What are Holla Forums's biggest issues with anarcho-capitalism?

It's an excuse to shirk all your duties toward your fellow man and wallow in materialistic, and individualistic, nihilism.

It's gonna lose militarily against a state.

A planned army > decentralized militia.

Holla Forums isn't high test enuff

Libertarianism is for a LIMITED government.
AnCap is for NO government.

I have more respect for AnCaps than Lolbergs since you take the non-aggression principle to its logical conclusion but both positions are laughable and autistic as fuck.

For an AnCap society to function for more than 5 minutes without descending into (at best) feudal warlordism would require the overwhelming majority of people to be rational, honest and decent. Experience tells us that they are not.

AnCapism, like most shit-tier ideologies, is just an attempt to redefine human nature according to the preferences of the ideologue. When you start to do that you can come up with an infinite number of impossible utopias, including communism.

Why don't you take your dumb bullshit to Holla Forums and put your dumb fucking flag on your posts and fuck around there like your fucking dumbass retardation actually matters and is respected by people instead of being the retarded idea it is?

Where did you learn about it, and whose ideas do you agree with?

1 misdirection and 2 non sequiturs

If the physics used to build aircraft were engineered by Jews, would that make it any less valid?
True is true regardless of who says or denies it.

Anarchy is only the absence of violent power. It says nothing about individualism or how markets run. You could have a weird collectivist commune and it would be anarchist, as long as its members had the freedom to leave.

Vietnam, a country of 10million or so, wreckt the US with decentralized tactics.

Umad Chaim? When Jews can't use the government to kike humans out of wealth, they tend to get upset

Bump

FUCK OF TO Holla Forums, DENIZEN OF SOMALIA
FUCK OF TO Holla Forums, DENIZEN OF SOMALIA
FUCK OF TO Holla Forums, DENIZEN OF SOMALIA
FUCK OF TO Holla Forums, DENIZEN OF SOMALIA
FUCK OF TO Holla Forums, DENIZEN OF SOMALIA
FUCK OF TO Holla Forums, DENIZEN OF SOMALIA
FUCK OF TO Holla Forums, DENIZEN OF SOMALIA
FUCK OF TO Holla Forums, DENIZEN OF SOMALIA
FUCK OF TO Holla Forums, DENIZEN OF SOMALIA
FUCK OF TO Holla Forums, DENIZEN OF SOMALIA
FUCK OF TO Holla Forums, DENIZEN OF SOMALIA
FUCK OF TO Holla Forums, DENIZEN OF SOMALIA
FUCK OF TO Holla Forums, DENIZEN OF SOMALIA
FUCK OF TO Holla Forums, DENIZEN OF SOMALIA
FUCK OF TO Holla Forums, DENIZEN OF SOMALIA
FUCK OF TO Holla Forums, DENIZEN OF SOMALIA
FUCK OF TO Holla Forums, DENIZEN OF SOMALIA
FUCK OF TO Holla Forums, DENIZEN OF SOMALIA
FUCK OF TO Holla Forums, DENIZEN OF SOMALIA
FUCK OF TO Holla Forums, DENIZEN OF SOMALIA
FUCK OF TO Holla Forums, DENIZEN OF SOMALIA
FUCK OF TO Holla Forums, DENIZEN OF SOMALIA
FUCK OF TO Holla Forums, DENIZEN OF SOMALIA
FUCK OF TO Holla Forums, DENIZEN OF SOMALIA
FUCK OF TO Holla Forums, DENIZEN OF SOMALIA
FUCK OF TO Holla Forums, DENIZEN OF SOMALIA
FUCK OF TO Holla Forums, DENIZEN OF SOMALIA
FUCK OF TO Holla Forums, DENIZEN OF SOMALIA
FUCK OF TO Holla Forums, DENIZEN OF SOMALIA
FUCK OF TO Holla Forums, DENIZEN OF SOMALIA
FUCK OF TO Holla Forums, DENIZEN OF SOMALIA
FUCK OF TO Holla Forums, DENIZEN OF SOMALIA
FUCK OF TO Holla Forums, DENIZEN OF SOMALIA
FUCK OF TO Holla Forums, DENIZEN OF SOMALIA
FUCK OF TO Holla Forums, DENIZEN OF SOMALIA
FUCK OF TO Holla Forums, DENIZEN OF SOMALIA
FUCK OF TO Holla Forums, DENIZEN OF SOMALIA
FUCK OF TO Holla Forums, DENIZEN OF SOMALIA
FUCK OF TO Holla Forums, DENIZEN OF SOMALIA
FUCK OF TO Holla Forums, DENIZEN OF SOMALIA
FUCK OF TO Holla Forums, DENIZEN OF SOMALIA
FUCK OF TO Holla Forums, DENIZEN OF SOMALIA
FUCK OF TO Holla Forums, DENIZEN OF SOMALIA
FUCK OF TO Holla Forums, DENIZEN OF SOMALIA
FUCK OF TO Holla Forums, DENIZEN OF SOMALIA
FUCK OF TO Holla Forums, DENIZEN OF SOMALIA
FUCK OF TO Holla Forums, DENIZEN OF SOMALIA
FUCK OF TO Holla Forums, DENIZEN OF SOMALIA
FUCK OF TO Holla Forums, DENIZEN OF SOMALIA
FUCK OF TO Holla Forums, DENIZEN OF SOMALIA
FUCK OF TO Holla Forums, DENIZEN OF SOMALIA
FUCK OF TO Holla Forums, DENIZEN OF SOMALIA
FUCK OF TO Holla Forums, DENIZEN OF SOMALIA
FUCK OF TO Holla Forums, DENIZEN OF SOMALIA
FUCK OF TO Holla Forums, DENIZEN OF SOMALIA
FUCK OF TO Holla Forums, DENIZEN OF SOMALIA
FUCK OF TO Holla Forums, DENIZEN OF SOMALIA
FUCK OF TO Holla Forums, DENIZEN OF SOMALIA
FUCK OF TO Holla Forums, DENIZEN OF SOMALIA
FUCK OF TO Holla Forums, DENIZEN OF SOMALIA
FUCK OF TO Holla Forums, DENIZEN OF SOMALIA
FUCK OF TO Holla Forums, DENIZEN OF SOMALIA
FUCK OF TO Holla Forums, DENIZEN OF SOMALIA
FUCK OF TO Holla Forums, DENIZEN OF SOMALIA
FUCK OF TO Holla Forums, DENIZEN OF SOMALIA
FUCK OF TO Holla Forums, DENIZEN OF SOMALIA
FUCK OF TO Holla Forums, DENIZEN OF SOMALIA
FUCK OF TO Holla Forums, DENIZEN OF SOMALIA
FUCK OF TO Holla Forums, DENIZEN OF SOMALIA
FUCK OF TO Holla Forums, DENIZEN OF SOMALIA
FUCK OF TO Holla Forums, DENIZEN OF SOMALIA
FUCK OF TO Holla Forums, DENIZEN OF SOMALIA
FUCK OF TO Holla Forums, DENIZEN OF SOMALIA
FUCK OF TO Holla Forums, DENIZEN OF SOMALIA
FUCK OF TO Holla Forums, DENIZEN OF SOMALIA
FUCK OF TO Holla Forums, DENIZEN OF SOMALIA
FUCK OF TO Holla Forums, DENIZEN OF SOMALIA
FUCK OF TO Holla Forums, DENIZEN OF SOMALIA
FUCK OF TO Holla Forums, DENIZEN OF SOMALIA
FUCK OF TO Holla Forums, DENIZEN OF SOMALIA
FUCK OF TO Holla Forums, DENIZEN OF SOMALIA
FUCK OF TO Holla Forums, DENIZEN OF SOMALIA
FUCK OF TO Holla Forums, DENIZEN OF SOMALIA
FUCK OF TO Holla Forums, DENIZEN OF SOMALIA
FUCK OF TO Holla Forums, DENIZEN OF SOMALIA
FUCK OF TO Holla Forums, DENIZEN OF SOMALIA
FUCK OF TO Holla Forums, DENIZEN OF SOMALIA
FUCK OF TO Holla Forums, DENIZEN OF SOMALIA
FUCK OF TO Holla Forums, DENIZEN OF SOMALIA
FUCK OF TO Holla Forums, DENIZEN OF SOMALIA
FUCK OF TO Holla Forums, DENIZEN OF SOMALIA
FUCK OF TO Holla Forums, DENIZEN OF SOMALIA
FUCK OF TO Holla Forums, DENIZEN OF SOMALIA
FUCK OF TO Holla Forums, DENIZEN OF SOMALIA
FUCK OF TO Holla Forums, DENIZEN OF SOMALIA
FUCK OF TO Holla Forums, DENIZEN OF SOMALIA
FUCK OF TO Holla Forums, DENIZEN OF SOMALIA
FUCK OF TO Holla Forums, DENIZEN OF SOMALIA
FUCK OF TO Holla Forums, DENIZEN OF SOMALIA
FUCK OF TO Holla Forums, DENIZEN OF SOMALIA
FUCK OF TO Holla Forums, DENIZEN OF SOMALIA
FUCK OF TO Holla Forums, DENIZEN OF SOMALIA
FUCK OF TO Holla Forums, DENIZEN OF SOMALIA

Wrong.

Vietnam has an army and a base in North Vietnam where they coordinate everything.

It has never been done in practice in a modern, industrial society.

this too

Pick one.

Decentralized tactics can take place under a state. Just because they communicate doesn't mean it's not decentralized.

The fact it's planned from top down means it's not decentralized.

the Vietcong just didn't hurr durr let's do whatever, they work by the plan of the NVA.

That's not how it works retard. It wasn't planned by the heads of the state directly. They would plan shit out and they were aloud to work with it as they went. They didn't need to radio in to the North Vietnamese base to get permission to do X if something went wrong or right.

The Soviets got reked in WW2 because they couldn't do shit like withdraw without permission from a central authority.

It's purely retarded tbh fam. One of the few ideologies that would manage to be actually worse than communism if ever implemented.

