Anarcho Capitalism Discussion and Debate Thread

...

...

Kek

It's amazing that people even waste so much time discussing this nonsense. Anarchism is even less feasible in today's world than medieval feudalism.

...

The first thing you have to figure out is whether you think it is right someone else makes your financial decisions for you. Then ask yourself if they own your mind and body because how else do you get your money but by using them?
Then ask yourself if you and the someone else have a right to force others to also take this other persons authority over their minds and bodies.

If you are actually answering this rationally then the answer is no. So supporting government is both sadomasochistic and inhumane.

...

We are no less in possessions of our faculties today then we were 400 years ago.

...

...

...

Yes yes, I get it, government bad and all that, but could you answer my questions about the functionality of such a system? One could also argue that it is immoral to let people starve when you have excess wealth, for example, and that not to do so is sadomasochistic and inhumane.

this tbh

...

...

...

Gravity doesn't exist, and tbh the moon doesn't exist either, have you ever touched it? Neither do your morals that you cry out are being violated by a government, or the NAP.

...

...

I like this meme because it shows we have progressed to phase two

This is just a flaky way of saying that we invent power structures and ways of governing (no shit). And you don't have to believe in it, but unlike an invisible God, there are systems in place that will make your life extremely unpleasant if you ignore them… which is why the autistic faggot whom you're quoting abides by the same laws the rest of us do.

...

they ignored, laughed, fought and won against hitler, stalin, etc. so keep dreaming
also, try to adress some of the points made in this thread; youre confirming to me and everyone else in this thread how shit your ideology is that you cant even defend your ideas from interrogation. we'd all be happy to move onto your phase 3 and fight you intellectually, but if you wont leave phase 1 we are left with laughing at you

also, you're being laughed at by a niche imageboard, the rest of the world doesnt even know you exist, they arent even able to ignore you

They? You mean the collectivist kikes? Most rational people agree with Hitler. At least he supported ethnic Nationalism and agreed that the ZOG was a problem.

im not here to argue jews and nationalism, the fact is that the inspirational ghandi quote doesnt adhere to reality, just like the NAP and ancap dont

there's nothing to address here. just a whole bunch of retarded strawmen

LMAO poorfags

But you are doing exactly that.

sure thing buddy, reminder that we're still waiting for you to respond to the critiques of ancap

...

I actually already did. See

ok, no need for further discussion. im sorry that stating that hitler lost triggered you

There isn't a loli version?

There has to be one

what structured market?

a market that is based on free enterprise

I know that Hitler lost, that's not my point. My point is that Hitler did something and created a movement that still makes faggots like you freak out to this day.

>>>/liberty/44089

how is that un-anarchic?

free markets are controlled under republic rule. This is how the USA was created. The USA originally had a free market that was controlled by a republic political system. If you allow for a system to be controlled by no one you will end up with a corrupt system. People need to control the enterprise in order for it to dwell. Anarchy leads to chaos.

...

hitler doesnt make me freak out
neo nazis today are mostly unemployed inbreds

we are reaching levels of full retard never seen before

Care to answer my questions in the OP?

Yes, a free market is ultimately controlled by a republic. There needs to be a system that allows the general public to cast a vote and represent the market. If it was truly free it would be chaos. Show me an example of when a truly "free market" (no rules whatsoever) has ever existed in the past and succeeded. It hasn't.

fuck does this even mean? in a free market, you cast votes with your money

"it hasn't happened before, therefore it can never happen" ok pal

what do you mean by this
can you define chaos?

Representing the market means being a member of the market, a person who works and supports things that are good for his/her workplace. I wouldn't expect a NEET like you to understand.

So you admit that it has never happened before, that's interesting.

No order

i.e. voting with your money. this does not require a state.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Somalia_(1991–2006)

can you define order
can you define truly free market

It requires fiat currency which is based on a state.

You are just trying to move the goal posts.

no it doesn't

...

im asking you to define your parameters in your question
please get high level when you want to continue this trolling escapade

that doesnt even compute

I'll bet you think you're being clever with that retort.

Regarding jurisprudence and systems or control, it's unequivocal that there are varying degrees of order/disorder, depending on the system. Every species operates according to general rules and systems (some more than others), and this is why every autistic anarchist is simply a selfish fascist in disguise.

then tell me how someone can just make up a currency on their own. I know you will probably try to say bitcoin is an option but it's still in its infancy stage and cannot be considered as a legitimate currency. The dollar still rules in this age.

Order = Rule
No Order = No Rule

I already did, scroll up.

...

Pick one.

just print some notes or mint some coins or whatever. if it's good enough, people will accept it as a medium of exchange.

the dollar rules in this age because the US government relentlessly hunts down anyone that tries to start a competing currency. see for example: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberty_dollar_(private_currency)

In other words a free market with no rule can exist.
I don't see how your original statement stands.
Your own definitions refute it.

it was doing good too until they confiscated his gold

The dollar was originally based on gold. The legal tender was based on gold. The dollar bill used to be based on how much a person owned. Some faggot didn't just invent the dollar bill.

No, I am saying that it can't exist. Are you retarded?

