't an ancap society anywhere is because you would get turbofucked the moment you formed one.
You have two options of turbofucking:
A) Internal forces such as warlords will organize gangs and take advantage of local lack of resistance to grow and grow until they have a monopoly on violence.
B) External forces such as STATES turn their ever greedy eyes towards this pristine region under anarchy and fucking steamroll it without mercy for slaves and resources.
Pick up a history book, this has been the path of human society since the caveman days.

Humans need to organize to accomplish anything worthwhile, or just to survive. And even simple organizations like families need to have authority figures and monopolies on force to function. You might shy from calling it a state but it has all the elements.

So you're a faggot? See I can do it too.

A strawman is not an argument, not an argument, not an argument, not an argument, not an argument…. grow the fuck up.

I'm not really into the whole ancap thing because I think Rothbard was too much of an autist and I can't tell how much of his Jewishness he put into his ideology. I do remember a quote from him, can't remember if it was a lecture or in one of his writings, where he mentions how his end goal and Marx's end goal aren't that different. They mostly just disagree on how to bring about the end of the State.

Learn to read.

Organizing and forming States are not the same fucking thing. Also, I think the world is much safer under a million warlords than super powerful States. Why? it's much easier to kill a warlord.

I think we all know that Monarchy is the best m8ey. We just have to redpill the neetsocs on this bard.

Define a state.

Actually never mind I don't want to hear an answer from a retarded child that thinks warlordism is not going to lead to a unitary superstate.

We shouldn't have anarchy of tyranny and we shouldn't have capitalism (in its current form) or communism.

The middle path is the best.

*or tyranny

not an argument

not an argument

not an argument and probably not true in the way you think

Exactly. So just give us a like a 5km2 big place in a habitable area and don't kidnap us if we don't pay taxes of conform to regulation.

It's not a strawman.
Having goverment = being okay with a seperate group of species having the legal power to steal, kill and kidnap you

equating organizing with violence and aggression, but not using the words violence and force

sure smells like a big pile of sophistry in here, you sophist

^

an organized group of thieves, murderers and kidnappers who convinced people that they are a special breed of humans who are allowed to do that

also often coincidenntally manage to make a large portion of the population buy into this slave morality

rationalwiki.org/wiki/Balance_fallacy

Civilisation IS organised by the state. That's how civilisations arise and survive. The state maintains order and allows the civilisation to flourish.
Define "create" in this context. The state arises out of the people as a means of organising, structuring, and maintaining a civilisation. A state is a natural function of any healthy human society. Just because states have the potential to be used for harm does not negate the necessity of the state in the first place.
Bullshit. You give me no reason to accept this idiotic assertion. You just claim it and pretend it's fact.
This is a blatant slippery slope fallacy. "A MAY lead to B therefore A should not exist in any capacity." is not a valid argument. You aren't making an argument against the state as an organ of human society at this point, you're making a statement about how the state can deteriorate. This argument would be better suited for supporting the existence of checks and balances and anti-corruption measures within the function of the state, not the abolishment of the state entirely.
Counter what? This whole exchange started with me asking very BASIC questions about how exactly your anarchist utopia would function and from where exactly everybody would acquire their weapons, all of which you have pussyfooted around and refused to answer. I'm still waiting.
This is not an argument, you sub-70 iq nigger. These questions are perfectly valid in every possible way imaginable. You clearly don't like them because they showcase the complete idiocy of your kiddy ideology. Asserting I'm "brainwashed" by the "evil state schools" is an easy cop-out for intellectually dishonest buffoons such as yourself who refuse to engage in genuine debate, but it doesn't make your side of the argument any more valid. You sound like those idiot tinfoilers who claim that anyone who disagrees with them is brainwashed therefore they're right. You're not presenting any arguments whatsoever.
Ironic coming from some tard who's failed to provide anything resembling a concrete argument this entire thread. Congratulations on making a fool of yourself

Why don't you stop dancing around these questions like the disingenuous faggot you are and actually answer them. If your ideology is so rock-solid and your anarchist utopia actually possible, you should have no problem.

I'm not saying that it is always true you autist. I'm saying that in this case there should be a balance in the sense that as many people as possible should own the means of production but they should be supervised by a monarch to prevent the formation of monopolies and plutocracies.

Byzantism is the answer.

behold. The intellectual caliber of a teenage Redditor

what a fucking retard you are.

business, family, charity and private clubs are not the state

Instantly BTFO

(omg how will he ever recover?)

then when is it true?
not an arguemnt

what case? not an argument

Okay sure, nice idea, but don't steal from me or rape me to realize it.

again nice idea, but I won't give my consent like you want to do, to give that monarch the power to buttfuck me

I just complimented him? Where's the big deal?

I literally just googled fallacy of the golden middle and picked a random result.

But thank you. You made me realize something. I very often get fucked on for the names of certain sources, by both you guys and lefties I argue with. So I guess I should just link them "let me google that for you" links instead.

I am getting tired that people always give me crap for just the name of the website I am linking to and not the actual contents of my arguments.

^ that too is a fallacy btw

When both the extremes are wrong and the most beneficial way is somewhere between them.

In the case of economics

In what sense do you own something? Either you enforce your ownership or the government enforces your ownership. If the government changes taxation and you disagree you better get ready to fight m8.

