ITT AnCap Autasm

Not him but that would be private armies/police.

For an anarcho-capitalist society to exist the entirety of the population would have to be for the idea, so ideally people would see how great Freedom™ is and reject another tyrannical government.

When we look at what truly enables monopolies to exist is government. Large corporations routinely push the government to enact more and more regulation to prevent smaller companies from thriving and succeeding. The next threat to monopoly is that there is literally no barrier stopping you from starting your own company, and for this reason it seems that most companies in a society like this would be smaller local business rather than mega-corporations. humongous bureaucracies are not actually very efficient.

When considering invasions, we need to look at how hard it is to invade a country. Remember 'nam? In ancapistan most people would have guns. If a bunch of skinny gooks can fight off the might of the most powerful military in the world, it seems that a decently well armed populace would be able to fight off an invader. Couple this with the fact that if, for sake of an example, Switzerland become ancap. Most of the liberal democracies of Europe would not take kindly to someone invading their neighbor. There would also be the fact that even if it is not a nation, this landmass of ancapistan is probably still a trading partner with other countries, so there is another economic incentive for surrounding countries to ward off would-be attackers. For this reason one of the prerequisites for an anarcho-capitalistic nation to exist is that, if it were to exist on our current would, it would have to be in a relatively stable place surrounded by friendly countries.

...

Read your post again.

Seems good so far, as this is the introduction as to who I am
Here is the first part of the meat of the sentence, the subject being me acting in defense of the idea of Anarcho-Capitalism
Here is a cool word that joins two different ideas together
Stemming from the "I will" part earlier in the sentence, this can be read as
So maybe it is a rather confusing sentence, but it does not mean what you claim.

Sorry, mistook the "and" for "to". I'm high, what can I say?

I shoot you in your anarchist face. The end.

that's violating the NAP

You'll be NAPping in no time!

You don't even need toll roads. The owner of the road can rent out adspace in the form of billboards

Ancaps are alright.
Meme on, brother.

tfw you like guns and telling the police to fuck off but you also want RWDS to be real

"NAP" is whatever the craziest anarchist with the biggest gun says it is.

...

My guns make better arguments than you anarchists and your delusions ever will. People that love making up obscure acronyms are always full of shit and so called "NAP" is no exception.

These things always forget the fact that ancapistan has private courts to settle these disputes. The NAP only describes when you can and can't defend yourself and your property with violence. Retaliation is done in the courts.

g

You think a guy with a big gun can even defend himself against ten guys with sniper rifles? Much less impose his will on them.

The courts arbitrate disputes in ancapistan. Judges are selected by both parties in said disputes based on their reputation for fairness. They can't be bought off, as even the implication of their corruptibility could destroy their career.

You are laughable.

Yes. Was that suppose to be a hard question?

You anarchists are so delusional that's it's not even funny. On second thought, it is funny. You make dumb marxists seem reasonable in comparison.

The argument at hand is that it would be just as good, if not better than current affairs. No one ever said anarcho-capitalism was ever the be all, end all solution to every problem. Could there be corruptionin a court? Yes. But that would ruin the credibility of a court. Would you use a bank that mismanaged your money, or a car company that created egregiously unsafe cars? Probably not. People can bribe judges and the like in our current society. Anarcho-capitalism just means that the government doesn't have a monopoly on justice anymore. Newsflash: private arbitration is actually quite common in our current world.

ok, op let see. how about security? How will people act without law? Extortion is a thing, with no one regulating them how can the masses avoid being extorted?