This

It's funny how anarchists act like currency just arose arbitrarily, rather than from an evolutionary necessity.

Do away with one form of exchange, and there will be others to replace it.

actually they kinda did. it's not like dollars are found in nature.

money can be based on gold, or on silver, or tobacco, or nothing at all. the only thing that really matters is whether people are willing to accept it as payment for goods and services.

you are contradicting yourself, idiot. The guy is basically saying that you can create notes from nothing and you are saying that it can't be done.

If you go back to the origin of the dollar bill you will see that it is based on gold. When banks started out, they used to give out certificates to people who owned gold. These certificates were called legal tender. Then people started using these notes as "money" and the banks decided to just produce more of these notes. The dollar bill is a product of gold.

What? I'm saying that we have forms of currency because of a necessity to create them. And I don't even know what you mean when you say "from nothing".

I'm aware of this. it doesn't contradict anything I said, though.

Dollar bills are basically certificates that say you claim a certain amount of gold.

actually, it does

Then you have no idea what fiat currency is.

...

No, i am basically telling you what fiat currency is. The Federal Reserve creates more certificates that aren't based on gold, therefore more debt and fiat currency is created.

I was talking about how the dollar was originally created.

you have not proven it
are you?

you need to learn english

this hasn't been the case since 1971

and why is that? The Federal reserve. A private company creating paper money for you to spend.

trolling is a art
you neednt try so hard until you learn it

oh, now I recognize you. you're the guy from yesterday who claimed private spending increases the national debt.

Right, but it was still created, and whether it's gold, fiat money or monkey shit, there will always be a currency, regardless of the broader system of exchange. So, I don't even know what point you're trying to make here.

Reminder: we live in a globalized economy of 7.5 billion people

just keep claiming that I am trolling.

neither does he. just ignore him, he's an idiot who thinks he knows everything about economics

when you tell someone they cant english because you cant into literacy it suggests too stupid or trolling
i doubt you're actually retarded

we dont need to participate in all the economies of the world to have a medium of exchange
nor do we need a state to give us bottle caps to trade with

I doubt you're a nigger

then youd be wrong

Good goy, just ignore all dissent like a good communsit.

I don't even know what the fuck you're talking about at this point because you're being too vague.

If you're espousing anarchist views, then you're simply favoring one form of control over another, one currency over another, one inevitable set of powerful institutions over another – this is the way it's always been, and always will be, so perhaps it's time to stop living in the clouds and start thinking in more practical terms, little boy.

...

hello president

im a girl
and anarchism isnt one currency or one control
you're delusional

open tits bb

Yeah we know. You stupid fucking cunt. It's a ridiculously out of control utopia that will never exist.

Well, then that explains the mental gymnastics

And neither is our current system. There are different forms of capital and different forms of control, and if we abolished government, then power structures would arise which would allow people to exploit each other just the same.

In the first situation, the victim could go to a court or their rights enforcement agency. These entities may deem that the accused has to pay compensation, which they may go and take with force without any input from the accused if he does not voluntary accept the judgement or decide to provide himself a legal defense. If the accused does not accept the judgement of the victim's court or rights enforcement agency, he can then go to a one of his choosing and get a verdict. If the verdict of the victims court and the accused's court differ, then they would then go to another third party organisation to get a verdict that would be mutually agreed upon.

If you violate the NAP, then it is acceptable to use force to get compensation from the damages incurred from you violating the NAP. In the same way you can violate the NAP in defense if someone is trying to kill you. If you murder someone, that doesn't give someone the right to kill you later for revenge. However, it gives someone the right to get compensation from you, and if you are a serial killer and are a threat to society, that is justification to execute you or imprison you (as determined by a fairly by a court)

Force or threatening to use force is not profitable for any company no matter the size. It's not like it's big company vs small company, more like big company vs small company + small company's security agency and all of society that follows the NAP.

A case could be made that masturbation was a violation of the NAP and take someone to court over it. Unless you live in a place where public masturbation is a grred upon as acceptable.

Roads are subject to economy of scale. That is, it is inefficient for companies to maintain, repair and operate small sections of roads. Thus generally one company would own large sections of roads. And it is unlikely that there would be toll booths, there would probably be something like electronic scanners that automatically send you a bill, so you are not stopping to pay $1.25 or whatever.

...

fucking niggers

Congratulations, user! This is literally the most autistic post I've come across in quite a while.

...

go away normalfag

I've actually been making arguments ITT for the past couple of hours, and much like my entire fucking life, it's proved to be a waste of time.

...

Kek. Who created all these? They're fucking hysterical

samefag

...

...

I created some of these (like the last one) but I have no idea who originally created this meme.

Nope.

As one of them notes, it truly does meme an ideology into oblivion.

keep telling yourself that

the only people who make them or take them seriously are leftards who have no idea who ancapism works

Wrong. Do you really think Holla Forums would ever tolerate your bullshit in National Socialism? Nah buddy, pol is not for multiculturalists who'd allow communism under their noses nor is pol for retarded anarkiddies.

I don't think anyone takes them seriously, and I'm pretty sure that's what makes them so effective.