If the Monarch tries to buttfuck the commons and lords join forces and fuck him over.

And what do you think creates the law and order required to maintain these aspects of our society? What do you think ensures that the nation in which these all function is safe from threats from within and without? What do you think ensures the safety of both the property and livelihoods of the people who use it? You clearly didn't think any of this shit through. You're a naive child who seems to be under the impression that any of these things can function without the frameworks of an advanced state upholding them.

All of the shit you've listed doesn't even begin to encompass what constitutes a whole civilisation. I sure hope no one can be as fucking retarded as you.
Maybe one would think this if they lacked most of their brain matter such as yourself.
Nah. You showcased your arrogant self-importance when you implied that anyone who agrees with you is "sane" while everyone who doesn't is an idiot. Too bad for you we don't have those godawful upvotes on Holla Forums like you cunts have on reddit.
We're giving you shit because the content of your argument is also trash, not just because you linked a shit source.

Since when has anyone needed the consent of a powerless individual such as yourself in matters pertaining to government? Such a monarchy could simply ignore your lack of consent and nothing will come of it. Your consent is irrelevant when you do not have the monopoly on force.

Ancap is retarded. It doesn't matter that it's logical and based in principles because we aren't located in a philosopher's brain (only place where the world of ideals exists). It is what happens when logic is applied with minimal practical observations. If it was actually implemented somewhere it would eventually fail and you'd have autists going "If only it was done right…".

Why would it fail? Because without a state run military and police combined with open borders and (at least they think) prosperity it would be like a bag of loot in a dungeon without anyone guarding it. If it managed to actually prosper I'd go there with my friends to stock up on loot. No government so they can't issue a warrant for me and I'd go back home with bloodstained hands and there's be nothing they could do about it.

A good system would start by looking into the past and evolution (applied to societal norms), apply logic to it and analyse (without applying an ideology on your analysis) and then apply a few logical principles to it in order to improve it, while leaving most of it intact. Why are all societies (in places where societies interact) patriarchies? Because if a society wasn't one it was killed off and absorbed by their neighbours (or the process of killing it off started at which point they adapted by becoming patriarchies).

Which societies practice stuff like "slut shaming" and "oppression of women"? Only the ones that figured out where babies come from. The societies like a few of the matriarchies of South America believe the kid is the product of all the men who fuck the chick while in fact it's usually just the lucky one or a few guys who cuck the rest of the tribe. Everyone takes care of the chick's kids without knowing who is the father. No wonder the feminists worship such societies and put on matriarchy glasses when they analyse our own past.

Sociological experiments should be done in a "lab", they shouldn't be imposed on all people. If you think an open society can work, you can get a city to volunteer and monitor their rape rates and if people run away from it like it was a sinking ship (like London) and apply that knowledge to prevent your whole society to take the open route.

you haven't shown us WHY they are wrong

and you are using sophistry, because you paint 2 extreme positions as EXTREMES on different sides and your moderate position as INBETWEEN them

again fallacy golden middle + sophistry

you mean state economy? the rights and prosperity of the individual? or what?

I own my body. Only I can control it (unless we take a bad end somewhere in technological progression next few centuries). I own my body.
Because I own my body I, I also own the things that I work for and do with my body.

I am not hurting other people when trading the fruits of my labor.

Thanks, but I don't want to get put in a cage for making a political point and get made fun of by the masses for being a crazy nutcase.

No. There are other alternatives. Like a group of likeminded people recognizing each other's owenership.

No he will just bribe the lords. :^)

You are arguing from the perspective of someone who wants to implement it. So the jest is that you have to convince me to give up my freedom to live under your monarchy, because I want freedom not monarchy.

Imagine all citizens of your monarchy being replaced by insane junky lunatics.

Oh wait, there won't be a state or society anymore. Society regulates itself.

WHY? NOT A FUCKING ARGUMENT! Holy shit, why do I have to use this meme still?

I am not saying you cannot have this organisation structure you want. But It shouldn't iniate force.

You are getting hung up on semantics, because you want to call it state, goverment and a monarchy, but I won't let you. All the functions you want from these can still be performed without force.

ad hominem, not an argument, you sophist

again just the insults and not an argument in sight, I just wanted to say something nice to him, your insistence on focusing on a non-argument on my part just proves that you cannot win with arguments, but want to use your sophistry

sophistry alarm!

NOPE YOU DIDN'T! You actually only attacked the name of the website. Pure sophistry and even trying to gaslight me!

I didn't even once insult you and you do it in almost every sentence.

What bothers me about that is only the amount of ad hominems and "not an arguments" I have to point out to you in the sisyphus-like determination that you will actually listen to what I am saying and not go right back at me with some fresh insults and old kinds of sophistry.

Honestly, there should never have been a dissolution/suppression of monasteries in Britain and Russia. They provided a lot of economic benefit as well as helping to stabilize rampant population growth.

I disagree.

The only thing you stabalized was the population growth of high iq people.

Protestantism in that aspect in letting smarter people who happen to be in the clergy breed, was a civilization lifesaver.