One thing to consider is that organized crime would likely not be a thing in a society like this. Weed lmao, prostitution, and gambling would all be 'legal' in the sense of there isn't a power to stop them. Therefore we can assume that organized crime as we know it would not be able to fund itself. As for everyday crime such as petty thefts and robbery people would hire private security for their homes and/or neighborhood organizations would likely strike deals to provide good rates to the people that live there. Imagine security systems such as ADT and the like except instead of calling the police, it would call their own guards. Another thing to consider is that it seems that most people dont commit morally egregious crimes. The reason you don't rob your neighbor probably isn't because it is against the law. Likewise, the law clearly isn't a deterrent for a jamal to steal your bike, but if you have a gun it seems that jamal would think twice about doing so. As far as extortion, this falls under the fact that your private police force would protect you from this, and this is coupled with the whole organized crime likely not existed.
Once again, this IS possible in ancapistan, but it is possible in democracy, a dictatorship, a monarchy, and basically any form of government.
The next question you may ask is how are criminals punished by private arbitration. It seems that most crimes would be served by retribution. Abitration courts would set a precedent, essentially like common law, and require restitution to the person wronged. If Jamal steals your 250$ bike he might be required to return the bike or refund the value plus whatever the courts deem a fair enough restitution for the crime committed.

...

Anarcho-Capitalism is beautiful.

if it was any good, we wouldve gravitated towards it already. Clearly monarchy is superior

How would you stop Ancap land from turning into corporatist land? How would you handle people creating countries within your country?

Stopping people from doing things violates the NAP.

What would be the ideal "laws" of an ancap commune?
Just an NAP?
What would the property laws be like? Could all unowned property be claimed whenever? What about roads? And police? Would all of these be privately owned, or publicly owned, but privately funded?

Competition. If one company becomes too jewish then a cheaper alternative will arise. Other businesses can try to conglomerate or form a monopoly but there would always be incentive for another small business to spring up with slightly lower prices and jew over the conglomerate.

It seems that, comparing liberal democracies of today to even progressive societies of say, 500 years ago, we are a lot more free and probably more free than we ever were. For this reason I think that anarcho-capitalism is the next step in society. The freedomland of america has only existed for a relatively small period of time in the historical scale. Compare how democracy is growing and monarchies(not just figureheads) only survive in shitholes like the middle east and africa.

Laws would essentially come down to inalienable human rights-the rights that transcend written law. Things like rape, murder, and theft are pretty universally agreed upon as morally egregious.
I have touched on roads and police earlier in the thread so I encourage you to scroll up and ask questions then. As far as property goes, you and yer gun own yer property goddamnit!
I fail to see your idea that property is a construct that need be enforced by a government. especially since at the flick of a wrist the government can seize it for eminent domain

Ppl r scared of responsibility an would rather relinquish it to a leader. There wont be any anarchy state. And anarchy state wont have roads, health care or police.

What do you mean organized crime wouldn't be able to fund itself? Can auto dealerships and locksmiths not fund themselves in our current world because they're legal?

Your argument is completely retarded. Anarchism is worse than even the lowest third world shit hole.

'but, but, but nobody is perfect!' That's always the last excuse for a navel gazing idealist. Nobody blames you for not being perfect. We are laughing at you anarchists for being completely retarded.

Newsflash. They obey and are protected by the law. By the government. Without law and order to enforce their proclamations, your so called private "courts" are just a bunch of SJWs jerking each other off. You are more useless than the no army United Nations. It takes force to lay down the law. That's what you childish anarchists don't understand.

"Force is the supreme authority from which all other authority derives. Such as mine to make your lives miserable once a day. Force if you will! The franchise is force, naked and raw, the Power of the Rods and the Ax. Whether it is exerted by ten men or by ten billion, political authority is force."

Robert Heinlein, Starship Troopers.

Read stirner faggot

The reason organized crime exists is because they partake in illegal activities. A good majority of organized crime's income comes from drugs. When drugs are legal then mary sue down the street can open up a weedlmao dispensary using crop she grew in her backyard. You yourself could grow your own drugs. Theres no need to approach a shady organization because there would be legitimate business ventures to serve the demand. Same with prostitution. It would just be either a brothel or a woman who employs herself. No need to go to the black market when everything is on the market.
Surely there still would be crimes that would be deemed reprehensible but still profitable(human trafficking, hitmen, extortion) but I don't see criminal organizations becoming as massive as say, mexican cartels, off of these crimes alone.

The reason why mafia families and cartels operate the way that they do, using violence as a tool, is because it's effective and they can. If a business can use violence or the threat of violence is always has an advantage over one that does not. Thus cartels and organizations like it will still exist in the ancap, and because there is no strong, centralized government to stop them, they will operate better than usually (see Mexico as an example).