The NVA give the fucking plan to the Vietcong and told them to follow their plans, or else.

The Soviet beats the nazis.

Communism would be way worse than ancapism.

The very inception of the modern jew was to meld the traditional laws in a way that'd suit them

Okay, source?

They took considerably more casualties every battle.

More nonsensical jargon. You gonna tell me how "le jews" benefit off a system where they yield no authority over anyone through a state or?

And? They still win. Winning the war is what matters, not the battles.

Rothbard, Friedman, Volker, Koch, Rand… how much more jewish names to i have to give dip shit? Molyneux is a kike as well.

No its not noncence
The Talmud is basically the OT with parts switched out to benefit them instead of having maintained law and order as was the point

I knew all the Moly cultists would do this.

Moly is pro-white as fuck.

This is not the time for division, we need to unite.

I understand. You can have centralized control with decentralized tactics. They had wiggle room.

I know they still won, but it wasn't because they were an effective army, it was because they had numbers and Germany was fighting a war on two fronts. The Blitzkrieg would've destroyed the USSR if they hadn't had to deal with pretty much every Western Power. Nazi Germany actually used some decentralized tactics, despite operating under a centralized structure.

You mean those infographs that circulate here with fake quotes? Have you ever read the Talmud or?

Koch isn't jewish.

There. This guy already killed ancaps with a brief and loaded answer. If I were to add anything to it, I'd say ancap is dysgenic.

And fascism as well.
Any -ism requires a new man.

...

...

I'm a libertarian and I'm against it for a few reasons

1) No state means no army and no army means we can't defend ourselves. In nature the only morals are strength and an ideology that can't defend itself is destined to die.

2) No state means no borders. Yes I know you can go on about muh private land but shitskins won't care. We white people need to stick together to keep them out and for this we need a border that we're defending together

3) No state no police, no courts, no justice system and no, all the ideas about private police and private courts are absolutely ridiculous.

4) While I do believe a certain level of self-preservation makes you stronger, not weaker. There has to be some kind of state to counter degeneracy. We would be sitting ducks for kikes or other people wishing us badly who could take control of the media and entertainment industry.

5) In an ancap state, liberals and other cucks are free to import niggers and mudslime rapefugees and having them live on their land. I can cry as much as I like about muh private property but the moment these shitskins want a piece of it I won't be able to defend myself against thousands of them.

The centralized control is what wins the war for them, not the decentralized tactics.

The US was massacring both the Vietcong and the NVA, but these organizations will still be a thing a thing because Ha Noi still stands. The same for Al queada, they got the backing of the Pakistani.

And if we go down further, even the American revolution had the backing of the french.

Every successful gorilla war has had backing from foreign states.

Excuse, excuse, the fact the Soviet can control such a massive army and having that logistics is thanks to their centralized planning.

Too bad centralized planning isn't good for economy.

...

We need the government you idiot. Who do you think keeps us safe and gives us money? Healthcare and shelter didn't exist before the govenment. You wnat to go back to eating your own shit and sleeping in the mud like a fucking animal fuck you.

The point 5 really says it all. It's the same problem with all anarchist ideologies. If you don't make a state, somebody else will, and it will be the kind of state they like, not you.

Anarchy is temporary. The state will return eventually. Someone will win the game and establish his order.

Did you miss the part where I said you can have a centralized authority backing them, but having the military operate without the direct consent of that authority or?

And that's why I said decentralized tactics within a centralized power. I don't understand why you're talking about who's backing who. Where people are getting funds from is irrelevant to if decentralized military tactics are effective or not.

Good job you debunked anarchism high five, you should write an essay! It's completely impossible for the people of an anarchist society to have governance.

Yes it is because the second you have a government it stops being an anarchist society you twit.

Are you retarded? Ancapitalism isn't anarchism first of all, it's anti-state capitalism. Second, anarchist theory is specifically a horizontally organized society void of institutional hierarchies. It does not mean "no one will organize anything and voluntary hierarchies won't exist if they're useful."

Well if you give people the freedom to do what they want then people are going to form their own states to protect them selves
That's the reason states were created in the first place

Are you retarded?

Code word for most people will suffer under terrible condition because unlike what autists who coined this ideology think, humans are not rational animals and would rather live at home than move somewhere else where life is nicer.

You can't destroy the state without first destroying the conditions that gave rise to it in the first place. "Stateless capitalism" can't exist.

>These are often described as stateless societies,[1][2][3][4] although several authors have defined them more specifically as institutions based on non-hierarchical free associations.
>While anti-statism is central,[12] anarchism entails opposing authority or hierarchical organisation in the conduct of all human relations
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism

That's the reason states were created in the first place

Why on Earth would they do that? Why couldn't they form militias on their own??

Are you?

No. Codeword for situations like "The Chef knows the kitchen the best, it's best if we listen to him about our duties and take his direction during rush hour we'll all be better off."

It's almost like, different anarchists have different opinions on the same subject.

Exactly you abolish all government and then the corporations becomes the government because in ancap world money is power.

Simple: how are you going to enforce a free market in a governmentless state?

Exactly. That's why I'm a monarchist.

...

They do and then they gain more territory as people see how great they are doing and then a government forms to manage the country size community these people now belong to.

...

Who stops somebody from having a monopoly and using their wealth to destroy all their competition?

Governance does not = state. If governance concept of direct participatory democracy, this is not the same as one person making every decision.

...

They do not understand that the conditions that create "free markets" are only obtainable in white societies.

Corollary: they have no problem with Europe turning brown as long as it jives with "muh NAP."

What is stopping a powerful person with more wealth than everyone else from violating the NAP?

No Government=no Borders
Fuck that shit

The NAP.

Ancap is retarded then.

The fact that monopolies without government are not only extremely hard to create, but even harder to maintain. Even when there is a state monopoly, private entrepreneurs can outperform it illegally.

...

The absence, if not opposition to, the concept of duty, beyond some sort of contractual Jewish faggotry, which seems almost-invariably inherent in anarcho-everything and the people who seek to promote/espouse it.

...

That's called circular logical, m80.

The NAP
The NAP

There's nothing stopping anyone from buying up finite resources like water or land. There's literally no reason rich people wouldn't just work together instead of fight for scraps. The state rose out of capitalism, not the other way.

This.

And Stirner is a fool.

Because a more wealthy man sending his private army to kill his competition isn't possible in a society with no government right?

People keep saying anarchism is jewish but fail to elaborate why.

...

And what happens if i'm powerful enough to take more than what's mine. What if i call rile up the plebs to side with me. Boom, monarchy / feudalism.

Indeed, if it's not anarchy why is it called that. Of course there are minarchist libertarians that accept the existence of a small state, which actually could work. They still have the problem of stopping said state from growing.

It would be monarcy / feudalism with the absolute worst rulers you could possibly have.

People have to be forced not to steal and murder, faggot.

If your ideology assumes that everyone will voluntarily adhere to it, it is simply retarded as fuck. Even gommunism would work under that assumption.

It's unattainable.
Go ahead and point me to a single ancap society anywhere on the planet, or form your own and learn first hand what the problems are with your ideology.

You fags also ruined Russia at the end of the Cold War.

Not everyone has the same abilities, some are Strong yet Idiotic and others are Smart yet Weak for example, The weak still have value despite being unable to defend them selves
And if you go
The weak give services to the Millitia in order to get protected, I dunno about you but me that sounds like a thing called taxes

That you imply it should requirement for explanation in this regard, when the cause is so blatantly obvious, is your problem right there tbh fam.

Hell, I outright said it in the fucking comment you replied to.

Key phrase:

If you still don't get it, you're probably just an autistic liberal and should stop posting until you get some aderal or some shit for that 'tism.

Ancap is a stupid ideology where the only way they can even begin to think of a way to make it work involves implementing a government making the whole fucking thing moot.

And the Militias give service in return. This is a symbiotic relationship. The Militia doesn't have authority over the people they are funding. They are commanded by the people, not the state.

In order to buy, someone needs to sell it and the more they buy, the more expensive it gets(huh someone is trying to buy the land for that amount of money, I am sure I can sell it at twice the amount).
I doubt they would have enough money to do so, and even so not all people want to sell their land.
Firstly, is because of government and secondly, most of their wealth is in the value of their firms and stocks, they don't have that amount of cash in their pockets. They would need to sell all their firms first, but that would imply someone buying them, and then use the money to try and buy all the land, minus all their firms.

Haven't you read all those threads where people who would testify against Hillary, suddenly died?

lol, ok.

What happens when the state antagonizes the militia, say by denying satisfactory recompense for their service?

What state?

And that's the point of a functioning government
Just because the ZOG is a thing doesn't mean the whole concept is invalid

If the militia has more guns & tanks than the people, they do indeed have authority. The only question is if they will make use of it. Why shouldn't they?

The people they protect you fucking retard.

Great reasoning. I bet you think that nothing bad can happen in fascism.

Again Anarchism does not mean no governance.

What makes you think the militia would have control over all the weapons? Do you think there wouldn't be any safeguards set up to prevent such a thing?

Why would they deny the militia compensation? If that happen there would surely be a reason for it. The Militia would probably stop providing the service and go elsewhere.

Ancapitalism isn't anarchism.

Christ does nobody ever fight each other in ancap land? Is that how it is supposed to work? You somehow manage to get everyone to not take what they want by force?

Winter killing crops would be one.

Not all Billionaires, what about the ones whos assets are in Buildings, Airlines and Arms for example

Proof, because isn't that the whole point of Anarchy
Ok even you have to admit you're making no sense

And what would those be? Without that little detail, your entire ideology is useless.

If the militia isn't strong enough to overpower whatever collective they are protecting then there isn't much reason for there to be a militia.

4U Big Goy ;^)

Also why wouldn't the militia have access to the weapons? That would be a good way to get killed by someone with an actual government who lets their soldiers actually have weapons without needing someone to open the armory and hand them out whenever an enemy attacks.