Too bad Holla Forums in their practicality rather want to deus vult and shut off their practical minded brain in relation to that.
Oh well. As you see in this thread, I am accustomed to Holla Forums's insults.

Capitalism (in the current sense) is wrong because the means of production become concentrated under a small group of plutocrats who co-opt the State. Communism is wrong because people are not free to produce what they want and the State completely controls the means of production (even more centralized than capitalism).

I think it has been clearly displayed in the failure of the experiments in communism in the East and capitalism in the West.

I mean both. The individual should own the means of production and be able to cooperate with others (eg. guilds, cooperatives, corporations, credit unions etc.) but the State and Church should benefit everyone by providing some public services as well as organizing the people in times of war.

The state protects your ownership of your body. If you are enslaved you may be able to take your own life but other than that you have no real ownership over your body (of course your Soul cannot be stolen from you).

You just formed a state.

Only if all the lords are short sighted retards

The Clergy also breed in Orthodoxy. One of my great-grandfathers was an Arch-priest. As for monasticism it has always helped in producing culture and creating highly spiritual individuals who benefit the community and the state by creating national myths and heroes to unify the people.

Are you familiar with monastic colonization in Russia? Ascetics would leave for the wilderness and attain a high spiritual level. Eventually novice monks would follow to receive instruction and a small monastery would be established. Finally, peasants would construct a town outside the monastery and the process would start again.

It was an interesting phenomenon and very good for the growth of Russia.

Man does not need law to guide his morals. The lesser animals do. Jesus fucking Christ this retard.

And whether you want it or not is irrelevant if someone has the force and power to impose it over you. In your anarchist wonderland, you can bet your ass that there will always be a guy with a bigger gun.
What an idiotic thought experiment. I refuse to even entertain it because it would never happen ever. That's like me saying to you "imagine your car's engine was made out of spaghetti! That car wouldn't run so good, would it?"
What the fuck are you talking about? Societies form states which regulate said society. States are an integral function of any society.
You have to keep using it because you yourself cannot provide any arguments in the first place, and you want to give off an aura of intellectualism. The burden of proof lies on your shoulders to explain to me how exactly any of these great aspects of society would even function without a state to reinforce law and order, insure property rights are protected, and insure the safety and wellbeing of the populace is upheld (something you consistently refuse to do).
What? Why not? The state needs a monopoly on force or else others with greater force will overthrow that state and impose their own will. The threat of violence keeps society ordered and those who wish to cause harm subdued. Without that threat of violence, opportunists and those hungry for power will decide that they want control and will take what they want unhindered, because the state mechanisms designed to prevent them will have been disarmed
No I'm not. You don't even know what you're talking about
first of all, I never advocated Monarchy,
I don't give a shit what you "let me" to do. This has no relevance to the argument. I'll call it what it is, and that's the "state", and what you think you "let me" do has no bearing on this fact.
History proves otherwise. The only reason these other functions of society are able to conduct themselves without force is because they have delegated the responsibility of force to the state which maintains law and order so they don't have to. This is basic shit that any highschooler should understand. You seem to have been left behind at some point.
That wasn't an argument I was responding to, you meme-spouting faggot.
Again, there was no argument to respond to so stop pretending I had anything to refute. You asked me "where's the big deal" and I told you. You're a pretentious self-important redditor and you're incredibly insufferable to argue with.
Because you deserve it.
You just point out "not an arguments" to things that were never intended to be arguments in the first place, and which were not even responses to arguments you made. I haven't seen you make a single argument in favour of ancap in any genuine capacity this argument. You're just meme-spouting and dodging arguments to posture your own shallow ego. It's incredibly transparent that you have nothing to support your shit-tier ideology with, so why are you even trying

Yep. Moralism is not morality. Morals must be personal and lived, not implemented by the state.

I wasn't making an argument.

I never said law guided peoples morals, you illiterate faggot. I said that the state is necessary to maintain law and order and insure many basic aspects of any healthy society. The state exists to protect moral individuals from immoral ones who wish to cause harm. If you remove the state, you enable the immoral individuals to undermine the society.

You brought "order" into it. Order is brought about by principles and morals, not law. Law has never created order.

okay, but not relevant to ancaps

Why do you care about that? Any kind of principle about freedom I could tickle out of you?

That is mutually exclusive.
Let's say the state puts up a 10% tax. You don't own the fruits of your labor fully, only 90% of it.

Not true. Absent from force I own my own body. Prove me wrong.
And if you affirm that, then you prove me right and show that it's force which comprimises ownership of your body.

Does it though? I cannot jack myself off and sell 10 litres of my own sperm without having to pay taxes.

Granted silly example, but you get what I mean.

You are getting hung up on semantics, because you want to call it state, goverment and a monarchy, but I won't let you. All the functions you want from these can still be performed without force.

A state is the geographical and perceived to be the only legitimate monopoly of force.

I fail to see how my friends and I form a state if they agree to not use violence against me.
An anti-state maybe :^)

I don't know much about that, buit I always like to learn more.

Sophists, when do they learn?

Trick question ofc! They never learn, because they rather be a sophist and only want to be perceived to win an argument, not to actually have a discussion with someone.

Not at all. Law and force creates order. It doesn't matter how moral or principled the majority are, if there is a presence of oppositely immoral and unprincipled persons who wish to cause harm, order will be lost to anarchy and violence until a new order has been installed by a new state which holds the monopoly on force.