Except the conglomerate would always be able to create the cheapest product because of the capital they posses, they'd also be able to purchase intellectual property, control the need for goods. Also, what happens when there is no longer anything to improve on? When goods are produced by machines and machines fix and produce machines. How will people be able to even pay for goods or force the corporations to submit with their dollar when they no longer even need money.

This wasn't the last excuse, it was in the original argument. Government is morally corrupt. If Anarchism is better morally and philosophically then all I need to prove is that it would be just as good, if not better, than the best current society
Wanna provide an argument for this statement?
There is more than one way to enforce things. Lets say Mr. Shekelbergs car company makes a car that when you crash, it cuts your legs off. You take Mr. Shekelberg to a private court and his big bad lawyers fuck you over and you dont get shit because they tell you its your fault.
This is describing what happens in our current society. It can happen in any society even your precious gubmints.
Literally what implies this?
Geopolitics is a little more complicated than keeping a neighborhood safe within a society. Nice false comparison. Like I said before, for anarcho capitalism to work the whole society needs to agree its the right thing to do.
Like how we have invaded North Korea and Russia to punish them? Economic sanctions are a thing?
Seems like the good goy bootlicker is really showing here. I remember when I grew up and stopped needing daddy to make decisions for me

I actually think this is the opposite. If they break the NAP, you could join up with KFC and Mcdonalds and purge them.

...

If the central foundation of your ideology is that the government is immoral,
how are you going to convince a moral relativist or a person who is just thinking practical?

If a vigilante were to live in your neighborhood and fight crime that seems like a good thing does it not? Well what about when that vigilante starts demanding money for his services? Maybe most people would pay, for he is doing a public good.
What about when that vigilante locks you up for not paying him for a service you did not ask for?
Tell me in which philosophy this is seen as morally justified.

This goes back to the idea of bureaucratic efficiency, and the limits of it. Of course a larger company has advantage of economies of scale for sure, but it seems that massive corporations would have a much harder time maintaining dominance without government and regulation enabling them. If the large company sells stuff for the cheapest around, great! If not then surely a company will spring up.
Things only have value if people are willing to pay. If a company charges too much then they will go out of business. Its pretty simple fam.

Moral relativists claim that there is no such thing as objective morality.
So the question whether something is seen as morally justified in a certain context by certain people is essentially meaningless, just another attribute they share and that doesn't have a higher meaning.

Anarcho-capitalism sounds pretty good, tbh. A kidfucker's paradise.

He answered that most would. Whether this is moral or not is irrelevant.

The degree that you collectivists misrepresent ancap due to having zero knowledge of anything except the memes is ridiculous.

...

Look, nigger, I put a sign up at my gate that said that trespassers will be raped.

It's not my fault your daughter can't read French.

Don't worry, I'll give her back in a couple of years after I've impregnated her. No, I won't be paying child support, as I never signed a contract agreeing to do so.

There is no real knowledge about implemented anarcho capitalism, because it has never been implemented.
There are many ideas how it 'could' or 'should' work, but many think it would not, for a variety of reasons.
It is seen as a whacky theory and rightfully so.

...

Fine you got me on this one
but what are some better alternatives then according to you?

my nigga

what are you on about?

That's used when people are talking about something that's tried and failed, i.e. communism

Stop thinking you have any knowledge about how things like the NAP work because you obviously have no idea

fuck off you're not me

Dummies don't even understand the function of private courts– to resolve disputes between the agencies. The courts do not legislate and enforce laws on people; you're thinking of government

You're a dear supporter of ancap too my friend?
with no rules we would finally break free of this facistic world!

Individual liberties are the most important thing in the world, but with no way of keeping order, they will collapse. Humans naturally need and form the social contract, so if it is dismantled, new orders will form, new people will take power, and likely they will not care so much about personal liberty as you and me. They will be warlords.

I think the GNU license is a good analogy. In the license it specifies that the user of the software has the right to own, see the source code, distribute, modify, and distribute modified versions of the software to others freely; that all their rights are protected, but with the stipulation that all derivative works must adhere to the same rules. In short, any modified version of GNU anywhere down the line will still have to guarantee those freedoms. The only right that is restricted is the ability to restrict the rights of others.