Not ancap.

I'm shilling left anarchy.

Keep the populace armed. Don't give the militia an excess of weapons. I'm wondering what you think will happen after the revolt of the militia? Are they just going to enslave everyone in the society to force them to work for them? There would be multipe militias in a given areas that would only collaborate in times of war. To overtake the population would require all these decentralized militias to agree to enslave the population, and all this would have to be organized without the population finding out. It would be almost impossible to execute.

This is like me going "the military can always stage a coup, ha see the state can never be stable."

Wow, that's so odd. Do you have an actual argument or are you just gonna look "JEWISH PEOPLE LIKE IT THAT MEANS IT'S BAD".

To lighten up the thread.

That's not an answer nigger what stops the strong from taking what they want from the weak in ancap land?

I'm not an ancap. Nothing would stop them, ancapitalism is dumb.

That's not what I said.

We can speculate all fucking day OP, point us at your successful ancap society, that isn't completely reliant on being embedded within a tolerant non-ancap society

You are thinking of it from a statist perspective. In a free society, you would probably have to homestead land, or in some way process it to make it yours, and then actively use it, which puts a limit on how much idle property you can have.
Capitalism is only 200-300 years old, whereas states have been around for much longer

Then why have you been defending it for the past half hour?

FTFY

Now you're damage controlling hard.
There are no good Jews, and their ideologies are all shit.
Deal with it, and get some aderal ;^)

Ancap shit, along with libertarianism, provides no room for state, race, or nation and states that subhumans and kikes have every right to live and all people have the right to mix.

It's selfish hedonistic narcissistic bullshit. It's an entire ideology sprung from the angst of teenagers busted for pot by the cops and complaining about having to go to school.

And you are just retarded as all hell.

As Leftism is government ownership you know that the two terms are pretty oxymoronic
I'm leaving because I can tell you don't go through the logical through process of your ideas

There is no idealism.
They always talk about how the free market will lead to the best products coming out.
But that's only true for consumerist shit.
Which is bad for society as a whole.
Consumer society rotted our culture and turned people soft and selfish.

A strong nationalist authoritarian society is what has always made Europeans thrive.

In hundreds of years what are people going to remember about "free" societies?
The iPhone 40?

Libertarians are always quick to call people like us selfish. But libertarians are just as selfish as sjw socialists.

A society grows great when old men plant trees whose shade they know they shall never sit in.

Id give anything and everything just to see Germania become a real place and a society that makes long term planning a priority.

Technically its an ideology formed by scheming kikes to justify their Jewry - the stoned teenagers just hopped on board because they're dumb stoned children to whom it sounds appealing.

When you put it like that ancap sounds exactly like communism.

What does it matter if jews were involved in it or not? That has nothing to do with the validity of the arguments.

Nature is a National Socialist.

Bah dum tish

So you ARE an autistic liberal then.

Its okay, we understand.

The difference is that it's at least possible for communism to exist for mor than a day. It will ruint both the economy and culture but it is possible. Ancap is just mental masturbation.

My NAP post were jokes.

Why would you have to do anything other than own the property rights to control it?

The State we have today that meddles in the free market was put in place because the free market was completely unstable.

Left anarchy is different from ancapitalism.

You do realize anarchism started as a leftist movement right?

LALALALALALALALALALLAALLALALALALALALALAL FUCK YOU JEWS LALALALA SHILL SHILL

Now you're just acting like an autistic child.

Which, given your proposed ideological stance, makes a great deal of sense.

Are you high right now by chance?

You do realize leftist are retards, right.

Oh, wait, I didn't see this part.

Who made that term m80?

Oh, it was a Jew?

Neat.

That's exactly the point. Nobody but you knows how to best run your life. If enough like-minded people don't want the thing you mentioned in their society, they can choose to ostracize and discriminate against said groups or behaviors until they go away.

Primitive communist societies existed for 180,000 years.

National socialist societies existed for five.

Which one would be closer to human nature?

Oh Jew.

Doesn't bullying people violate the NAP?

Tribalism isn't communism.

You didn't answer the question.

Yeah, it's retard-tier

The principles of evolution and biology function whether your society is aligned with them or not. I doubt you had time to read the pictures I posted friend, why don't you go back and do that?

Indeed, tribalism is a primitive form of nationalism.

The problem there being that the majority of the human population is sub IQ100.

Case in point:

Yes, I did, you just didn't understand that answer you were given.
Because you're autistic.
And you haven't spent enough time on Holla Forums to understand why a Jew-wrought ideology that preaches that abolishment of any concept of duty, beyond some sort of contractual Jewish faggotry, isn't appealing to ethnocentric nationalists who simply do not agree with you on basic foundational concepts, thus making it very difficult for you to accept their answers as regards the toppling of your ideological tower from the weak points (from their perspective) inherent in the structure.

Humans have no natural rights.

Yes it is mister quads. Because your tribe will most likely be people you are mostly related to and people who think and act like you do thanks to your teachers being other people from the tribe.

Why don't you point out what specifically about anarchism is flawed instead of arguing against it based on completely arbitrary nonsense, like what ethnic group supports it?

Maybe then I could treat what you're saying with a modicum of respect.

Wow, what a thoughtful critique of leftism.

I know, the rest of the tribe worked under the alpha who held private property rights to every animal they killed.

That's okay
That's okay. Just don't expect to be hiring any people from out commune.
Nice human nashure retard tier argument.

Nationalism isn't an economic system is it?

Any system created principally by jews will serve jewish interests first and foremost, end of discussion. This shit is literally codified in their thought. The vast majority of the Talmud and Torah is page after page of little hyper-specific details on how to act and think. Jews are basically machines that are programmed to corrupt everything they come into contact with, and this extends through genetic memory to atheistic jews.

I like to think that National Socialism is merely an extension and adaptation of the way our Germanic ancestors lived and interacted with each other within their tightly-knit tribes into an industrialized age. It's the best way for our natural social instincts to cope with new technologies and higher populations.

No, they deserve death. All of them. For existing. This violates your NAP.

My ancestors know best how to run my life. Embracing personal hedonistic desire is embracing national death.

...

So you're saying human nature changes depending on the context?
Careful now, you're starting to sound like a materialist.

Regardless of how people divided themselves into communities, this this what human societies were like from the dawn of modern humans until the end of subsistence farming.

Behold, a Communist!

W
e
w

l
a
d

So can you just not argue? Is that it? Can you tell me WHAT part of it is serving their interest? Like specifically?

So is it?

No, you did not. How does the fact that Jewish thinkers added to anarcho-capitalism disprove the logic and the arguments behind the theory?

Only communists think primarily in economic terms.

AND created it, effectively.
And no, citing the fact that it is a Jewish creation is sufficient, as it acts as an umbrella explanation that covers such a wealth of concepts that it would take - DOES take - literal months for many (who aren't autistic liberals) to effectively comprehend.

You want more explanation?
Lurk moar faggot.

I don't mind if you don't tbh fam, you're basically the equivalent of a golem at this point so I don't offer even you a modicrum of respect, let alone your words.

You are wrong on all points stop being stupid.

Yes you have your economy work for the betterment of the state. Welcome to National Socialism 101.

No, you autist, I'm saying you are engaging in context denial in trying to suggest primitive tribalist societies are in any way genuinely deserving of the term "communist societies".

Its okay thought - if you're even making such an argument, you are either a lost cause or in desperate need of moar lurkin.

I consider it to be the principles and structure of the family applied to the state. That's why the family structure has been so demonized by leftists. The essay in my first post is relevant.

Yeah, now that you allow someone to work separately from you, your society is now anarcho-capitalist with communes surrounding it. I'll give some people from your commune farmland that they can grow their own food on while I keep a portion. I'll make sure it's just above what they're currently getting at the commune, making all the rational self-interested people join my society. Oh look, I've created neofeudalism!

Betterment of the nation, user. The words are not interchangable just because politicians pretend they are.

Those are not arguments.

Meant to reply to

Oh wait, holy shit, you actually said that?

Top fucking Kek.

74138f, seriously bro, lurk moar.

Hah, Jesus Fucking Christ m80.

What is the difference between a state and a nation? Size?

Epigenetic Jewry.

That is an argument, even if you don't like it.

Deal with it torfag.

Show me how they were divided into strata based on their relation to productive forces

Show me established, structured hierarchies

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barter#History

No, not literally everything. Of course personal property existed. But they did collectively own the things they used to produce what they needed, like hunting grounds, berry and fruit groves, etc.

The Tism: The Post

Because Jews are notorious for designing failed ideologies to lead the goyim out of their Chosen by god complex.

….really?

Nation = the people and the land
State = who controls and/or protects it

If you can demonstrate why they weren't communistic, go ahead.

I used to be a Holla Forumslyp. I know the

There are alternatives to "money" that still serve as currency.
I know like the time that one guy in the tribe infringed on the other guys property rights and he sent a militia after him.

And what economic system are they using? Like how is that accomplished? Fascist economics are pretty similar to social democracy, which is a leftist ideology.

If an Anarcho-capitalist society forms out of someones volition I have no issue.

You mean that info graph you post with a bunch of fake quotes?

No, it really isn't. You need to explain what about those genes is in the ideology, and what about the ideology is serving those genes.

Yes really. Why would they want to work for a wage? You can't set it up in the commune unless the people of the commune give you permission since the land is collectively owned. You will have to go elsewhere.

Not an argument

Hunters ate better and were clothed better for hierarchies what are tribal elders? You know the people that they all turn to for advice since they have more life experience. Also just because they trade goods for other goods instead of money for other goods doesn't make it communist.
Well then I guess they weren't communist by your own admission huh fucker? Because private ownership is verboten in communism.

So its not ancapitalism, then.

I forget, are you still defending ancap or have you moved onto some other shit?

Why are people even responding to this thread after and

Because I like to yell at retards.

Personal property is aloud in communism,

Left anarchy dude. My NAP post were jokes.

I'm just here for the bantz tbh.

Could the Tribal elders send a militia that obeyed them after X person?