Your laws won't matter if they are only hold up in nomine and everyone ignores them.

Law does not create order, force just rearranges things. Principles and morals create order. The State arises out of this order and then is corrupted because it is merely a tool of force. It ceases being a representative of order and instead becomes that which promotes disorder because force cannot create order.

...

Lets say a warlord comes and plunders all your stuff and takes your wife as a sex slave. Now you own 0% of your labor.

Force also maintains ownership. What point are you trying to make?

How so? I won't argue against this without a clearer understanding of your position.

If one of your friends changes their mind and uses violence against you won't your other friends come to your aid? In this case, the rights of the individual are protected by the group and not the individual hence a state/polis exists.

Please nigger shut up. The State can kill you , imprison you, or confiscate all your shit on the whims of a nameless bureaucrat.

Law creates the foundation for Order to exist but it is not Order itself. Order is founded on Absolute Truth which does not change.

Thats why I support a Monarchy and Aristocracy over a republic. The person who tries to take your stuff is out in the open.

translation: I have no argument whatsoever and I was BTFO hard so I'm now trying to come up with a clever way to avoid having to refute anything

Very transparent, ancap kiddy. Go back to circlekjerking in /r/anarchocapitalism and let the big boys have actual debates.

what's your point? Not everyone needs to reject laws in order to cause disorder and chaos in society. The point of laws and the state's monopoly on force is to prevent the very people who reject law and order from causing any harm to society at large. Like I said, the state exists to protect moral people from immoral ones who wish to cause harm.
Wrong. Force creates order by removing elements in society that wish to cause disorder. Without the state, disorder would ensue.
Wrong. Principles and morals define what type of order exists, but force creates and maintains that order.
Wrong. The state arises out of chaos to bring order to an otherwise disorderly world.
Wrong. The function of the state has no bearing on why it is corrupted. It does not become corrupted because it is a tool of force, it becomes corrupted due to subversion by unprincipled and opportunistic individuals. The state is no more likely to be a subject of corruption simply because of its relationship with force than any other organisation made of humans.
Yes, but not because it is a tool of force, but because it has been subverted from within and turned its original function as a constructive monopoly on force has been turned into a destructive monopoly on force. The fact that a monopoly on force exists does not make the state automatically a bad thing
Wrong. Force underlies order. Without force, only disorder can exist.

define order

I'm not operating under the definition of a cosmic order of nature, which is a topic for another discussion. I'm operating under the definition of a practical material order. The kind that is guaranteed by force.

It isn't guaranteed by force you dumbass, there is no order via force. It's a fucking illusion that breaks down over time.

Basically, this. All of the strict control mechanisms of our present societies are about limiting the harm of low IQs and poor values among populations.

/thread

well you can't seem to provide me with an argument to suggest I'm wrong.

Force has always been a prerequisite for order. Force guarantees order be removing those who wish to create disorder

Order is the alignment of hierarchies in a balanced state. The authority of the Monarch and Patriarch is legitimized by their representing the Source of all things, the Eternal Tao/Logos of Heaven (the source of logic and truth).

The authority of those beneath the Monarch and Patriarch (Aristocracy and Bishops) is legitimized by their obedience to the King and Patriarch. Mere force alone does not provide Order unless it is used in the name of God/Truth. At best it provides tyranny and at worst it provides anarchy.

Can also happen with goverment. In fact those mafia clans can even get protection from the goverment. But when I know that my goverment is corrupt I can't change it. I am not allowed to.

I can change my relationship with a security organization though.

Are you saying I am iniating force on someone for just living my life peacefully on my property?

I usually only have to deal with these kinds of arguments on Holla Forums.

Should I go further into them?

Okay. The only reason why I am an ancap or voluntarist, I prefer the latter term tbh, is because I want rules, but no rulers. No initation of violence.

I don't see how that somehow eliminates any kind of complex organization structure beyond a small group.

Interesting. I wouldn't call this a state though.

So now you actually gave me a good example for.

your question. You just proved to yourself that a state-like complex structure can exist without initation of force. Thank you, you are well on your way to be a voluntiarist. :3

then why does almost everyone agree that the most immoral people all gather in goverment?

Where are you going with this?

"the purpose of laws is to to prevent people from rejecting laws"

You are saying nothing with this. It's a self-perpetuating reasoning.

Can society only be moral if you have laws or what are you saying?

you should too tbh, because that was the only thing laws in the previous example do, hold up themselves and order, which is kinda an empty statement

It's like saying they hold up freedom, equality and prosperity for all. Kinda empty, don't you think?

muh order

tell us already, what is order and why do you think it can only be achieved with force? The way you talk, you might as well just say force is force, because you do seem to equate force with order and order with force, without giving them any distinguishing qualities

what the fuck am I reading

yes, you own a part of the limited resources on this planet while other people die because lack of resources
how do you not understand power and hierarchy?

For the last goddamn time, fuck off with your orthodox/Christianity bullshit. No matter how many times you assert it as though it's fact, it will not suddenly become true.