It's sort of a microcosm of the role we'll always need government to play, no matter how much it's practical to strip it down. Otherwise you're back to square one.

Aktually, a court would have to rule that your behaviour was acceptable and then the protection agency whom represents the girl would have to agree to use that court.

Since no one will sign up to a protection agency that lets their daughter be raped, your scenario is unlikely

you're brainwashed by governmental forces

Ancap forever

@Ancaps
The way you defined the NAP I can, if I own a spot of land, found my own 'state' and demand that people who want to buy rights on my land pay taxes and follow my rules.
If this is possible, how can the idea of a state be generally immoral, if there literally can be zero difference between a regular state and a privately owned institution?

brainwashed.

Voluntary states don't break muh NAP

foreign invaders

nothing in ancap society can match the might of a nation's military

We would protect our individual living spaces if that were about to happen.

you underestimate ancaps!
Viva la stalin!

But as long as your parents are free to decide where they give birth to you, and you are even free to decide to renounce citizenship, how can you say it's generally immoral?

It doesn't have to match their might, only make it difficult and unprofitable– not worth their while

oops i posted a pic of myself accidentally

It's not generally immoral, it's immoral if you didn't agree to it. EZ

that's so unrealistic that I don't know if you're a real ancap or someone making fun of them

poe's law

What about them roads? What about dem programs!?

A-are you typing the postnumbers by hand?

Your parents made this decision for you when you were a toddler.
And when you are old enough to be seen as your own legal agent, you are free to opt out of the contract.
By your logic, there is nothing generally immoral about any state.

im as real as ancap can be

Lol. Try coming up with an argument.
Oh, I forgot. You're an anarchist.

Your face reminds me of Conchita Wurst :D

Incorrect
There's a difference between what government is currently doing and somebody setting up their own government on land they rightfully own

no, idk why it dropped that last number

how are you not brainwashed then?
tell me

must be government

What difference?

Remember:
We are speaking in general terms.

well both responses to my post were inadequate

foreign invasion from a hostile country's military would fuck ancapistan up, and it's not good enough to say "oh they wouldn't do that"

I am lmao x'D
I love ancaps, they are an endless source of comedy.

Lol

you guys are bashing us ancaps too hard

look at my post

I win no matter what!

It's not their land. They don't have a right to charge taxes to people that didn't consent, nor to force people to 'consent or get out'

Yes it is.
There are countries all around the world whom could be conquered by their neighbours. But this is not a huge problem, because their neighbours would get hurt enough that they wouldn't do that– all sorts of difficulties would emerge.
Same rules apply to ancap territory

GNU guy here. I'm not trying to bash you too hard. I think your ideas stem from the right place; a respect for personal liberty, but that's exactly why we can't put ourselves in a state where our liberties can be taken away.

I bash everyone.
Almost everyone who holds strong and passionate general opinions is an ideologue vulnerable to ridicule: and that's most people out there

but what about my perfect ideas?
what about my dreams?
you crushed them

So you disagree with the arbitrary claim of original ownership of the state X.
What if I disagree with yours?

Such as being governed?

Such as being governed by people who aren't accountable to us, which is what will naturally result from anarchy.

wow america could save a lot of money on defense spending, they should just cancel the entire military since nobody would ever attack them anyway

thanks, ancapman!

Your whole ideology is based on the naive premise that a total power vacuum can be contained indefinitely in a society based on hardcore economical darwinism.

There is no incentive for government to hold itself accountable.
For individuals, there is not much incentive to hold government accountable, because it is costly to the individual but one person's vote makes very little difference

Read Friedman

And read marx

For the average individual in the unsupervised market it will be incredibly beneficial to suck up to any authority offering guarantee for food, shelter and safety.
You will just replace modern 'democracies' with smaller, feudalist states.

Correct

Incorrect

What you want is that noone is able to enforce his law over you and your property.
Either anarcho capitalism results in basically a power vacuum or it has failed.