...

>implying pollacks who want national socialism aren't lefties just because 'hhrrrngg stop yur degeneracy stop doing wut i dooont like!'

Read John Locke's Treatises.

Can people stop making up fallacies

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_lapidem
I don't make up my fallacies bucko. I know several by heart.

This doesn't apply. It does address the merits of the shitty ancap memes, because they have no merit in the first place. They are a caricature of ancap thought and must be annihilated

...

They highlight legitimate weaknesses and inconsistencies in a humorous fashion by exaggerating them. I don't see a problem, but it stands to reason why someone who would subscribe to such nonsense would want to dismiss them as silly and absurd.

No it actually doesn't. Saying simply that someone nuking someone for going on their property/violating nap is absurd for the sake of absurdity doesn't actually prove that it's absurd. Also, you'd have to prove that military grade weapons wouldn't be accessible to most of the population. And on another note, just because someone says "nuke" someone when they go on their property could easily be replaced with shot instead. It's a joke after all. Also, I've read some of the shit you ancaps say and a lot of you say it's ok to kill someone for violating NAP (see pic related).

Not really, they completely ignore the fact a SAM missile array and arsenal of 4 apache attack helicopters is bloody well expensive

In general terms they ignore that ALL THESE THINGS COST MONEY which forces one's hand into (usually) making a reasonable response

See, now THIS is an intellectually dishonest meme – literally no one is saying that we need government to build roads, only that it probably beats the privatization (where you still end up paying powerful people)

Pic related?

Anyway, the reasonable ancaps assume all responses to violation of the NAP are done from the perspective of a calm, rational man, which is why court would still be a thing, as justice is good for everybody. I would not deal with people who weren't members of a legal corp

Q.E.D

You're cherrypicking the most ridiculous scenarios, but even in those cases, there would be people who DO have the money. In a way, that poses an even bigger problem.

Goalposts: moved

Really??? You call allowing child prostitution RATIONAL/JUSTICE???
archive.is/V9254

Also, it violates the NAP never forget that. But you ancap fuckers are always quick to defend pedophiles/blights on society.

Obviously. The non-aggression axiom is just a consistent moral framework. If you kill someone in ancapistan you'll be 'punished'. Of course you might actually atone for your crimes because most ancap justice schemes include more fines paid to the actual victims and less jail time.

As for the court 'issue', neutral third parties still exist in ancapistan. Seems like you just don't have any imagination; trials by jury for example are unaffected by an ancap framework.

You don't understand anarchy. There is not a public place to have a retarded tragedy of the Commons in. One of the major advantages of anarchism is that these hypothetical crimes become easily solvable

It doesn't have to. Simply being an anarchist makes governing you very, very difficult. If a majority or even just plurality of people actually subscribed to something like the nap the population would become basically ungovernable (profitably).

That's just stupid. Rape-town is an oxymoron - you can't want to be raped, it's not rape. And, rape is an NAP violation

It doesn't matter YOU fuckers always defend pedophilia/communists/general cancer on society and the image I posted would be exactly correct in how anarcho capitalism would work. I will NEVER become an anarcho capitalist because you don't actually care for other people, only yourselves.

I only defend people who haven't committed crime. I am not obliged to care about anyone except myself, though I care about everyone and their liberty, so I am anti-government and pro-money

Yeah?! And from my understanding crime would be arbitrary from community to community in anarcho capitalism so you could have pedophilia illegal in one community and legal in the next. As long as it's out of sight out of mind am I right NIGGER? You only care about yourselves.

Laws are invented, and so you're position is a very relative one.

You could really stand to read more metaphysics and less head-spinning political ideology about '"muh freedums"

False. It highlights the stupidity and absurdity of the overused statist argument of "b-but if the state wasn't there, there wouldn't be x!"

Heard of the stand-your-ground law? That's basically what this is. The NAP isn't fucking justification to incinerate someone because they put their toe 2mm on your lawn because they stopped to tie their shoe.

Don't confuse degenerates who just want to be able to rape kids or whatnot with actually ancaps. Saying 'we only care about ourselves' is just a bullshit non-argument that isn't true. I actually have a bit of fucking compassion for the tens of millions of people who have been killed by various governments throughout the recent decades. In the end, ancapism is about propogation of non-violent means. And why do you think raping kids would ever be OK? Heard of the fucking NAP?

If anything that's an argument for anarchy. It's definitely a strong argument against a state possessing special moral authority.

Of course he probably meant crimes as in evil actions, and a moral framework can easily be objective.

You're focusing on weak arguments to bolster your own weak arguments. Most rational people acknowledge that we would still have roads and various other things that are government controlled, but that it would simply end up in the hands of different powerful institutions that would force you to pay for the services.

Now, I realize the "pay for what you use" approach sounds simply utopiantastic, but when you consider the size of the population and the fact that people are inherently greedy and selfish, this is completely unrealistic. People would find ways of exploiting each other, and we'd be right back where we started.

You don't understand anarchy

You don't understand complete sentences.