Elementary schooler spotted

Because they were the ones chasing down deer all day long. The gatherers had a much more sedentary lifestyle by comparison. "To each according to his need," right?

Communists make a distinction between personal property and private property, whereas liberals don't. Means of production like farms and factories are personal property. Everything else is personal property. Commies aren't going to try to collectivize your toothbrush, user.

It will, and anyone who has their best interests and those of their family at heart will join me because my society will allow them to keep more of what they earn than in your commune. Then after that I can decide to trash the NAP and become an evil Nazi and form evil Nazi armies to so I can easily kill the rest of you irrational hippies so you don't diddle my kids and because you have shit I want. If your society can't survive, it's not worth talking about, and your society will never, ever, last because evolution means people are unequal and that all the guys want to fuck the best girl, and the girl will choose the guy who has the most shit. That's why you will lose, and why anarcho-kiddies will always lose. Grow the fuck up or bite a bullet.

See

Statism is a helluva drug

The state is the governmental system that manages the material and judicial aspects of national sovereignty.

A nation is (traditionally - they'll try to tell you otherwise) a racially-related group of people who share the same cultural values and traditions and have typically occupied the same homeland.

A nation-state is a state governed solely by members of the nation.

So, by example, during most of the 19th century (and before) Germans weren't unified under a single state, but they could be considered members of the German nation. There were many German states, such as Prussia. Then, in 1871, the German states unified into one greater German nation-state.

Another point is that in the modern day, due to no common heritage among the majority of the population, there is no such thing as a "US Nation", although many will argue the contrary due to regional identities.

You must be pretty new. That's okay. Just keep learning.

*Allowed

Sorry I don't proofread everything I post on a Swedish dancing forum.

I capped this, thank you for this post.

Meant to say
Means of production like farms and factories are private property.

Fuck, I need to go to bed

Elementary schooler spotted.

U caht me.

Is left anarchy communism?

Sort of. Mutualist have their own thing going on.

how would that even work?

I mean you could read a book on it or something.

communism requires a centralised government controlling everything. I am not going to read Russel Brands drivel.

Are Mutualists considered left-Anarchist?

It's just Market socialism + anarchy, right?

Read up on Left Communism. It rejects the Marxist-Leninist model.

And Brand is some sort of reformist.

Yeah they are.

Mutualism seems pretty cool but I don't know enough about it to advocate for it.

No it doesn't. Communism is a classless, stateless and moneyless society. I wasn't going to recommend Russel Brand lmao wut .

ok……

The short and the sweet of it is that the lower the IQ of a society the higher the need for authoritarianism to maintain societal order. Higher IQ groups can operate in a much freer environment than low IQ shitskins who require various "regulations" in order to operate as a (quasi) functional society. Density (or the related MPC notion of "scale) also increases the need for authoritarianism to maintain order. When people live on farms miles apart there is little government needed to maintain an orderly white society. When 100k+ low IQ shitskins live in a city they require authoritarianism in order to not turn into Haiti.

The flip side of this is Asia where virtually all governments are authoritarian in nature especially compared to the west. They are higher IQ than the world average but are some of the most densely packed populations in the world.

When a population increases and cities develop you get increasing divergence of public opinion, wants, needs etc. When you have 1+B people you can't answer everyones needs, thus you need authoritarian control to maintain order and force an overarching set of political goals through.

There is no reason you couldn't have private armies under anarcho-capitalism, including a nuclear arsenal. Additionally everyone who wanted to would have plenty of firearms and ammunition stockpiled.
"shitskins" would have no reason to come unless they were invited, as there would not be a welfare state to support them once they got there. If they did get there without permission of the property owners along the way – assuming the people didn't want them there – they would not be sold food or other necessities of life and voluntarily deport themselves or face starvation.
Why?
If you don't like degeneracy then raise your children to not become degenerates, and have others do the same. Ostracize any degenerate or subversive elements.
Again, you can get together with like-minded people to prevent any undesirable people from entering your community, and ostracize internal elements who advocate for it.

So what anarcho-capitalism seems to be is global tribalism. A world where the entire globe is inter-connected, but there is no cohesion amongst any of its inhabitants beyond which "tribe" they fall into. The Pepsi Tribe and the Coca-Cola Tribe will war for resources using their private armies, and the poors can get fucked.

And you're also painfully naive to assume the only reason shitskins come over is for welfare. I wasn't aware Constantinople was offering Welfare payments to any Turks.

What's stopping a corporation from hiring a bunch of private armies and becoming the new state?

The NAP?

All Libertarians and Anarchists have the same answer to this question.
"they just won't"
or if that fails they resort to
"someone will stop them just because"

I follow dollar vigilante because it helps me keep track

dude talks like a globalist kike

There are plenty of examples of states who didn't allow a single shitskin to enter, more or less EVERY western state up to the 60s.

We'd be in a constant state of fighting each other. Look no further than feudal Europe if you don't believe me.

This is so stupid. They don't have welfare in Afghanistan or Somalia either, atleast here they can rape whitey woman, steal our wealth and leech off cucked liberals wanting to care for them.

How would it even work? How could possibly a court that is privately owned not be biased? Unlike state owned courts, they have no duty to be objective because such things can only be enforced by law. Same for a private police force, it would just be a private army of some warlord.

Well I lack the power and influence that Hollywood does so it's not like I can stand up against them alone.

And that's how states came to be. It's just that we're hundreds of millions of people who have gotten together rather than a couple.

Ancap leaves people the freedom to race mix.

It also financially incentivizes the most productive to put all of their effort into their jobs instead of having Aryan families. It even encourages WOMEN to work!

Look at any demographic chart you like, and you will see that the only demographic not reproducing is the demographic of people with jobs and careers.

In quite a literal sense, you can have capitalism OR you can have Aryans, not both.

Adolf Hitler's criticisms of capitalism were 100% right.

...

It's retarded. Literally retarded. The only possible natural consequence of it is the return to a Hobbesian state of nature where it's a war of all against all and life is nasty, brutish, and short. Capitalism has terrible excesses if left totally unfettered (because unfettered capitalism isn't capitalism, it's monopolism). Anarchy as a whole is really retarded. Combine them and you get a retard cocktail that would never work in any country: regardless of geography, resources, ethnic composition, or pre-existing infrastructure.

I would challenge the idea that a state requires a government to qualify as a nation. Families don't need a government to regulate themselves and, by virtue of their tight-nit familiarity, are best at it. Entire communities are built around them, and they can very well span a nation. The family itself is a collective, but it doesn't incorporate an impersonal, unaccountable authority that turns people into numbers, so the resulting society produces individuals who're motivated by self-interest to contribute to it and strengthen its foundation. Incidentally, this is exactly the reason I chose to subscribe to Catholicism: even as an introvert who's incapable of accommodating the presence of others, I can acknowledge the logic of its emphasis on family. And the society that springs forth from the family-cultivated philosophy would be no less theoretically capable of producing armies and industries. One could argue that the early US settlers did exactly that without government.

I was a small government, social/fiscal conservative before I went AnCap, completely bypassing douchebag libertarian ideals and eschewing the typical progression from Neocon to lolcuck to AnCap. The reason for this is that I could see how fucking pretentious Friedman-esque libertarians were (and are) in their complete and utter refusal to acknowledge the indispensability of culture as a bedrock for good policy. Friedman and his ilk espoused the market as a morality unto itself, rather than a product of its given environment. The only reason that the free market even developed in the West was due to its reflection of Christian philosophy's basic thesis of Free Will as an inherent characteristic of man, thus producing a system that operated consonant to this spiritual belief system even if the people weren't conscious of its origin. Similar to the Enlightenment faggots that divorced science from God in the 1700s, Libertarians have divorced ethos from the market, and have the gall to claim that "liberty" is in the freedom to trade, rather than in the contents of what's being traded and how. All the while, they ultimately ignore that the principle behavior being reinforced by the endorsement of commerce may or may not accelerate degeneracy, making us less free in the long run. Market as a morality does not acknowledge an inherent and objective dignity of man, and thus assumes that all behavior is acceptable and benign simply because it was a decision made by the actor. But that disregards the actor's effect on the public consciousness of the society in which he lives, and fails to isolate the behavior to his own agency. As a result, he compromises both his liberty as well as his neighbor's. The worst part of it is that society will come crashing down around the Libertarian due to the practice of this very behavior and he either won't notice–or won't admit it–simply because it meets his moral qualifications as a marketed product.

Anyway, it's through my capacity to prioritize culture-consciousness above commerce and governance that I was able to find a type of fellowship with NatSocs. While I was previously unwilling to consider it a viable system due to its collectivist aspects, its obvious successes forced me to do more research and discover that, while the system was collectivist in nature, it was neither impersonal nor was it legalist. Hitler made a big deal about the public consciousness and the cultural strength of the Germans. This allowed me to reconcile my belief system with the NatSocs: even if I still disagreed with the idea of centralized government, we still agreed that culture was the linchpin of any system's prosperity–which is not to say that I think AnCap and NatSoc are interchangeable; AnCap is superior.

If we conceive the state's existence as being completely dependent upon a government's declaration of existence, then we're completely ignoring the people that support it. After all, if you remove the government, you still have the common culture that holds those people and their ideals together. As long as they remain conscious of those ideals–as families are wont to do–their society will be preserved. By comparison, it was a central governing body that allowed degeneracy a vehicle for distribution and dissemination in the West in the first place. Our institutions were infiltrated and subsequently used to socially engineer the masses to accept an alien narrative and morally relativistic outlook. Consider for a moment, pornographers attempting to gain ground in a culturally conscious anarchy that's free of centralized restrictions: there'd be no one to stop the people from hanging Schlomo from a lamp post; if it weren't for Washington, we could have nipped these fuckers in the bud.

The fact that it is fucking anarchism and vid related. Start at 12:20 for maximum yiddom.

If this is a jab at the state of modern "rationals" then it is brilliant.