I doubt they could have eaten the stone, which my house is made of, but if they did and surived I would be impressed.

nice explanation :DD

the question is what that user understand under these terms, not a leftypol visitor

Btw I want to hug you all, Brexit was a sucess! After Austria's election I was expecting another loss.

even you

An archy will destroy an anarchy.

With proper Order the rulers are symbols of the rules but must also respect the rules themselves. The ruler should rule by inaction, something well presented in the Ancient Chinese tradition.

Si vis pacem, para bellum

Yes, but as soon as an external or internal force initiates force against it it must react with force. All I have described is a form of absolute democracy which is indistinguishable from anarchy and only provides a subjective and therefore unstable "order".

I'm thinking of nuclear weapons. Those states have to be MAD to attack us.

Will you tolerate me if I assert that a Hierarchy should exist under Shang-ti and the Tao of Heaven?

Or could be legitimized by Wakan Tanka?

Most traditions have an idea of this sort.

So you want to create a world of numerous Anarchist communes all with nuclear weapons?

I don't know.

But I know that even if my voluntarist country bordered the country with the biggest landarmy on the planet, it would transfort that army into "not an argument" with nukes.

Also distributed on the entire population our defensive budget would be like a few cents for the average human living there.

It is a correct equivalence. The answer to each of those questions is completely situational and up to the group. I could write an essay on each of those questions, and I'm not even AnCap.

There was no "coming of bullshit questions" on my part - they were all bullshit. An expert could write an entire essay about corruption and you or I could still poke holes in it.

So, it is not up to me what theoretical people in your theoretical situations would do. Nor do I care, since I'm not AnCap.

No that's impossible and goes against human nature.

The problem with even starting a Voluntarist country is that your people will never organise as well as statist forces and the same problem exists for "true communism". You should read up on the Russian revolution and the Black Guards and Green armies to see a practical example.

Sure, but I am not worried at all, if nuclear weapons.

If there had been nuclear weapons at that time Russia would have been a crater and nothing else by 1918.

This is a deflection and a false equivalency. You can not genuinely compare organised crime syndicates that operate below detection and involve themselves in petty bribes with full on anarchistic wardlordism unless you're a dishonest fool.
and that security organisation would become a warlord faction themselves and would probably steamroll you or kill you in order to claim territory. They wouldn't give a shit about you because law and order would be gone.

No, you idiot. That guy is saying that force ensures that no one else has the capacity to take it from you. The threat of violence from the state prevents people from deciding they want to take your property from you and kill you. No one cares whether you're initiating any force when they see that you have something that they want and there exists no state with a monopoly on force to dissuade them from taking it
So you're a naive child. Got it. Rules are meaningless without anything to enforce them, you dense fool. No one has any reason to follow any rules if there are no consequences for breaking those rules.
Because complex organizations require force to ensure that contracts are abode by, people do not commit crimes, laws are respected, people who cause disorder are put away, and the safety of all citizens is ensured. Hierarchies are natural aspects of any human community. Your egalitarian horizontal pipe dream is just naive
drivel not based in reality.
That is a perfect description of a primitive state, though. Just because you reject it does not make it untrue.
Your writing style and use of cancerous emoticons suggests you're not even out of highschool yet. I'm guessing you're some 14 year old. The state can exist without the use of physical force as long as the threat of violence exists in order to dissuade people from breaking laws and disrupting order. Without this threat of violence, i.e. the state's monopoly on force, anyone is capable of doing anything regardless without any repercussions, and the whole society collapses. Voluntarism is irrelevant when someone decides shooting you is easier than respecting "muh property rights".

immoral people are attracted to power and can corrupt a power structure. That does not make the power structure or the need for a state invalid. This is a very bad argument I've refuted multiple times.

No. The purpose of the State's monopoly on force is to prevent people from rejecting laws. The self-perpetuating reasoning applies more to ancaps like yourself who just assume laws will enforce themselves without any monopoly on force.
A moral society can only remain moral of immoral people are prevented from causing harm to that society. It won't matter if 100 people are moral upstanding individuals if 30 of them are violent and opportunistic scumbags with a lot of guns who all decide to unite into a power structure and overpower the majority.

ancaps, everyone.
Order is the arrangement of people in relation to each other according to certain laws and behaviours that allows for society to function properly and not completely degenerate into a total shitshow. Only the state with a monopoly on force can guarantee that these laws and behaviours are enforced, and remove those subversive elements that wish to undermine this order.
I'm not equating the two things. Are you illiterate? I say that order cannot exist without force, not that order=force and force=order. The difference is obvious

Will you tolerate me more if I use the naturalist example of hierarchies in the rainforest as an example of coexistence and order between different "classes"

what the hell is that?
You aren't even sure there is a heaven in the first place.
What the fuck?

are you retarded?
I could explain it to you but you don't even understand the concept of shelter and its role in survival

Yes, and my questions were in response to someone posing a specific situation, you illiterate twat. Where would these weapons and ammunition come from if there exists no state to ensure the property of the factory is protected, to ensure that roaming bandits do not torch it down, to ensure that electricity and power are supplied to the factory, to ensure that transactions and contracts are honours, to insure that property rights are respected, etc. etc. etc. Every function of society breaks down in an anarchist "utopia".