Call it a court, rights enforcement agency, whatever, they will all still have different ratios of conviction, meaning there's an obvious bias in which one each party wants to be used. In government, there's a single standard which everyone can expect to be held against as it is the same organisation convicting you, with the only variation being say, a judge or jury, not the entire system. Also, in my example, I have not yet been found guilty, which is what I am getting at; what if for some reason I don't want to go through any other court, and only this one which I know to be favourable? How will I be made to go through a different method of multiple courts without violating the NAP?

OK, makes sense once my guilt is determined, but again, why would I not just refuse to go through any less favourable court to ensure the verdict is much less likely to reach guilty? Until I am convicted, surely it would be breaking the NAP to force me through a court I do not want to go through.

Wouldn't a big company be able to afford a better security agency? This is assuming btw that although the big company is in an ancap society, they see the NAP as irrelevant. What stops them corrupting people as they do now? People are always open to personal gain, be they in a governed society or ancap society.

I'm not hurting or aggressing on anyone by jerking it though. Surely this argument is coming purely from a moral perspective, and is as such very relative, and has no place being condemned by the NAP.

So what stops this company which has a monopoly on the roads from exploiting their customers? It's not like you can chose to buy another road when you get upset with their business.

Thanks for answering btw.

Slow down their PJW.

No it is not. They may be similar in some ways but the stand your ground law is life or death. NAP applies to property as well, and is not necessarily a life or death scenario.
Where in the fucking NAP does it say you fucking can't? Prove it nigger fucking prove it.
Not unless you voluntarily allow things like pedophilia. It's not against the fucking NAP if the community is ok with it.
Wrong. You can allow things like football/violent sports in a community voluntarily allows it, same goes for pedophilia. Parents also own their kids in anarcho capitalism and consider them private property, so the kid would have no say in whether or not she has sex with someone (rape).

Not really. You don't seem to understand that there would still be laws that would be enforced, only individuals and private institutions would have more freedom to enforce the laws that suit them.

No

thoughts?

Your post is literally right above mine, you're fooling no-one. You also seem to think anarchists are libertarians, they are not.

not the user you're talking to, but agreed, they're too often seen as synonymous with one another, and while im not a libertarian myself, it pisses me off

Nice assertion. We've already gone over the legal framework several times in this thread

Wrong. educate yourself

You think I'm trying to deceive you because you don't understand my argument.

Either refute my points directly or don't address them at all. Would you need to pay tolls to use roads in your anarchist utopia? Yes, therefore, you would essentially be forced to pay to use the services.

And yet you continue to ignore inconvenient facts

And please explain to me how moral frameworks can be objective; that is, other than the fact that they exist in theory.

" A neighbor aiming his flashlight at someone's property is not aggression, or if it is, it is only aggression in a trivial technical sense. However, aiming at the same property with a gigawatt laser is certainly aggression by any reasonable definition. Yet both flashlight and laser shines photons onto the property, so there must be some cutoff point of how many photons one is permitted to shine upon a property before it is considered aggression. But the cutoff point cannot be found by deduction alone, because of the Sorites paradox, so the non-aggression principle is necessarily ambiguous"

No. Just no.

This scenario of different rules for different places don't apply to kids, who have no ability to decide things like this for themselves or move

Libertarian is the ideology of anti-state and pro-individual freedoms. Both ancaps and small government libertarians are libertarian.

This is just stage 2 of the "but how would it work if the government doesn't do it" argument. You have not stated why private institutions are worse and you have not stated why 'people always find ways of exploiting each other', and you don't even seem to realise the extent to which this happens in a state society. There is nothing wrong with paying 'powerful institutions', here you are with 'muh ebil corporations' sterotype. I think you're implying that without the government we would be 'forced' to pay hundreds of a dollars for everyday goods or services. There is literally nothing which the government does better than private institutions, there is no reason why I should pay for roads I don't drive on, there is no reason why I should pay for the healthcare of fat fucks who eat drink cola by the gallon, and there is no reason why I should be forced to send my kids to state indoctrination schools.

A fucking flashlight is not the fucking same thing as actually treading your fucking boots on someone's property and getting shot over it.
That's just fucking wrong. So what a kid can break in someone's house/kill someone?

In a world where everything is privatized, you take out many of the essential regulatory factors that mitigate the pernicious effects of capitalism. Our current state of affairs needs significant improvement in this regard, as we essentially live in a watered-down plutocracy; however, you don't simply toss out the entire system because it's not a fucking utopia.

See: the Will to power

Only without a government, the private institutions would be the ones in control, as they'd have the money and resources to enforce the laws and regulations that suit them.

Grow up

not an argument

Not an argument. You don't seem to realise that the way that private institutions are able to exercise is through the monopoly of force which is the state, which wouldn't be possible otherwise.

See: the Virtue of Selfishness

Not an argument.

You don't understand anything that I wrote

You don't seem to realize that the the top earners within the corporations could essentially CREATE a state.

Ok, Ayn Rand. We're all inherently selfish creatures, but it's another thing to take such pride in embracing it, you absolute fucking cunt. And thank you for reinforcing my point.