Friedman didn't subscribe to the Talmud. I'm not gonna hold his Kike ancestry against him when he was one of the loudest voices in favor of killing off the Federal Reserve.

And Rand was like the Bobby Fischer of literature: she was Jewish herself, but she still despised them.

Jews are jews are jews are jews are jews.

Most jews are atheists. It excuses nothing.

Adding to that, Friedman endorsed the ability of parents to sell their children.

==National Socialism and Anarchism=='''
Today, after an enormously aimless use of old forms, we are presently witnessing an equally directionless anarchy exhaust itself furiously. We have still not reached the ebb.” – Alfred Rosenberg
It is a misfortune (and an intentional consequence of Zionist propaganda) that many anarchists today like to cite National Socialists as the ultimate examples of people who do not value freedom. Many anarchists who take trouble to converse with us are surprised by our respect for citizens’ private lives, though they also find that we define privacy differently than they do. The truth is that the authentic National Socialist values freedom infinitely more rigorously than even the most extreme anarchist. We emphasize this because, while a committed anarchist (or libertarian) will never make a good National Socialist, there are many intuitive freedom-lovers in search of ideology who could potentially make good National Socialists but who currently tend to turn instead to anarchism out of misconception that anarchism is the primary freedom-loving ideology, and it is of these whom we should try to salvage as many as possible from ignorance.
Many anarchists (including the Occupy Wall Street movement), who emphasize their commitment either to complete non-violence or at least to opposition towards military organization, at the same time claim to be enemies of Jewish power. To such anarchists we ask: exactly how do you expect to defeat the longest-lasting mafia in world history without absolute leaders, chain of command and the willingness to use retaliatory force of arms? As Alfred Rosenberg lamented when he dealt with similar problems in his own time: “They are still disunited because the type of the future must first be worked out and the supreme value of honour has not yet been unconditionally accepted. The great idea emanates from a few, but in order to form others into leaders, these few must tolerate in leading posts only personalities to whom the ideas of honour and duty have become the supreme values.” All true anti-Zionists should thus immediately give up being anarchists. Those who refuse to do so are not enemies of Jewish power, but merely hobbyists whose hobby is complaining about Jewish power.

The Problem of Power
“What would happen to a factory given over to anarchy, in which the employees came to their work only when the fancy took them?” – Adolf Hitler
The anarchist believes in villains who will surely do great evil if given state power, but disbelieves in heroes who will do great good if given state power. This comes down to the anarchist conception of good as something that does not require state power to accomplish, and consequent identification of evil with state power itself. They see a world in which everything was going fine until the state – a superfluous institution - showed up and caused all the problems. They do not see any good the state can do that could not be done (or at least be much more difficult to do) without the state.
The National Socialist believes in villains, but also believes in heroes. In our conception, which is fully the opposite of the anarchist’s, it is evil which does not require state power to accomplish (in the words of Mayer Amschel Rothschild (Jew): “Let me issue and control a nation’s money and I care not who writes the laws.”), but which definitely requires state power – and moreover state control over reproduction - to realistically oppose. We see a world demographically dominated by non-Aryan genetics in which a tiny minority of people with just enough Aryan genetics to care about ethical problems have struggled for thousands of years to improve the situation, but have never achieved anything near success except when we happened to hold state power (and even then only briefly and inconsequentially due to neglecting to control reproduction).
“In my own little homeland, when the lads of the village met in the local tavern, their social instincts rapidly degenerated, under the influence of alcohol, into brawling, and not infrequently finished up in a real fight with knives. It was only the arrival of the local policeman which recalled them to the realisation that they were all fellow-members of a human community.” – Adolf Hitler
This is not to say that the National Socialist is unwary of the dangers of state power in the wrong hands. But our wariness is on the spiritual level. We believe that state power is essential for us to complete our mission; our worry relates to the enjoyment of power that leads the insufficiently noble to forget about the mission after obtaining power. Therefore our focus is on giving power only to those least likely to enjoy possessing it.
Who Loves Freedom More?
“The idea of honour is inseparable from the idea of freedom.” – Alfred Rosenberg
The anarchist narrative is that we are born free, and that it is the state which makes us prisoners. This is a total inversion of the truth. The truth is that there is not a person in the world past or present who ever had any say over his own birth, who ever gave prior consent to being born at all (let alone had any choice over where, when and to whom he was born). Therefore to be born is in itself to be a prisoner. Anyone who does not recognize the primordial imprisonment of birth is not only unqualified to talk about freedom, but indeed insults the word “freedom” by doing so.
The National Socialist narrative is that we are born imprisoned, and that if we seek salvation not just for ourselves as individuals but for society as a whole, then a state dedicated to joining our will and organizing our talents in united opposition to our imprisonment – in UNITY THROUGH NOBILITY - is the only practical solution. (On this account, we certainly despise states without such a goal at least as much as anarchists despise states as a whole.) We accept the term “born free” in only one sense: we were born with Original Nobility which made us aware of our captivity, so that we are at least initially not slaves willing to abjectly accept and perpetuate it. It is in fact the anarchists who, despite once having this awareness also, have subsequently accepted their captivity with such servility that they have forgotten about it.
“Never forget, never forgive.” – Savitri Devi
Our criticism of anarchism therefore differs from the traditional statist criticism of anarchism. Traditional statists consider anarchism too idealistic, to the extent of impracticality. They believe anarchy would be nice enough if it worked, but that it cannot work, and therefore accuse anarchists of “asking for the impossible”. In contrast, we consider anarchism not idealistic enough even if it could work, because we are aware of all the problems that would forever remain unsolved in a world under anarchism, and it is these problems that we are determined to solve.

Voluntary Association
“In England and Wales alone, in one year, there are over 600,000 recorded incidents of domestic violence.” – David Myatt
A prime tenet of anarchism is voluntary association in social relationships. On this topic, we give due credit to the anarchist for at least figuring out the obvious truth that democracy demands involuntary association, since the minority must live with the government voted into power by the majority but not by themselves. But this does not excuse the anarchist’s willingness to completely overlook the most fundamental involuntary association of all: the family. This is no random blind spot, but conclusive evidence that anarchism is an entirely abstract intellectual construct devoid of any serious degree of empathic emotional engagement.
It does not bother the anarchist that children all around the world are generally stuck with the family they happen to be born into but which they never chose. It does not bother the anarchist, who so readily complains about state-owned media, that children are forced without alternative to listen daily to their parents (whom they never chose) during the totality of the most formative years of their lives. It does not bother the anarchist, who so readily complains about state-passed laws, that children are required to live by the rules (which they never agreed with) of the house (which they never chose) and be punished for disobedience. It does not bother the anarchist, who so readily complains about police brutality on the street, how much violence - legal or illegal - has been visited upon children behind the closed doors of the family residence. It does not bother the anarchist, who so readily cites the Ministry of Love from Nineteen-Eighty-Four, how many generations of children throughout history and prehistory have been tortured – subtly or unsubtly - until their Original Nobility has been crushed and have come out the other side believing that their parents love them, and joining the traditional culture to do the same to their own children in turn.
The National Socialist, in contrast, is disgusted by this to his core.
“Children who grow up in the company of subversive-minded parents themselves become rogues, for their mothers are invariably of the same pernicious ilk as their rogue fathers.” – Adolf Hitler
“The merciless “conditioning” of children, all the more horrible that it is more impersonal, more indirect, more outwardly “gentle”; the clever diffusion of soul-killing lies (and half-lies); violence under the cover of non-violence.” – Savitri Devi
The National Socialist has recognized the sad fact that involuntary association will exist so long as births continue to occur at all, a reason why material existence itself is unsatisfactory to us. In the meantime, the threefold duty of the state is to minimize the number of incidences of involuntary association by reducing birth rate, to provide sanctuary to victims of family violence, and to punish its perpetrators. In Hitler’s words: “When I meet children, I think of them as if they were my own. They all belong to me.” No such sentiment is felt by the anarchist, indeed it is a common anarchist talking point to preposterously assert the opposite: that it is ”prying” or ”intrusion” to care about any children except one’s own offspring or at most the offspring of close relatives.

Positive Statism
“Man … has the same urge as the dog, the rabbit and the hare, to couple up with one other being as a separate entity. The social State as such can be maintained only by a rule of iron; take away the laws, and the fabric falls immediately to pieces.” – Adolf Hitler
The error of traditional statism was to conceive of the nation as an extension of the family, and hence state authority as an extension of patriarchical/matriarchical authority. This has led to the assumption that all statism is based on this axiom. Hitler recalls the embarassment of an especially ill-informed acquaintance who presumed this was true even of National Socialism: “Before giving [Wagner] a chance to speak before a big gathering, I had the prudence to try him out before twenty or so faithful followers gathered at the Sternecker beer-hall. What faces they pulled when they heard the worthy soul, with trembling hands and waggling head, recommending the reconstruction of a State in which “the clan was based on the family, the stock upon the clan, and the common mother upon the stock”.”
Based on this falsehood, the anarchist has then argued along the lines of: “Why these extra layers of social structure? Why not just leave it at the family?” and then strut around as though he has ideologically defeated statism when in fact he has at best defeated only traditional statism.
Positive statism, on the other hand, justifies the state as a necessary counterweight to family power. In this capacity, the existence of the state is not only justified but indeed an ethical duty of vigilance, whereas anarchism amounts to negligence. This perspective can be found in Plato who advocated eliminating the family altogether in favour of communal childcare (with nobody aware which child was born to which parents), in the medieval Janissary system, and was the theory behind the Hitler Youth, in Hitler’s own words: “The development of the human being makes it necessary to take the child from the control of that small cell of social life which is the family and entrust his further training to the community itself.” It is based on the awareness that each family is itself a ready-made tribe, which will tend to compete against other families in society for dominance, instead of simply serving society with goodwill. in Hitler’s words: “Nepotism has never been a happy formula; and this is how a work cemented by the blood of a people can be systematically destroyed.” Consider trivially that something like the Rothschild dynasty, or indeed Jewry itself, would be absolutely impossible in a Platonic society, and it will be easy to understand why Jews promote anarchism. (Some Gentiles promote anarchism for the same reason.) National Socialism merely goes two steps deeper in the struggle against family power by firstly retaliating against the demographic violence of reproduction itself, and secondly seeking to Aryanize the gene pool along the way.
It should be noted that many anarchists are, like ourselves, open-minded towards various methods of improving genetic quality, including genetic engineering. However, their conception of such applications involves giving parents (or, more precisely, the fraction of parents who can afford to pay private genetic engineers for the service) control over the genetics of their children, rather than giving the state control over the genetics of the nation. From the National Socialist perspective, this is insanity. One need only look at the escalational measures taken by parents in preparing their children to compete for limited school places to surmise that private-purchase genetic engineering would only add more fuel to the fire, with the focus being primarily on traits that facilitate the child to outcompete other children. Increasingly children would be tailored to their parents’ specifications, designed to be what their parents want them to be and to do what their parents want them to do in life, instead of having a chance to let their Original Nobility shine.