Shang-ti was the original name for the Supreme deity in Ancient Chinese monotheism although eventually this "deity" became better known as "Heaven".

The point is, we cannot provide for ourselves using logic, a foundation for logic. If there is any sort of truth in the world it can only be measured against some sort of Truth which can only be provided from something outside of ourselves i.e. by Revelation.

Thus it becomes a question of which revelation is true? Which is a theological, philosophical and historical question and not a scientific question.

Look I'm not particularly knowledgeable when it comes to philosophy but it should be fairly obvious that it comes down to there being Absolute Truth or no truth at all.

Looks like you played too much Metal Gear.

sage
sage
sage

Why? So that everything can be slid with 1000 Brexit and Trump threads?

a person living under feudalism has different human nature from people living under capitalism. the same way kids who grew up in the wild find it hard to behave like regular people do, and many of the children adopted from animals later escaped and ran back to the wild. the "human nature" argument doesnt work

Not true. Its just that under capitalism human nature is suppressed. Human beings are creative tool users. We should all try and own the means of production and produce our own wealth.

It is military grade autism surpassed only by MLP fans.

If you are interested in the history of socialist/voluntarist communes that have worked under a statist government I highly recommend reading this:

thearda.com/workingpapers/download/the economics of monasticism.pdf

bump for something non-brexit related

bump

Anarcho-capitalism is what you get when you extend a respect for liberty to its logical ends. It's something which the nazi's on this site will never understand.

What are the problems with National Socialist economics then?

Or perhaps he's wondering why you would replace an engine with spaghetti, before trying to make it run.

Pic related would like to have a conversation with you.

Law is produced by Order, not the other way around.

A republic limits is own powers through a constitution or a bill of rights, just like a constitutional monarchy and other forms of government do.

[citation needed]
The most immoral people gather wherever they can benefit from power. FIFA is a private entity and it's corrupt as fuck. The mafia families are corrupt as fuck and they organize even though they compete between each other, because organization is the best for them all. Organized warlords would replace state in an ancap world. You say force doesn't make power, I retort that unless there's someone guarding artificial, agreed upon rules (like the state), might makes right.

how will you collect those cents? sounds like a state tbh
also fallout would hit you too if you used nukes on a neighboring country

The most stable governments tend to have a mix of economic systems under them. For example, under a monarchy you might have monasteries (voluntarist/communist), public services in the form of Churches and hospitals and capitalism in the distributist sense.

Law is produced by the wish for order, and order is produced by the enforcement of law.

The enforcement of law is only possible because order already exists

lel no, chaos is the natural state. Order exists because it's enforced.

He's been an AnCap for 10 years and he's written 2 books on it. I don't think so.

Why on earth do people believe that it would work? It seems as insane as communism.

Blue-pill-alarm?

I bet you never even heard about Kevin McDonald's "Culture of Critique".

voluntarily collected lmao

idk how you can be so sure, nuclear technology didn't even exist during those times

might as well say that europe would be a giant crater because carthage had nukes

You want to talk strategy with me, but you are not an ancap.

So narcissistic. Shoving le reaction face to "validate" own "arguments". And came from leddit too.
Probably that deer poster from deutsch/pol/ too.

He would. He wouldnt. But the point is somebody would.

And everything would have been craters. Jewtin and JewSA currently are doing very well (for their masters), so thats why there is no threat of extinction.
Russia back then was a fight for survival. If the NKVD had nukes they would use it.

Well, I was pointing out how no anarchist or voluntarist forces survived in the revolution due to disorganization and then you said "muh nukes".

Did you have a look at the essay on the economics of monasticism? That at least, is a real example of voluntarist and socialist economics that benefited all of Europe. Probably not what you want though lol

thanks, I have saved it
going to read it later

you said nothing worth replying to

Your mobile phone company is now a state?

This is the fucking shit I have to deal with as an ancap.

You are a worthless piece of shit that doesnt even answer any real question, but rather running in circle dodging questions. Moneyjew has gotten wise and even he doesnt do this anymore.
He shuts his trap.

That is what you sound like.

Why don't you refute any of the points I make? Why are you such a disingenuous tard? Why do you keep repeating your bullshit after I've refuted it all.

Start arguing any time.

this user gets it.

This. I have no objection for them to go out and try it on their own. They should just remember that we will gun them down when it fails and they crawl back.

This is getting tiresome man. I swear I will petition the next Führer to let these retards go out freely and experiment, then shut the border right afterward.

Social Anarchism and anarcho-communism actually work on a small scale though. That is more interesting to talk about than his shit

Anarcho-communism works on the commune level

Sure thing. That I have never doubt. But obviously these /liberty/ and /int/ and leddit fucks want US to be da big bad nazis and do the dirty world for them to establish this global ancap society.
They dont want to just apply it in the communes level. As rational as they pretend to be they are still huge egoists and they dont want to live like hippies.

It's not taxes. It's that simple.
How do charities collect their money, I am sure you can figure that one out.

You didn't.

alright, gonna look at it later

lol, you are quite something

These are subsets of Anaracho-Capitalism though, meaning they can work within voluntarism.

Same reason why there can be firms inside anarcho-capitalism.

Oh wow, so even your semi resemblance of a
governing body cant even have a stable income.
This is hilarious. Please continue to embarrass yourself.