Oh, and btw, I'm still waiting on that explanation about the science of objective morality

Capitalism is what happens when people are freely able to trade among each other. No government involvement is needed for me to go voluntarily buy a cake from a bakery. The capitalist economy is organic, there is no need for anybody to "take control of the system" because it happens naturally.

When governments do take control of the economy by means of regulations, protectionism, etc… That no longer allowed for truly free trade and competition. Government is the factor that turns capitalism into cronyism and corporatism.

Yes I actually do. Sure the second point I made wasn't too great (I'm a bit under the weather tbh). But my point still remains. You're basically saying it's ok for children in a community to break the law because he isn't personally responsible, which would be simply untrue in an ancap society. So, therefore, if a community outlaws say, drugs for example, the kid could get away clean with no offenses despite him knowing what he's doing/being coerced by adults. Also, shining a flashlight on your property =/= actually treading on it. So that point is completely void of any logic whatsoever.

Any more broad generalizations you'd like to make, user?

I'm just showing how capitalism doesn't need any rulers, as it happens naturally. Contrasted with other economic systems like socialism and communism that require authority enforcement to function.

Don't societies naturally form around hierarchy, though? Thinking back to the far reaches of recorded history, in Europe at least, there was a tribal system in which certain members clearly had status and power over others, thinking to the Near East and North Africa you have the Pharaohs of Egypt and the Kings of Persia, it seems as though hierarchy naturally emerges.
(different person btw)

youtube.com/watch?v=XIFWWGeFmbE

It's not an argument because you make unsubstantiated claims, like 'top earners can create their own state'. This is just the same tired old argument that can easily be rebuted when you realise that to create a state you need a monopoly on force which is impossible to create if the majority of people don't voluntarily go along with it. Ancapism realises the fundamental aspects of human nature and creates a society whereby exercising these characteristics won't create a system of mass exploitation and violence like inevitably happens with a state.

Ask the other user about it then

The issue of a child's responsibility for their actions is not a topic I care to get into, all I said is that a child is bound to their parents and therefore have no ability to decide where or where not they live. And you don't seem to understand the concept that was wrote at all. Is flashing a light aggression? y/n? If we say no, then where is the arbitrary cutoff? Is stepping a toe onto someone's property aggression? If no, then where is the arbitrary cuttoff?

Capitalism isn't going anywhere, but when you say that it doesn't need rulers, I think that's a bit myopic, as there clearly would be rulers within a completely ""free"" market system.

And you're right about communism; that's why an unadulterated approach to any socio-economic system is shit-tier and doomed to fail

People who have an extraordinary amount of wealth have an extraordinary amount of power. Given the disproportionate balance of wealth in the world, I'll let you use your imagination on how only 1 of the wealthiest individuals could exploit the fact that there will always be disenfranchised people, willing do their bidding.

No, then you have gangs and goons and guerrilla states.

Speaking of unsubstantiated claims…

Compared to

Ah, and now we're finally getting to the crux of the matter…

As I mentioned earlier, we essentially live in a plutocracy, which is why we need to remove as much money from our governments as possible. I don't know where you live, but in the US, we need to outlaw lobbying and overturn Citizen's United – this certainly won't utopianize things, but it's much wiser to address tangible goals than live in a fantasy world.

I'd say no, but physically touching someones property still does =/= a flashlight.
Exactly, you fucking idiot. It's open for interpretation, so therefore you can shoot someone who steps on your property if you wanted to, the NAP can only be interpreted you can't actually force (coerce, something you anarchists hate) someone to interpret it in your fashion.
It's ambiguous like you've already stated, so therefore people can enforce it as they interpret it. If you try to force people to start enforcing arbitrary cuttoff laws… guess what? You've just become a state.

I don't see any anarcho capitalist flags on the moon tbh…

This is the intensely triggering thing about these ideological dimwits – they fail to understand how power structures inevitably arise.

It's like when Holla Forums first went online and there was all this optimism about the bright future of a utopian image board, where everyone would be """"free"""". Well, it turns out that people are cunts and tend to abuse this so-called freedom, and so then we start seeing rules implimented, little by little. Suddenly, Holla Forums starts looking a bit more like 4chan, but the moderation (we'll call it regulation) is still more relaxed.

Fast forward about 2 years, and it started becoming clear that the pedo thing was getting out of control, the spam was off-the-charts and the userbase was severely diminished – in comes Jim to save the day… or not. Jim implimented new rules and people threw temper tantrums, and the user base declined even further.

Present day: the site is a shell of its former self, we have mods who treat this board like they own it, and most of the beleagured anons who've weathered the storm are still bickering about what could've been ("if only we just had more freedums").

Now I see 4chan in a bit of a different light. Sure, the mods abuse their authority from time to time, and the rules can be a bit excessive, but most of the rules and regulations arose out of necessity. It was necessary for them to impliment rules to avoid becoming a graveyard of dead memes like Holla Forums.

The moral of the story is that we live in a control society with power structures, because people like to rule, some people desire to be ruled, and those who vehemently resist it are sometimes in the most need of ruling.