The absence of 'someone making law over you and your property' is not the same as a power vacuum

I agree, not in the theoretical sense.
Because someone who has the power to make law over you and your property doesn't nessecarily have to do so.

In the practical sense, yes it is.
If there are people who are able to make law over you, one of them will, sooner or later.

Did you read ti wrong?

Of course people could "collaborate" to enforce the abscence of accumulations of power - but this would go against the NAP if these accumulations were happening voluntarily.

Also you simply can't expect people to all voluntarily enforce a certain status quo unless there is a direct benefit to the individual of cooperating with the collective.
People are not ants. That's what the failed communist experiments all taught us.

I don't think so, but elaborate.

If a smaller state were offering food and shelter in exchange for work and a person chose to live that life voluntarily rather than go to the next town over and get a real job and work for a living then there is nothing wrong with that.

What ancapistan would actually function like would be small communities and power would be vested upon them.
Take a gated community for example. If one were to buy land or a house here then it would entail signing a contract that stipulates various rules and ordinances, such as no more than four nukes per household and no death lazers. You might agree to pay a monthly fee that entails the upkeep of the neighborhood and protection through a security company.
None of this violates anarchist ideals because it is someone voluntarily entering a contract.

Anarcho capitalism: where the solution to government is to establish oligarchist warlords that form their own regional governments with the only thing preventing them from going to war with each other is a shitty abstract non aggression concept with no enforcement similar to foundation of the league of nations.

Apparently there is absolutely nothing refutable about this concept.

The idea is no one will have the power to make law over you. See

No one is saying anything about trying to stop people accumulating power
You're the ones talking about there being an absence of power, old sport

You are saying that a bunch of oligarchical warlords forcibly coercing people sounds bad right?
Welcome to Government
In non-meme anarcho-capitalism you can see that war is not very profitable. If there were conflicts between two private police forces they would much rather take it to arbitration than fight it out. Think of the police forces as mall cops instead of military forces. Why would they fight a war for their boss? Would you die for your job?

Basically what that means is that if you have got enough money to finance a private army, you can't be held accountable for your actions by anyone, because it would not be profitable for the courts to start a fight with you.

Do you realize just how much money it takes to fund a modern military? If you had that kind of money and wanted to do it you could do it now and go invade some shithole.

The courts exist to arbitrate disputes, not to fight wars. Your argument would have to be that it doesn't pay defence agencies to protect their clients

(You)

That's an inconsistent view. These 'courts' only will be accountable to those who own money.
Such an institution doesn't have to make moral decisions to attract paying customiers, it has to follow the conduct of the rich class.
What you wish for is not anarchism, it is aristocracy.
Anarcho capitalism only works in a dream world where people prioritize an arbitrary, unenforced law called 'NAP' over their own personal interests.
That's why people laugh about you.

If courts favoured rich people, no one would want to use them.

They have to be prove desirable to both defence agencies

Why would you agree to use an arbitrator who is against you?
Lets say there was two companies of equal size who wanted to settle a dispute, why would they choose an arbitrator with a track record of unfairness? Arbitration firms have a vested interest in being transparent and fair. If it came out that rich people could pay the company that runs the SAT for example, they would lose all credibility and no one would use them.

If you were very rich, why would you hire some faggots who respect a court which may rule against you if you instead of some real mercenaries?

What is armchair economics for 500, Alex.

You must be an absolute idiot to not see the value of war. You dont really need to even go to war and kill people to even reap the benefits of armament. It takes an otherwise mediocre work force and doubles if not triples the productivity of it. Countless jobs are created, unemployment decreases rapidly. It gives an excuse for an increase in taxes, which in anarcho capitalist terms would translated to "rent" and "leasing of corporate land for occupation". When the war is actually fought, it gives opportunity for more land and resources to be gained.

To simply state without thought that war is not profitable shows you are incredibly disassociated with how a politics work.

Who would die for the president of the united states? A good number of people actually. Who would die for a king or lord? Same answer.