“It’s ridiculous that a child should ever feel obliged to take up his father’s profession. Only his aptitudes and gifts should be taken into consideration. Why shouldn’t a child have propensities that his parents didn’t have?” – Adolf Hitler
“The State … will have to be the supreme protector of this greatest blessing that a people can boast of. Its attention and care must be directed towards the child rather than the adult.” – Adolf Hitler
By now it has been completely exposed that the anarchist does not love freedom at all. What the anarchist actually loves (consciously or subconsciously) is unrestricted family power, and he opposes the state merely because the positive state places limitations on family power. This is also true of the more moderate libertarian. They wholly fail to live up to their claim of being “against all authority”; they are instead merely against any authority that could threaten their own authority within their family units! As such, they would be more honest by ceasing to call themselves “anarchists” or “libertarians” and instead calling themselves patriarchists/matriarchists, for in a stateless society that is where power will surely be concentrated.And herein is the enormous danger. Tyrannical states build resentment among their oppressed classes by keeping them powerless throughout their entire lives, so that the only way for this resentment to be released is through uprising against the state. This is not the case with the family. The family is unique among all tyrannies in that it gives each generation its own turn to be in power after it has done its time as the powerless. Thus it offers an alternative – and most fundamentally ignoble - means for its oppressed to release their resentment: by becoming the oppressors of the next generation. In this way, it perpetually avoids internal revolt irrespective of the cruelty of its culture.
“The Lord of this world is a Demiurge who breathes, creates and recreates, … at the end of which he devours everything, eating his own dream, his illusory Universe, to begin again. So divine spirits, warriors from another Universe, have now infiltrated here, able to change everything … fighting for immortality and the redemption of this world, to snatch it from the jaws of the Demiurge … Jehovah moved all his reserves and made use of a completely unexpected weapon: the treason of the divine ones … the passage of an army of divine warriors to the ranks of the Demiurge, tempted by his Will to Power and the promise of an illusory participation in the Great Game of shadows, seduced by the shadowy grandeur of this Drama of Eternal Return, an illusory eternity within time, of deaths and apparent regressions, of the Eternal Return of the Same. He tempted them with the power and glory of the Demiurge and the secret desire to come to replace him.” – Miguel Serrano
In avowed noble opposition to prevent this ultimate sustainable evil from dominating the future as it has dominated the past, National Socialism is nothing if not the most conclusively sincere freedom-loving ideology in existence.

“I shall start the necessary re-education with the young. I’ll tell them: ‘Don’t follow the example of your elders.’” – Adolf Hitler

Ignore this post, I suck cocks. I got him confused with Rothbard.

...

In anarcho-capitalist society. Someone will track you down and sell you to cannibals.

Any coherent philosophy should take biology into account. An ancap's laser focus on the individual causes them to frequently miss the forest for the trees. The subjective theory of value often ignores the value of certain goods to certain groups, and even ignores the fact that companies don't really target individuals, they target groups; the whole point of the Industrial Revolution was to target groups for the sake of efficiency. It would not have been possible without the compromise of meeting the larger part of peoples desires without meeting their every single desire.

It's not subjective that a man places the value of a tampon very low and a woman much higher. It's an objective fact that a man does not have a uterine lining to shed. That's not an individual preference, it's objective reality.

One must frequently zoom out from the individual to get a greater perspective, a statistical view. Libertarians are so frequently myopic in this way that they obscure reality.

Another example would be an individual right to bear arms. A libertarian would argue it shall not be infringed, but a reasonable person might realize that a person of low IQ due to mental retardation should not own a gun because they lack the mental faculties to understand the consequences of using it. They could be easily tricked into shooting at someone so that they would be shot in self-defense while lacking mental awareness of that eventuality.

They don't want to have to ask questions, they just want to stand on their "rights". If a street nigger comes up to them with slurred speech, babbling on about how they a legit gangsta, handing them a rolled up wad of cash, they'd still justify selling them a gun - it's not their responsibility. But niggers are so stupid and aggressive a rational mind can predict that that nigger is going to more than likely shoot and kill one or more people with that gun… but they pretend not to care because - as they argue - they are only responsible for themselves.

They claim to operate firmly in the realm of principles and act statistically and biologically blind, but this game can only continue in places where they feel safe. In the real world they act statistically and biologically - regardless of what they may say about principles on an internet forum.

(contd)
And this is one my issues with Ancap, their principles are largely based on the unspoken assumption of equality, but if a human could be biologically engineered to the degree that they were 99% likely to do a heinously immoral thing (let's say a biologically-engineered strain of super-niggers who only pay in stolen cash and subsist largely by taking what they want by force, who are incapable of understanding or applying basic morality), the Ancap would still hold himself blameless for enabling them or the treason he commits against his own kind of peace lovers. They're not his responsibility. Well then, whose responsibility are they?

1. rothbard is based as fuck. openly racist, gender realist, anti war, anti banks, anti state, even revisionist history. also called out a jewess for beeing professional holocaust victim.

also remember what we currently have is extremely jewed and there is very little we can do, since they are using our ressources to steal more ressources from us (taxes funding tax colelction agencies) to use them for their own purposes (controlled congress)
it might be jewed, but much less so. central to ancap is 'the best wins, no getting away with bullshit due to monopolies'. bs monopolies are exactly what kikes are abusing. taking that away will put potential and opportunity back into our hands.

2. thats actually 100% wrong
its promotes whatever is structure is most effective. since there is nothing artificially keeping anyone or thing down, the correct structure/organisation will prevail

3.
>>>Holla Forums
we have that rght now. large corps, banks especially love to abuse governments.

so you need to be motivated by armed thugs breathing down your neck every occasion, just to maybe extend some help to fellow humans?

also high altruism societies prevail over low altruism. see the west vs africa.

sure. however you dont need a government. you can have a private planned army. see blackwater.
infact, the official army is currently pozzed as fuck. private ones are not. if they were, the soldiers would go to a nonpozzed place. something that cant happen if only the state has a monopoly.

read hoppes myth of national defense
heres a collection of essays dealing with various things you might have issue with bookzz.org/dl/1074909/fb4a5b

This is probably the most damning evidence of ancap = leftist I have ever seen. Since leftists can't make anything good or funny no matter how hard they try.

thats actually a major reason for me
shitskin societies will just collapse
think about micro nations. probably 5 digit populations, possibly less. (with trade agreements etc between them)
since you have all the freedom, you can just kick out negative elements. like lets say a company can fire shit employees.
final form is they cant to jack shit about it, since there are no legal obligations and also because they cant subvert and use a state and its power against decent citizens.

because the key developments happened in the 1960s or later
also the internet is incredibly important to get all the coordination without central authorities, and things like pricing

Sounds like a good dystopian cyberpunk setting, although its almost too unrealistic for people to swallow.

final form soon user

ancap doesnt mean no institutions. it means nobody has a violence backed monopoly on them. wich enables us to evolve and choose better ones.

regardig 5)
you can kick those people out, since its your property
its true that the US is way oversized for a state.
people would easily and quickly organize into societies with shared interest.
and most likely there would some central management. the key differentiators are voluntarism and alternatives/competetion, instead of force and (near-)monopolies

thats called statism

also ancap isnt against government at all
it is against force
in extention force backing a bad monopoly (the state), wich can be abused in many ways (see all things on Holla Forums). and since it isa force backed monopoly, people cant do anything about the shtty conditions, like lets say seceding.

nothing. thats what statism is.

everyone.
if you have some bad actors violating the NAP everyone else in the federation (or whatever contract) gangs up.

we have that right now. its called statism.

Let me guess the tl;dr of this Holla Forums exodus thread since they are all pretty much the same.

1. Wishful thinking of armchair economists/sociologists/lawmakers with no credible sources to back up.
2. Have you read le xyz, your saviour? Eventhough I've read it I can't summarize it in a sentence or two, you silly :^)
3. Nuh uh, your arguments are idiot, you nahtzee. Here is why: Racis, spook and statist.
4. You guys clearly can't debate me becouse of my intellectual superiority, despite numerous erroneously thought out posts. Too bad ;^)

There a reason why we have Holla Forums containment board, where you stupid fucks can masturbate in peace.

if those ressources are so valueable, why are the current owners sellling them?
is it because (((somebody))) uses force to coerce them?

also whats stopping the people who need these ressources from corrdinating and buying them themselves?
decentralized finance
(thanks internet)

That's honestly just because they kept getting BTFO and couldn't handle it.

not if the guy has some kind of security insurance. thats what the state is advertising. but there is really no reason to 'buy' from the one specific provider that has laid claim to your land ('country') and has a bad monopoly enforced by agression.

there is as much reason for security to be government issued as there is for supermarkets beeing governmental.

if you think democracy is any different from that.. well get ready to learn the truth about santa and the easter bunny

Hey OP if you're still alive I have an answer to that problem of the commons argument since its a statist fave.

The solution to the collective overuse of unowned property is to have the property owned. That's it.