The state is an outdated system left over from our history of primitive tribalism, when warlords seeking power oppressed and exploited peasants, and went out trying to conquer as much land as possible. You say question the necessity of a state is state is 'utopianistic' because a stateless society has never happened and you can't envision such a drastic change actually happening.

What is more utopianistic however is your claim that we can somehow change the state into a perfect one where it fulfills its role perfectly. You don't need to know a lot of history where you can see many examples of governments degrading and becoming more totalitarian, and states committing untold massacres and causing mass-deaths. It will never happen, you can't just make the ones making the laws to make laws that will restrict their own power or to regulate themselves. The constitution is supposed to protect individual rights, and look at how much that is ignored. When the vehicle of power is there it's impossible to stop it being exploited with these words on paper we call 'laws'.

The problem does not just lie in the leaders. Frankly, the majority of people are idiots and easily manipulated. They will use their numbers to create the oppression of the majority, they are happy for the government to oppress other people for their own gain. They will not stop the government enacting progressively more totalitarian laws, as long as they have their welfare and whatnot, i.e. bread and circuses. Another thing: look at the the effect women voting had. It skyrocketed national debt, it skyrocketed immigration. Democratic statism in inherently flawed, you can never stop people acting in their own interests. What are you gonna do to fix it? Politely ask the government to stop being corrupt? Rescind women's right to vote? Impossible.

The state has created so many problems in our society that you can see, I could go on about it for days. It has caused so many problems, is responsible for so death and destruction, what really are you objections to anarchism? All I see are dubious claims about how this specific system wouldn't work, or that 'the rich would have all the power'. All of these things have been rebutted a thousand times over.

...

just stop. this is fucking sad.

...

...

b-b-but how will you stop mcdonalds forcing you to buy $100 hamburgers without government??

Strawman. No such thing as perfect, and I fully accept that.

This is why we shouldn't have crony capitalists in office and should vote accordingly (along with the measures mentioned in my previous post). But again, you could apply this line of reasoning to an anarchist system where wealthy people make the rules by buying the means to enforce them.

Finally, we can agree on something, and hopefully after Trump and his gaggle of cronies are finished wreaking havoc, we can start implementing policies that will truly improve things – I think perhaps we need a brush fire.

You almost completely lost me there, übermensch. Do I really need to bust out the correlation =/= causation meme? I guess I do.

See:

Yet never refuted

Look, you can continue living in a fantasy world of ideology and half-cocked theories about freedom and liberty, but the sooner you realize that there will always be varying degrees of control and oppression, the better — we obviously disagree on which approach to creating order would cause the least oppression, and I'm afraid we're going to have to agree to disagree.

Unfortunately/fortunately, we'll never get to see which one of us is right.

I'm not against hierarchy, I'm against forced hierarchy. There are many forms of hierarchy that we deal with normally, such as an employer or joining an athletic club where there are people more experienced than you are.

I don't know enough about those ancient civilizations to really comment on them. I do know that one of the freest times in history was in medieval Europe before the unification of France. France officially had a king but he has no real power. The country was split among hundreds of principalities. The principalities were very small. If people didn't like the rule in one they could easily move to another. Because of this princes had to set very low and reasonable taxes or else the pants would just leave.

Everyone has their own view on ancap society but I think it would turn out similar to that. Many city-states all competing for people to live there. In order to live in one you'd sign a multi-year contact to pay for protection, emergency services, general infrastructure, and utilities. The city managers would be in charge of contacting out companies for each of those. This way people can shop around for the city that suits them best and get good deal because they're all in competition with each other.

Anyone who calls it "anarcho" capitalism has never read a single book on anarchism and has completely misunderstood it on a basic level.
The proper word would just libertarians or voluntaryists.

This. The closest thing I could ever admit you guys were is anti statist capitalists, but even then we're talking about pretty shaky grounds.

Not defending any kind of anarchy but monopolies cant really exist in anarchistic societies because there's noone stopping you from stealing eachothers resources/creating your own

Monopolies would arise in ancap society because of "natural monopolies" where the cost of resources means it is never efficient to go into competition, e.g. water pipes, electricity infrastructure.

Not an ancap but vague sense how it might work:
People have a right to feud when (they think) NAP is broken, and courts are arbitration bodies to resolve feuds - hence incentive for both sides to settle. This is how it works/ed in Somalia and early Ireland. Also, courts can make non-binding rulings which are effective because other individuals voluntarily follow them - for example, declaring someone to be a fraudster who others shouldn't trade with, until they compensate the victim.

Societies which don't use punishment (they exist, but they aren't ancap) use conflict resolution instead. Some societies have punishments which are voluntary, but someone who doesn't comply is likely to be ostracised or shamed.

I think the other points is one of the places where ancap really fails:
Companies which become big enough, and have private armies, can effectively become states. Although the NAP prohibits it, and the population might unite behind the NAP and against the company, they might not have the threat-advantage to actually counterbalance against a sufficiently powerful corporation. Also, it might be in their interests to bandwagon instead of balance.