Your boss in ancap essentially acts as a figurehead for your safety and economic stability, you WILL go fight and die for him because you otherwise are indirectly putting yourself at risk for poverty, starvation, homelessness, and death. Thats just the start of it, there is also "brand loyalty" which would essentially take the place of nationalism

t. Benito

Also war against an anarcho capitalist country would be easy, as we have to assume that voluntary self defense doesn't work very well, since not many would be volunteering if they could simply reap the benefit of others defending their border without risking their own lifes.

You could create your very own defence agency, but the other defence agencies are still going to want to come after you if you committed a crime. Historically, I think, most of the purchasing power has been with middle class, and they don't want rich fuckers going around committing crimes. So defence agencies sell a service which also protects from rich fuckers

What's 'profitable' for government is different to what's profitable for a company. You're talking complete shit like a retard.
Get your company into war and you will have to pay danger pay and your workers end up dead. Your clients leave you because you can protect them. You will end up going broke.

Can't tell if trollin or retarded
War is profitable because of
T A X E S
A
X
E
S
Of millions of people. The sole reason war is profitable is because of government retard. If you know so much about economics why don't you elaborate on the return of investment in
Which of these wars has resulted in a profit?
People die for patriotism. Soldiers have to be rigorously trained to kill. Before vietnam simple bullseye targets were used and, sure enough people were generally scared to shoot other human beings. It wasn't until the military instituted programs of training that people started being able to shoot to kill. Heres an autists who explains this.
To this you may say well surely police forces would institute this training!
to this I would ask for what purpose? Rigorous military training just is not necessary for police forces.

Wow I guess no one ever signed up to a government army either by that logic

Get your company into war and you will have to pay danger pay and your workers end up dead. Your clients leave you because you can protect them. You will end up going broke.

War between companies would probably resemble mafia wars with infiltration, sabotage and assassinations, since they are usually not bound to an enclosed territory. You can't just compare that with a default war situation.

Also you have to defend yourself against aggressors who don't care about whether war is profitable or not.
Money is not the only variable and will never be.

(You)
Wow I guess no one ever signed up to a government army either by that logic

Your argument is retarded. There is no country with voluntary military service financed by the volunteers themselves without compensation.
You don't volunteer and risk your life for free and even buy your own food and weapons and stuff. This only works for tribals and nationalists, which doesn't really go well with anarcho capitalism.

Keynesitard detected.

That's ignorant of the reality.
50% is owned by the richest 1%
Usually in the aristocracies of the history it was even more severe.

And rich people making your laws basically is the hisories default. It wouldn't be different in a "libertarian" system.

Prisoners Dilemma

Not to arm up is the most profitable solution for everyone.
But if your opponent doesn't arm up, but you do, you can rape him and he is fucked.
Thus, everyone has to arm up.

You both are fucking idiots, for different reasons.

Firstly, the fuck you think is profitable for a company? More land to manufacture on and more resources to manufacture. Why the fuck do you think business men often dabble in wars? Cause they are bored? No, they want to destabilize a region so their resources, labor, and land can be exploited. Why the fuck do you think Germany and Sweden are being flooded with mud slimes? Cause of some sort of progressive ideology? No, they breed like fucking cockroaches, and will work for less than actual citizens. You suddenly think that a corporation that has the amount of power, land, and resources of a government wont adopt governmental behaviour? Are you fucking retarded, and you this fucking stupid?

Secondly:
Economic boom of the twenties and indirectly responsible for the Dust Bowl because of rapid agriculture to help supply a war torn Europe with food. In Europe, the imperial doctrines of many of its powers put them at odds with each other over resources and land, the great war is simply an extension of that doctrine to a horrific magnitude that noone could expect due to what had been observed in the imperial wars in the 1800s
Germany's rapid rearmament had successfully pulled them out of both the economic turmoil of the treaty of versailles and the great depression, in the USA it also drove unemployment to near zero and allowed for FDR's new deal ( an economic policy) to look like a heaven sent gift.
Helped us keep trade ports in southern korea and prevent the further spread of communism which would inevitably limit our trading partners.
A favor for our french buddies and same reason as korea
Oil and destabilization of middle east to drive down prices of said oil.

Noone is arguing that patriotism isnt a factor in why people fight wars, just an extension.

edgy
d
g
y

Wrongo bongo mongoloid

Using a buzzword to call me a supporter of a ideal that is practiced by the majority of governments today with a great deal of success is kind of dutile and doesnt at all refute anything i have said

Go back to Reddit.