In reality the state is the commons. It's an unowned entity where people profit at the expense of others that always leads to overuse and collapse.

well it really depends. shitskins and niggers yes. europenas not so much

fortunately, there are mechanics available to stop even negative elements.
like removing them from society. and also private security. if a cop takes off his badge, can he no longer provide security? does it make a difference if it says LADP instead of 'trusted security - keep neighbourhoods safe'?

it does not
the NAP is backed by agression too. ancaps arent pacifists. if you fuck with the NAP, you are inbound for some kind of agression.

were happy to do that
why stop us from buying some land and seceding?
its not like ancaps want to force their stuff on the entire society.

Because it's completely idiotic

All the big names that pushed it were jewishThere are no good jews
Removal of government merely results in the neighboring nations marching in and taking your shit
At what point in history did an AnCap society even exist
Finally, AnCap is simply another side of the shekel, it's completely and utterly materialistic much like the views of marxists

sounds more like a gym membership fee or insurance premium

Did you post those for one of us to challenge your views? If so which one?

Nobody's stopping you. Buy some land, declare secession and just fend off the military of whatever country you're stealing clay from. That whole decentralized tactics beating an organized army thing can be the first ancap assertion to be put to the test.

your saying the land belngs to the state, rather than the land 'owners'?

Hi OP, I'm sort of a former ancap austist. There are 3 issues that made me go from ancap to fashy goy.

1) in my opinion, ancap is impossible without an effectively unlimited frontier, and cheap capital flight. In other words, any free society that becomes prosperous will draw people who seek to undermine it, intentionally or otherwise, and the society will gradually revert to tyranny. The only way to balance this is if free-minded people have some sort of a reset button, where they can get away from the less liberty inclined.

2) Race is real. Only white people have any sort of reverence for the idea of liberty. As soon as nonwhites are large enough in number, they will be able to form political bodies, and exercise anti-liberty power through it. One could close borders, but that wouldn't be ancap.

3) This is perhaps the biggest one. In an ancap society, there would be no restrictions on marriage. In practice this would mean only the top 20% of men would be able to find a mate. As been shown time and again, polygamy is a disaster if you want safe, stable, prosperous societies, because most men (whose productive capacity is vital) will spend most of their time fighting each other for women.

For all intents and purposes, yes.

so how did we go from a bunch of industrious euros and english making their own fortune to the state own all the land?
did they give it up voluntarily? all of them?
or did the state just annex it?

You'll have to ask a historian whether the premise of this question is even correct and then what the answer is. I don't really give a shit.

Not OP, nor AnCap but:

Are you sure? I thought you can do what you want with your private property. Borders would fit, if you had them.

pick one

You have some twisted image of this stuff.

Please state what anarchy is.
Please state what a border is.

This is pretty much how every conversation Ive had with and An-Cap has gone

Also there needs to be some balance in society too much business and we become the slaves of a corporation too much government and we become the salves of government.

I keep thinking of Cyberpunk where you literally have Cola© cops outside supermarkets writing you tickets for not buying enough Cola© since Cola© owns the entire city and all the public services as a result.

...

...

"I stopped you because I see you're not enjoying a cold refreshing Cola©. You need to start enjoying a Cola© or I'll have to take you down to the Cola© Corrections Center"

This fucking faggot again?

OP, STOP MAKING THESE THREADS. YOU GET BTFO EVERY TIME YOU MAKE THEM, AND YET YOU KEEP COMING BACK FOR ANOTHER ASS-RAPING

that'll work until one of the traitors neighbors sees the profit in getting involved in this. If the traitor is next to a RoadCo© road he can just move the illegals wherever a market exists for them and an-cucks wouldn't be able to stop him without breaking Nap

We have to go deeper.
"Scans indicate it has been at least 6 hours since the last time you drank a delicious Cola© and that your last purchase in your credit card was made in Pepsi© territory. You're coming down to the station with us."

Okay, Rambo. I believe you.

To elaborate, you can "BUT MUH NAP SAYS YOU CAN"T DO THAT" doesn't mean shit to anyone not on board with the idea. Anarcho-anything is the political version of LARPing as powerful wizards and warriors until somebody comes along to spray you with a flamethrower.

But user they wouldn't! They wouldn't! They wouldn't because I say so!

Don't even have to read the thread. I will summarize all arguments against anti-statism and polycentric law here:

Then him and anyone who collaborates with him will be ostracized by everyone in the community. The power company won't sell him electricity, the grocery store won't let him buy groceries, the gas station won't sell him gas and the road owner won't let him drive there. Facing that reality, it's most likely he wouldn't even attempt such a thing as to let immigrants through his property to begin with.

Oh really

From where? Who's manufacturing all this weaponry in this utopian warlord society? Who's supplying it?
You're a naive idiot if you think the only reason shitskins come here is because of welfare.
Congratulations - you've now created a rudimentary state that have moral and cultural norms designed to keep cohesion, function, and trust in that society high.
So basically create a primitive warlord state out of anarchy?

there is no way of enforcing contracts in an anarchist society, nor is there any way to have any form of regulation and enforce it.

Top meme.

Sure thing except no one's going to do that because it goes against the profit motive, the farmer/grocer/power company all want to profit why would they cut this person off and lose money?

Now that the first guy was made an example of. Are you going to deny them service? Can you say the same for everyone else?

I honestly love these threads. Nothing better than seeing Holla Forums BTFO people.

A good example of why this will never work is how blockbusting works. So long as one member of a neighborhood can be bought out they will fuck everyone else over to avoid being fucked over themselves.

I can't stop shitposting. Its a drug. HELP ME.

Because enough people in this scenario put ethnic integrity over profit to build a massive wall to keep people out. Even if a business owner doesn't care about that issue, or is perhaps pro-immigration, it's still in his own economic interest to not do business with this person, for fear of economic retaliation from his neighbors.

I think most people would be armed in a free society, which would put an end to any "chimp outs" rather quickly. If not, there would probably be a private equivalent to the police which the business owner could call to prevent his business from being raided.

Again, such people can be economically ostracized.

He doesn't need to worry about being ostracized. As you faggots always say, the free market will fix him. By not doing business with him you're creating a market for someone to step in and do business with him without competition, and thus ostracizing him economically is entirely pointless.

History's calling user, litterally every major businessman except ford is calling you retarded.
Besides why wouldn't they just ostracize you for being racist?

B-b-but muh principled PMCs of Lograth wouldn't p-possibly think to f-form their own state, r-right? They'll uphold NAP, s-surely!

Alright so the chimps have guns now. Since you want to argue that they have guns. So now the chimps are raiding and destroying that service with guns. And either they outnumber the police force or the guy who invited them in (for payment) can now go tell the rest of the chimps how the first chimps were unjustly killed. Thus increasing his own profit and again unleashing an armed chimp horde on the community.

Again, now that the private police force is gone and the service has been made an example of. Are you going to deny the chimps service? How about everyone else?

Keep in mind social experiments of all kinds show that people will not help when someone is being abducted, assaulted, or even dying. So there is no basis for the claim that people will help the first service that was made an example of unless they're being paid for it.

If you take the most retarded things Libertarians believe about government, economics, and human nature and throw them in to a blender, what comes out at the end is Anarcho-Capitalism. Not a single constituent part of it isn't completely retarded. Really, I have no idea how anyone is stupid enough to identify as an ancap.

He won't be able to get anywhere, and nobody will be able to get to him, because access to his property will be denied, since surrounding property is also private. Also many services, through their nature, can only be provided locally.

Those people would have their own community some place else.

So they are a foreign invasion force, who are invited by one individual with the goal of destroying the local community? You already recognized the private police force, so is it that hard to imagine a private army or home guard? I don't see at all how the individual inviting these people will profit from it economically. Since he violated the NAP by inviting foreign combatants and releasing them, he risks being driven off his land or even killed. Whatever short term gains you think he will be able to make will not make up for that.

Don't change the argument. Guy lets in chimps and you said to deny him and the chimps service. That is what prompted this.
No you had to make one up and I explained why it would be subdued (under your own rules).
Why is it so hard to imagine that they'd be subdued too? You just ignored the entire fucking argument in order to make up "but muh army all of a sudden". You're acting like the kid on the playground with the everything-proof shield. Even in the case where there is an army you'd have to deploy it before the damage is done. Are you saying its basically a military controlled area? Why wouldn't the military control everything when they have the most guns? Out of the good of their hearts? We already ruled out that option. The only reason I didn't argue that the cops were basically going to be mobsters is because its not relevant to the argument. None of this is relevant to the argument. You're just trying to avoid answering the actual question because you know I've fucked you and your entire ideology.
Again you are ignoring everything written in this fucking thread in order to question menial things that were already settled and has no bearing on the ultimate question asked.
No he didn't you fucking retard.

Either stop running away and answer me or just admit your retarded ideology died before it was even tried.

Get fucked.

That’s why I think it’s hilarious (and absolutely terrifying) that some retards identify as anarcho-communist. Communism–the most totalitarian of all ideologies–and anarchy–NOT having a government. You can’t reconcile them, but that’s the foundation of all liberal thought.

Isnt just ancap anarchy with private property and ancom just anarchy with no private property?

Anyone that supports anarchy is a childish edgelord that has not gotten a taste of society yet.

Protip: most humans in general are fucking morons and not to be trusted. You want anarchy, go to Somalia. Even if it wasnt nigger infested hellhole itd be something close.

Hey homo.

Lets get something straight.

We dont live in a stage 0 world anymore.
Theres countries, pacts, territories, so on.
The only place you can start out in and not get annahilated is either some southamerican jungle or an african steppe.
So thats the place youll be at.

Next. Youll need alot of people to start up a society. So unless you hijack a couple of flights and crashland them in a no-signal place somewhere in africa without them having any problem with that.
Im pretty sure theyll all just kill you and then group up to find the fastest way back home.
In which a leader of these folks will ofcourse appear amongst them.