The other big flaw:
Some people have no property from birth. They are always living by the tolerance of the people with property, putting them in a slave-like status. The property-owners can frustrate their ability to acquire property without violating NAP, since they are existing by tolerance. These workers/slaves will have no reason to value private property or NAP aside from the threat of violence. They will break NAP whenever they can get away with it, or figure the risk is worth it - which since they're dirt poor, will be quite often. There are a lot of them and, together, they have a lot of threat advantage.

What do you mean? I was primarily talking about monopolies that would fuck over the populi, as in 1 company having a monopoly on all electricity being impossible because people would either generate their own or organize and take over power plants
The thing with anarchism is that companies and governments still exist but they only have as much power as their clients/targets (for lack of a better word) would allow them to have

Also side note before you start dissing me on other points of anarchism I dont support it, I'm just here to discuss ancap

In a Ancap society would everything be own privately? Could you be charged a toll for all the common things that we use daily? And who is going to regulate price on things that are essential when all the resources are own by a private company?

...

Yes, everything would be owned privately, but noone can truely enforce anything so no nothing is truely owned
The desire to not be shot would regulate all property, so you could steal someone elses property with the only risk being getting shot yourself

What would regulate prices is competition, so if I sell my coconuts for 2 bucks noone is buying a large companies coconuts for 40000 ancapistan dollars thus forcing all other coconut sellers to either better their product significantly over mine or sell them even cheaper than I do

(NOT SUPPORTING ANARCHISM PLEASE DONT SPAM ME WITH (YOU)'s ABOUT RANDOM ANARCHISTIC SHIT)

DUDE WEED LMAO

jej

...

What if you have low quality coconuts, and the large company has high quality ones? Are the poor really subjected to a shitty resource? And what if all the coconut were owned by a large company in your local area. Can competition really compete in that area. Also what if you have to access to the other companies? Sure another coconut store can open, and you have the right not the shop at the large company. But the other company is too far away and theirs no way of reaching it. So having that right would pretty much be the same as not having that right at all. The same difference really. If you can't act upon that right what's the point of having it?

Good point, however poor people will always be kinda subjected to the worst quality so it isnt really an argument for anything but socialism
Companies from outside the local area can sell their cheaper coconuts in any area if they think it will be profitable, if the shop is too far away the people will either have to settle for shit/expensive coconuts or grow their own and sell those for a competitive price (I mean the local coconut company could own all land but then you wouldnt be living on it)

What's funny is that the flaws you pointed out have essentially been proven to be legitimate. They're a large part of the reason why a democratic government (in all it's forms and flaws) exists. Most individuals are not creators and innovators, and the "bandwagoning" is something that occurs naturally, given that we'd be in a perpetual state of violent unrest if it didn't; therefore, it's imperative that the creators, innovators and highly ambitious individuals are kept in check by a democratically elected power structure that mitigates the negative effect of the hivemind. Unfortunately, people are easily manipulated and so we'll always be living on a swinging pendulum of liberalism and conservatism, rest and unrest.

As simple common sense would dictate, if we were noble enough creatures to be able to work things out amongst ourselves, then most societies throughout modern history would lean more towards anarchism instead of hierarchical power structures.

Sorry, this post was really more to organize my thoughts. Feel free to pick this apart, anyone.

Ancap would probably lead to a monopoly owning the mains cables, though you're right, people could self-provide.

If people are prepared to organise and seize resources to avoid getting screwed-over then it's not ancap, it's some kind of anarcho-socialism or post-left anarchy - seizing someone else's property violates NAP.

All human societies have been more-or-less anarchist (not ancap) for 98% of human history, and most only stopped being anarchist because they were invaded by states with bigger armies.

Youre completely right, anarcho-capitalism just isnt really viable in real life

Which is why I specified "modern". And I believe the exponentially growing population is at the root of the bigger armies and invading states.

Also, it's worth noting that 98% of human history has included immense oppression and suffering.

In America, don't they charge for ambulance rides? So in ancapistan, there wouldn't be much of a policy change.

You have the right to defend your property, if your property extends to 10km above your land, then yeah, this isn't much different from Americans shooting trespassers

It's not hard to believe that firefighting would come as part of the home-insurance subscription *which could end*.

Why would they shoot a paying customer?
And why would someone buy a police subscription that might endanger their lives?
also, America has already set the precedent for "I called 911, but the cops shot me rather than the criminal"
thefreethoughtproject.com/911-report-robbery-cops-shoot-husband/

Ideally, the children would be protected from exploitation by their police subscription (or their family's police subscription)

If you paid for your nuke, then you're getting a product you paid for.
otherwise, Santacorp will go bankrupt from their excessive generosity

Once again, if Santa walks up to an American house, then they're entitled to shoot trespassers, right? why should they be exempt just because they're 10km above your house. If you own that section of sky, you're entitled to shoot those who trespass.

If your neighbours and their private armies are willing to sacrifice the trust they have with the community, then that's their choice. People are going to be less willing to cooperate with someone who breaks agreements.

Why would McDonalds try and kill you, when they can sue you for money under a mutually chosen judge (chosen when you started your police subscription), and if you don't have the money, then they could get you to work for them to pay off the money (or take a cut of your pay).