Actually it doesn't. Not without a power structure and enforced rules.

Communes are total trash that fail every time. They're unsustainable, inefficient, and collapse due to the tragedy of the commons and the people doing the least possible work since they know they benefit exactly the same. Not only is Ancap an idiotic system, ancom is like its autistic brother.

Yup. I've refuted your trash multiple times this thread. You just refuse to provide any sort of argument and ignore me every time I do. It's much easier to spout "MUH NOT AN ARGUMENT!!!1!" to things that weren't actually intended to be arguments instead of refuting the ACTUAL arguments I've presented.

Most monasteries are effectively voluntarist and often communist communities. It simply goes to show that all systems function best in a religious framework.

inb4 Benedictine rule. He merely codified rules that were created communally or by cooperation with spiritual elders

governing body cant even have a stable income.
Yeah, because the phone company is completly unsure about how many people actually pay the contract they agreed to.

please get some self-awareness

just open your eyes and look around and you will see countless of stable organiztation who don't use force who have a stable income

also hilarious how you go to /deutschpol/ to get some people to agree with your sophistry

on an unrelated not have you already defined order from you?

Additionally, because monasteries were voluntarist intellectuals were able to work their without fear of offending Lords or Monarchs. Literacy rates tended to be higher as monks would have communal libraries and would dedicate time to copying out books for the good of the group.

Kek
Fucking retard.

Do you know how many charities lived and died just this decades alone?

And exactly do you think what protect the existence of the community/nation and therefore these charities and businesses?
How do you think they get payed?

The current ZOGs do have a stable income. They just complain they cant fleece for more. It is a problem of infinite growth bullshit you ancap and other lolberg trashes love so much.

Why do you care what I post? You mad that you are a dirty fucking cosmopolitan reject nobody likes?

Just admit that anarchist systems can't function unless they exist as sub-systems under the umbrella of a state.

I'm not talking overall Christianity. I'm simply giving the example of the origins of monasticism as being a voluntarist organisation that abolished personal and private property and was successful in its goals

pics very much related

Shit I thought you were the ledditor.
Sorry.

Sure. Dont deny that.

*decade

What do you think of the Hanseatic League mate? That might be the closest thing to anarcho-capitalism (although I'm not super knowledgeable about it)

Werent they basically Italian style city states of the north?
They werent anarcho in any aspect Im aware of.

We are talking about organizations who initate force here, so I can compare them.
Remember? That's what I am all about. Non initation of force.

Who says that rules are gone?

The only thing that will be gone are rulers, which I talked about before. I don't see how you can't have rules without some people who are ABOVE the rules. Kinda self-elimiating, don't you think?

not an argument

And I will make sure to watch out for the Neighbourhood Watch who somehow is going to become an expansionist state. But hell, would probably be better than anything we live under right now.

No it doesn't?! Burglary is at an all time high where I live. Your precious state prevents almost none and only solves like 5% at most.

And then it often let's them go right away.

Initation of force, my friend, not some kind of hippy force is never allowed no matter what

I am not against self-defense or people forming collectives, organizations, firms etc to protect themselves.

Your precious state military predominantly uses private security to protect their property.

People can enforce them. Just not elect a special superhuman who stands above them.

Again. Rules exist, but not rulers who stand above them.

And now you call me an egalitarian, which is hilarious, because the left calls me the "most extreme hierarchical political position possible".

Okay, so I convinced you then?

You want to continue to call it a state, which doesn't have a monopoly of force, meaning you just proved for yourself that all we talked about before is valid and can exist in "order".

Again. I am not against rules.

The smallest possible goverment in the history of mankind turned into the biggest Empire of the world. Seems like you done fucked it up.

Then why can the state reject laws?
Seems like you are the one who doesn't have actual rules, since the most powerful warlord in your country, when he somehow managed to be a state, can just reject the laws and people like you think it's legitimate.

That's why they shouldn't be part of society or be rendered emasculated.

Sounds like something which can exist without the state as well.

How come revolts and revolutions happen? Just because you have a state, doesn't give you a magic wand to just enforce it.

And technically I am not against a state, since if you read my very first post:

I am not deluded. The people who inhabit this planet right now are unfit for voluntarism or we would be living in a voluntarist world right now.

People for some reason love to live like they are voluntarist, but they still support a special and different species of humans who they allow to live extremely unvoluntarily.

Well wiki says they were a "defensive confederation of merchant guilds" which sounds something like a lolbertarian/anarcho-capitalist idea maybe…

They were more like our current liberal "democracy". Nothing about them was lolberg/anarcho.
Defensive pacts form all the time.

Kek
Good luck keeping the people who do the hard dirty work for you down after all is done.

Sure thing. Gonna go tribal here :^)

It idealises rational self interest as the driving force behind creativity and enterprise.

it ignores the useless fucking hominid brain that's supposed to house this race of rational ubermensch.

frankly I'm surprised it took this long till our best and brightest were working on creating synthetic pentathylophetamine with a 10% more hydrothalates so that the dregs at the bottom could piss their savings away freebasing the shit, but I'm sure the failure of nearly every Atlas this, Rand that, startup through the 80's and 90's did something to stave it off.