Because most governments are so great aren't they? We're obviously all on this site because we love the status quo right?

Why do I even need to refute you when you're premise is so retarded? "war increases productivity and reduces unemployment", well WHO GIVES A SHIT when what you're producing has no value to mankind besides destruction, war does not increase the standard of living, it decreases it massively. And if you actually go to war with any other modern country, mutually ensured destruction is ensured considering the destructive capabilities of our weapons are so great any serious war would leave a nation completely desolate for at least a decade. Look at Britain after WW2. And no America's little excursions into other countries have not been beneficial, they only people they actually benefit is the military industrial complex, politicians and arms manufacturers, which is why they happen in the first place. It's like you don't even realise your attitude is the same in 1984 which all countries have their workers work non-stop to produce war material to be expended in never-ending world wars to keep the population subjugated,.

...

So what about freeloaders ?

So in an Ancap society, what if the old government buys everything back?

Do you know where money comes from?

...

...

that brings up another question. What would be the currency in a Ancap society

⌄
⌄
⌄
4
c
h
a
n

Even if AnCap could work which it can't all you're doing is making your country vulnerable to attack by countries more powerful and organized than yours. If your country is based off of anarcho-capitalism, you aren't going to have a sufficient enough government which is able to properly defend your borders. The US military is highly organized, its rigid structure is a result of a more centralized government capable of affording said military and able to hire companies like Lockheed Martin to develop weapons for them, which balances military technology to ensure that it is on par with the militaries of other countries. You can have a gun behind every blade of grass all you want, it's not going to help when your enemy is farther up in the sky than you can see with the naked eye while he's dropping smart bombs on your yellow flag toting ass. Even if everything in your insignificant pipe dream works which it wont your country will succumb to outside forces outside of your control as a result of your political fantasy.

When I was studying for IT, we learned different security protocols called "access control". These define how a workplace should operate. Mandatory control, for example, is often used in military environments where opsec is top priority and demands the strictest security procedures to prevent compromising of said security. Anarcho-Capitalism is essentially, Discretionary control, where there is such little order in a workplace environment, that everyone is essentially allowed to do as they wish, come to work whenever, go home when you've gotten your work done, and trust is placed in all individuals that they will do what they're supposed to without being told by their higher ups. You won't find this in any workplace environment, because it doesn't work. You can't expect ANYONE to do what they're supposed to, even when there is a common goal or interest in the workplace to get something done. For progress to happen, there must be order and there must be hierarchy. There must be someone above you to make sure you're doing what you're suppose to. If there isn't, then progress will ALWAYS stagnate. No matter what. Under anarcho-capitalism, you will not be treated fairly by any employer or person so long as they have monetary leverage over you. You can see this right now. The banks own you. They print the governments money and they make sure that the system in place ensures that you rely on you too. You really think that everyone under ancapitalism will treat you well? No, they're going to exploit you through predatory means just because they fucking can. Order does not = oppression and tyranny. In a workplace where there is order, people do what they're suppose to and everyone benefits. Everyone comes there for the same thing, whether it be money or purpose and application of ones skills, and where there is purpose, there is incentive. Ancapitalism provides no purpose. That doesn't mean the current system does, that just means that fucking ancapitalism isn't the solution.

...

Which means he's from 4chan. Everyone from iFunny is from 4chan.

Trusted institutions would make their own (amazon gift cards, etc.)
It's not ideal, but it's better than bartering.

What would employers pay you in? Gift cards?

Gift cards as in versatile store credit? Probably, it's no different from what the fed is printing right now. I'm not actually an ancap tbh, muh roads

So offering monetary freedom in the form of credit that you have to spend at said employer? That doesn't make any sense. I mean, I would have gone with cryptocurrency, but whatever.

Child sex slaves.