Which would be a mistake on your part, as you could have your wages garnished instead.
the amount of money your child could make, once educated would be more than they could make in the coal mines.

Overkill is a waste of money, Tomahawks aren't cheap.

or you could not buy the chips

Interesting rebuttals buddy…

So in America they ask for your credit card information while your bleeding out?
Yes, because people have SAMs on their houses today.
Burn baby burn burn burn!!!
thanks for the good work my man!!!
The communities are deciding to collude with each other, so this really doesn't apply.
Because the violated the NAP and can retaliate by killing them, the NAP itself says this is ok.
Pick one.
Unless your rich.
Or you could just not buy any food at all due to it being possible contaminated.
Also:
ancaps should be shot.

They still treat you, and then it goes against your credit rating if you don't have insurance or can't pay. However, even if you don't pay, in the event of another emergency, they still treat you; whereas in ancapistan, the concern is that the ambulance might simply not show up or refuse to treat.

This comes down to whether or not you believe healthcare is a basic human right (yes, i realize rights are invented) – btw, I really don't care about your thoughts on this.

Only in some states does the stand-your-ground law apply. And the point is that aggression is very relative, and drawing bright lines requires a state to enforce them, otherwise, people would constantly be killing each other for some dubious shit… and getting away with it.

There is a threat of police abusing their power, whether it's privatized or not. The risk in ancapistan is that with monetary interests involved, conflicts of interest would arise that could lead to law enforcement favoring the wealthiest customers.

Kek. I don't even know why I'm responding to you

It doesn't matter if people are willing to cooperate or not. The wealthiest individuals would be able to exploit disenfranchised people, and provide them with the means to enforce the laws that suit them.

This isn't very far from the way things currently are. And whether it's government enforcement or privatized, corruption will always remain.

Some of the memes are just silly, but what's equally silly is the idea that corruption and oppression and power would be mitigated by NAP in your ideological fantasy. It's also woth noting that is an indelible part of our lives in any system, whether you agree with it's implementation or not.

As trite as it sounds, people are inherently selfish and greedy, and so whether it's government enforced NAP or corporate enforced NAP, there will always be aggressors who try to exploit the system… and succeed. And when you have a globalized clusterfuck of 7.3 billion people and an incomprehensible system of markets and technology etc., your ideology is rendered laughably unrealistic; hence… memes

It's also woth noting that NAP is an indelible part of our lives in any system

Here's the exploit of the ancap image if anyone's interested.

I'm extremely interested.

Yes, welcome to crony capitalism.

...

Does manspreading violate the NAP?

...

...

...

So it would basically be like privately owned government, AKA monarchy. One king city manager owning the land, renting it out to the serfs individuals, and if they don't like it there, they can rent land from another city manager. Also, what stops this competition culminating in war?
The problem with that is, as history shows us, the most powerful will rise up and conquer; take the Achaemenids for example; they started with humble beginnings in modern day Iran, then expanded all the way into modern day Turkey, taking over the smaller civilisations along the way. And in Great Britain; over many invasions and power switching hands, we ended up with 3 distinct territories; there are many more examples of power being consolidated, because this is just what happens.
These city states wont last long in their idealised form, and will just turn back into government.

No because public transportation would be abolished.

why?

because public transportation systems require taxation

no they don't. just have people buy tickets

Yeah sure if it was a private bus firm but even then the company of the buses would probably regulate "manspreading" or maybe not all. Depends who's calling the shots and what you're willing to pay for.

found a boat load of anarkiddy exploits. I have no clue what the other three anarkiddy ideologies in image two are though.

sooo… it's exactly the same as anarcho-capitalism?

What part of 'anarchy' don't you understand?

...

I didn't even know that existed. It's funny how people actually believe that they can be pacifists while supporting a system that has no rulers. It's like they believe that everyone is decent and is against violence.

seems you're the confused one. a private business can set whatever rules it wants for behavior on its property, in this case a bus

I will not tolerate the tyranny of a bus king!

anarcho feminism?
??
???
?????????????????????

...

it's not tyranny. you're free not to do with them if you disagree with their policies

From my understanding of the anfem ideology is that it's pretty much the same/similar to anarcho communism but with women in power of it all.

that's anarchA-feminism, shitlord

fixed

How could you base an entire political system on feminism? That's like basing a political system on cat lovers or people who worship ass. It makes no sense.

...

...

Anarchos are retarded.

Do you want to live in the Dark Ages? With no internet?

If anarchism happened there would be chimpouts and raids nearly every day. You'd be fucking dead.

...

if anarchism happened, a society would swiftly replace it. like and asteroid inexorably drawn to the gravity of a neutron star and being engulfed by it.

not an argument

that which is asserted without evidence can be refuted without evidence

which means that you're just as right as me

...

so my claim still stands

as much as any baseless claim, yes

no

if I say "wolves can fly" then that's a baseless claim which you can disprove by posting a wolf skeleton since it has no wings

but wolves can fly

:^)

that's not flying
that's being propelled at the speed of the metal can while inside the metal can that's flying

wew

...

Does a parent letting their child starve to death violate the NAP?

$

no