What prevents people from forming a state in an anarcho-capitalist society?

Wew

Ad hominem, not an argument.

How is the state involved in monastic life?

I don't know too much about them, so I can't say.

If you want good examples, try to find some something about pre-christian iceland or mediveal ireland or germanic common law.

Good question.

The philosophical consensus about conforming to the NAP and not letting people emerge who stand above the rules of society.

I am not saying that we will realize this anytime soon or even in my lifetime btw.

What I would like to see is a libertarian goverment giving up like 50 quadrat kilometre of land so that different anarchic theories can be tested in practice.

So that people like

and you can see how it works in practice.

Are you guys okay with that or do you support people who want to do this getting kidnapped and raped in jail?

don't go full retard again, please.

I actually did. If you actually read my rebuttals you would have seen that I have done so already.

And what protected these communities? They were undoubtedly protected by the state in some form (be it a local lord or the ruling monarch), meaning they weren't even operating in Anarchy. The threat of violence brought about by the state's monopoly on force ensured that the monastery was protected.

Who fucking cares you sperg?
The Church has never been anarcho. Nothing has. Even Tribes have hierarchical organizations. How about you focus on that?

Just 50km? We would fucking give you Madagascar if we could. But remember this. When it turns into your typical nation state and you come back crawling, we will fucking gun you down.

maybe there wouldn't be dregs without an endless supply of drugs and an economy that changes from bad to worse like english weather.

This requires the monopoly on force and the threat of violence. Checkmate.
Or ever. Anarchism is fundamentally opposed to human nature in every possible way
Libertarianism is a shit ideology too tbh

I know, I didn't want to edit my post, you see my respond to it later down below.

Almost every single human being lives anarchic, user. How often do you rape, murder or steal things in your faily life?
Sounds to me like you are a big ancap softie. :3

What about some typical europen climate somewhere in Europe?

I can't deal with the heat. It's already the hottest day all year in Germany and it's terrible.

No, it's self-defense of the ancap community.

see above with you're already an ancap

You are not part of the cool kids, user.

The Rule of St Benedict allows for christian authorities outside of the monastery to intervene if the monks elect a lax Abbot or someone who won't promote the Christian way of life. Most monasteries would also obey the local Bishop although Bishops didn't interfere with the governing of the monastery most of the time.

They were effectively voluntarist and socialist/communist.

The Christian state. I never said that a state can function in such an idealistic way. Just that monasteries are an example of something very close that has actually worked.

*that has worked on a communal level

thearda.com/workingpapers/download/the economics of monasticism.pdf

Because Im not a subhuman and the state and its enforcement ensures that anyone who does it goes to jail at least.

Maybe if you can find some wasteland people dont make a claim too.
Isnt there a lolberg experiment in the Balkans already?

Why the fuck did mods anchor this? Were 10000 Brexit and Britpol posts not enough? For God's sake even the bloody Varg shitpost thread isn't anchored.

So you live your life voluntaristic.
That's all I wanted to hear, user.

Won't succed, I can 99% guarantee you that.

you have remarkable faith in the police, it really really doesn't.

t. knower

so voluntarism is the radical belief that "I'm okay with all of this"?

fuck me, I don't think Locke and his contemporaries would have bothered with the social contract if he thought the ultimate end would be a bunch of fat faggots lying down dead fish style for the state to fuck'em.

No. I don't know how you got that from my post.

I just wanted to show you all that you already live like ancaps in your private lives.
Or I hope you do.

If we already live as ancaps why do we need an ancap system?

Locke was a faggot. Filmer is the man!

No it doesn't. Laws and rules do not enforce themselves. They need the threat of consequences to be enforced. Without that threat of violence ensured by the State, laws are just suggestions that can be ignored
This is why every ancap "society" would collapse and is total shit. Everything is reactive, never proactive. If both of us have a wrench and I smash your head in before you have a chance to react, then it doesn't matter whether you abode by the "NAP", because I didn't, and now you're dead. The threat of violence from the state ensures that my actions have consequences as to dissuade me from following through with them.
What? I'm nowhere close to an ancap. I'm a fascist
unhindered freedom is unfavourable and leads to societal decay. I have no interest in giving the people freedom to corrupt the people and society from within. Limitless freedom is entirely destructive.
You're blatantly an autistic newfag because this is a well-known fact on Holla Forums. Only lolberg tards from leddit still buy into shit like limitless "muh freedom".

And socialism is an inherently degenerative ideology that caters to the lowest common denominator and discourages individual achievement. It would be devastating if it were implemented society-wide
Except the monopoly on force was delegated to the state so that the monestary would not have to fear constant attacks such as in the case of an anarchist society. The monopoly on force maintains order.

There is a bit of socialism going on in families, dog.

Yeah, but you act like an ancap in your private life. Or have you ever broken the NAP?

I was talking about self-defense.

Well, I am okay with people living their life as they chose. I won't force homos to go back in the closet or kill trans people on sight, or whatever else you deem degenerate.

Luckily the socialist elements in monasticism were a means to an end and not an end in itself.

Not true in the case of monasteries. They were very beneficial for white civilization and the suppression and dissolution of monasteries was a disaster for culture and local economies.

agreed

Ultimately, yes