A small city-state that is formed around a religion could never work, they don't have a military! surely they would be invaded by some bigger force. This is Vatican City
A small country right smack in the middle of Europe of all places would surely be taken over by all those warmongers that surround it, yet it has lacked a military since 1868. This is Lichtenstein.
The US military industrial complex creates enemies to protect itself from. Aside from minor fighting on small Alaskan islands in WWII, when was the last time the US military defended the homeland?

Shiggery diggery doo!

...

I saved it from here, please believe me senpai!

Holla Forums here, get back in the oven you faggot kike

...

come on, even sandniggers can into hoppe these days

But Vatican City is the result of an invasion, the Papal State got invaded by Italy and Vatican City is all left from it, which is more or less a building and some house propped up on donations. And if you think they didn't have a military or that the Swiss guard are a bunch of silly men in a dress you are fucking wrong.
But even Lichtenstein got into wars. And you can't compare it to America. Not only Lichtenstein is hold up by the EU that send tons of money there, which effectively controls it, there is nothing of value on it and it is surrounded by much more bigger countries. America is a huge appeasement of cultivable earth, has control on oil, a pretty fucking great geographical position that helps against invasions,etc. If Japan, China, or even one of your neighbors could invade Texas without having to fight all the US military complex, you are sure as hell they would.
There is a limit on how small you can get before you can't even sustain itself.You can't have thousands of Lichtenstein or Switzerland and hope that it will be enough to sustain a population. Switzerland was a shithole with emigration problems before they started their economic services. America will effectively go a separation between races too.
As now the US is under attack from the inside, they are pushing for a balkanization that will lower their control over the world. You are going effectively the way of Rome, which it means, you are going through the same phases: feudalism, urbanesim, communes, signoria, principality, and then microstate all over again. This is Italy and Germany history. But especially Italy, considering they got pushed around from those place that reached a form of a bigger State earlier than anyone else: France, Spain, and the HRE. Then Austria.
You are going to end up all over again into authoritarianism. No system will work forever

That's wealth not purchasing power.
The only way they could get access to that money is by selling their mansions and businesses, and even then the money would run out

I think AnCap would just result in a very violent world. You can't trust people with this system. We'd just be at each other's throats constantly. Besides, communities would grow and keep growing until AnarchoCapitalism just turns into regular capitalism. Ancap system is not a system that lasts.

Governments kill people and create conflict within society because people's property and rights are up for grabs

Private property creates peace

Governments are made out of people. Private property doesn't take away the biggest incentive for violence: greed.

Free speech is cancer tbh

No one said anarcho capitalism will remove greed.
Your comment doesn't mean anything.

...

How are there so many people these days who believe this?

When did I say that? In fact, I said the opposite.

The Papacy used to control a considerable amount of land. It has no military because it's been invaded so many times. It's been merely given the privilege of existing.

ok

I extend that offer to you based upon your evident cowardly personality disguised as an argument. Sorry we dont live in your fictional fucking utopia in which noone wars with each other because "muh destruction". The fact of the matter is we are a opportunistic, selfish, ever consuming race that puts the value of commodities and our own people over the value of general human life. Why should we do differently, to be honest? It is better to secure a future of our people and our nation than the future of another nation, and if that involves bringing genocide, starvation, and war to those that arent our people than so fucking be it. I dont see you crying out in pain everytime to step foot on bloodied American soil, nor sob when you eat the foods it produces. You want to convince yourself that Humans can live without killing each other, because to admit otherwise would absolutely destroy the premise of your ideology. I understand on some level, which is why I kind of pity you and your willful obliviousness of the world.

No one here said that anarcho-capitalism is the solution to world peace. Democracies, monarchies, despoitisms, gommunist societies all fall victim to war an invasion. For this reason muh no national defence!!!! is not an argument faggot.

what does liking or disliking the status quo have to do with its stability? You lost the argument when you got off the point and to "but the system hurts :((("

I don't like minotaurs and don't want to get fucked to death by one, but throwing a toothless malnourished 80 year old man into the maze and hoping he'll magically defeat and replace the monster and never be trumped by the next one is retarded.

You just want Fallout 3 to be real

You will always be right because you're system/ way of doing things will never be truely tested.

And if it doesn't work you will just claim that what happened wasn't 'real anarcho capitalism' - the same thing the communists are doing.