Next. lets say you beat those two issues.
youll need to distribute duties to people to start up a settlement.
or theyll just live in holes in the ground and friends and families will group up to form gangs to have a better chance of survival aginst rival gangs.
also to organise people and get them to build something is gonna take authority.
but that would get you building a state, so fuck.

but lets say you already have a community.
whats there to keep it ancap?
any too succesful merchant, church, mafia boss, family head, or prettymuch anyone who is a bit above the rest is going to try and sieze control eventually.
but dont start with your "not-statist special snowflake" death squads that kill anyonone who dares to challange ancap.
any forming of a public police or paramilitary force is again becomng a state.

security firm? dont even try. as soon as a dominant security firm sees the strenght it has it will just take control of the sttlement and youll get a state.

organising self defence militias against that?
whoops, thats already explained 2 paragraphs up.

but lets say you manage to overcome those problems. youll need to get to new areas to get goods. you cant just camp in one small area in a desert and hope for rain every day.
you need to expand.
that means youll run into someone sooner or later.
either a state that noticed you and intruder in its territory, a warband raiding over the desert, another community and so on.
and trust me this isnt disneyland, youll get fucked and conquored.
who will defend you? you have no defense (see previous 3 paragraphs)

but you wont last that long.
as said, someone is just going to get a monopoly and become bigger than everyone, and he will come to rule.
as explained there is noone to stop him.

unless your fuckup of a community has annual riots that completly destroy the settlement.
in which case, well done.
you have a succesful ancap society.
enjoy your isolated distopian hellhole

You took this thread way too seriously.

...

1. Anarcho-capitalism and all derivatives of capitalism and libertarianism are inherently anti-human, as they value material goods over that of the individual. How would your society get past this hurdle?

If you claim that only the strongest would survive by making money, since making money is something that is apparently a heritable evolutionary trait, what would you do if the strongest person went around and killed off all of his competitors? How would you prevent mass murders and war in the name of economic solvency?

2. Do people today, with all of the government handholding checklists and regulations, choose to make good decisions? Do people eat healthy food? Do people exercise regularly? Do people make wise financial decisions? If not, why the FUCK do you think they would magically start just because there are now no rules? Why would they suddenly care that their cereal is just molded resin and aluminum shavings? What would stop a company from selling LITERAL poison as baby formula, only stopping when tens of thousands of babies died from liver toxicity or heart failure?

3. What would a decentralized/individualistic/buzzword society do when my fascist/NatSoc society decided to deadlift your skull from your neck and conquer your lands with superior coordination and firepower?

Or would your society also be magically impervious to the rest of the world since everybody is fighting to make sure somebody didn't drizzle AIDS in their pizza sauce or replace their airbags with nailbombs.

so whats stopping a monopoly from forming with no government, or companies just fucking killing inspectors because there isnt a police force, or hell just making their OWN police force to raid stores selling competing goods. There isn't a fucking government, who would stop them? And don't tell me "buh dude taht like totally wouldnt happen becuz!!1" because why wouldn't it? You think businessmen aren't addicted to making money? They already don't give a fuck about the consumer past the initial purchase, so when they aren't legally required to, why would they care about the consumer a single iota, even BEFORE the purchase?

Anarcho-fagitalists are the WORST because they believe they are some sooperseektrert 3rd position that can solve everything with "BUT THE FREE MARKET WILL FIX IIIIIIT", when history has shown that the only thing the free market will fix is it's gigantic throbbing cockknot to your tender boypussy moments before financial slavery and being shackled to the scullery

tl;dr hoo will bilt road ?? ???

I can't help but be smug in the fact that these faggots always ALWAYS run away in the end.

...

No one is stopping you, theres plenty of unclaimed land throughout the world you can use. Hundreds of Islands and there is even the ability to make artificial land masses now on the Ocean. Will you ever do it? Of course not, you like the convenience of modern society too much but you also like to feel morally superior to those around you.

???

What is violent retaliation for 500 Alex.

I'm still an ancap, and I'm still amazed that you guys respond to OBVIOUS BAIT and D&C

Same flag everytime. Same 'let's talk about x' with no content. Same (1).

thanks, I had been meaning to webm that and never got around to it.

breddy gud

ancap =/= corporations

or intellectual property

People don't seem to know that ancaps and other rightwing libertarians are usually the most heavily armed people you will ever meet.

*unsheathes katana*

That's what happens when you listen to Alex Jones all day long and don't trust our police and military.

...

You realize the average police response time to a 911 call is 10 minutes. Not to mention the fact that supreme court ruling has already stated that "police are not responsible for your protection, they are only there to respond to crimes after they have been committed".
Libertarians in general don't want to be at the "whim" of the government and that means being the protector of your own life and your family's lives.

I'm willing to bet you've never been the victim of violent crime.

There are some, nay, many who would do it anyway because the potential payoff is greater than violent retaliation.

Typical man, your ego is clouding your judgement.
You think that you, a mere civilian, probably not that big, probably not that strong, trained, fit or experienced under fire, can protect yourself and your family to a higher standard than screened, selected and highly trained professional police officers who face life or death situations on a daily basis and are paid to train and have the backup of as large a team as the job requires.

Sorry but you are deluded and if you have a family, you are putting them at risk, not only by your refusal to accept that there are better, stronger,m ore highly trained and combat experienced men than you, but by your irrational self-reliance necessarilycreating an environment where weapons have to be kept in easily accessible places.
Every year in America, thousands of people are killed by loved ones, in moment of anger, because a gun was at hand. You are willing to take that risk, just to sustain the illusion that your ability to be "the man" is on a par with that of a police officer.
It isn't, grow up and leave it to the professionals, sure it is a bit of a knock to your ego but you are just lying to yourself anyway. Your wife will probably give the cop a hug after he acts as defender and protector to your wife and family,and he might get her phone number but that'sjust a perk of the job.

If you wanted to be the big man so badly, you should have been a cop. Let the empowerment fantasy go, adolescence is meant to be left behind, along with sports car posters on the bedroom wall and stroking guns like talismans of power.

You're wrong. You, and ultimately you, are responsible for your own safety.

Is this what anarkiddies and lolberturdians have come to? Pretending to be Holla Forumsacks?
I shouldnt be surprised.

Forgot to add. Even when Brits had unrestricted access to guns, all the way up to full auto, they didn'thave this insane level of domestic murder by firearm which the US has to suffer. Reason being: British law requires guns to be kept locked away until use.

Those few minutes make all the difference, where as an angry wife, son or husband can reach to the "go to" weapon meant for "defending the home against niggers" and blow away the family in a moment of rage, the Brit had to unlocked the cabinet, unlock the ammo, load the weapon and then still be in a blind date.
Most people have calmed down by then, hence why this kind of domestic killing was and still is, virtually unheard of in the UK.
And why were the guns locked away? Because most sane people realise that it makes more sense to let the police do the job your taxes pay for.

So from what I'm getting from this thread is that anarcho-capitalism is capitalism without any laws or governance, Is that right? I have a feeling it would devolve into mafia rule before long.

The comparative murder rate proves that the American system is inferior.
The insistence on trying to do a job yourself, when there are professionals properly trained to do it. Let the police do their job, it doesn'tmske you less of a man, it shows that you have conquered your ego.

Yes, you can have both but you should rely on police for defense, not the dubious skill of a self-taught gunslinger.

Trying harder you fucking spastic VPN retard.
Holla Forums is pro guns, taking just one away from us means dead pigs on our doorsteps.
Fuck off.
>>>/liberty/
>>>/k/
Then rant about how shit Holla Forums is and how you BTFO all of us.

What the fuck is a "VPN retard"?

Anyway, looks like someone's mad. Look at how you can't even stay in control arguing on the Internet. You're just proving my point about the male ego and people with short fuses.

It does nothing of the sort. You can weigh what you prefer, but it doesn't change responsibility.

Because you have no other choice. It depends on your worldview.

If they feel like doing it. Just because someone has the public capacity to do something doesn't mean they will do it well, or at all. The lack of interest or motivation is the primary downfall of the "leave it to professionals" argument. They get a paycheck whether or not they save you - so what motivates them to go the extra mile and risk harm just to protect you? Nothing.

Which is clean-up and arrest for punishment, not active protection.

Or rather, that you have abdicated responsibility to protect yourself, and cross your fingers that someone else may do it for you, even though they have no material motivation to do so.

Clearly, massive multinational corporations like Google (excuse me "Alphabet inc."), Microsoft, Facebook, etc have our best interests at heart and just need more power, right?

Because I know exactly what you are, and you dont deserve anything.

A lack of Hans-Hermann Hoppe

ayy

In any anarchy, the groups that deign to establish a mutually beneficial protection racket will soon dominate everybody else. Thus forming states. Ergo, anarchy can never be anything more than a temporary interregnum - new states will emerge, as they always do. Think of the state as a provider of defense in a free market, and you'll understand. The free market and natural selection are one and the same.

Its illogical. Your boss becomes your new king.

Namely the fact that anarchism is a main proponent. I don't know how many times we have to have this same discussion. Even back before the Zimmerman trials when I first started browsing we had these exact same threads. Anarchy doesn't work unless you have a nation of perfect people. That's not possible, ever, so it won't work

I've never met any who listened to alex jones. some constitutionalists used to. I'm sure they're all pro-israel christians

I DON'T trust the military or police, do you? I was in the military.

kys

you too, spergkraut

What board is your home?

A society without laws is like a bicycle without wheels. a few things might happen, but most likely society would break down, and tribalism would probably trump muh libertarianism and then we'd all be put into groups based on what we like about ourselves and exclude those around us.

anarchists have written about various ways to have law without a government.

I sure hope so.

I guess you've never heard about the Islamic revolution in Egypt whereby the military AND police gave up and allowed the citizens to rebel and kick Mubarak out of power.

That's funny, Communists have written about a very similar thing, the result of course, was a complete ignoring of the principles of say, Marxism in the USSR, and instead, a full-blown authoritarian state, even worse than the National Socialists (who are claimed to be horrid). Following your logic, because something is written, therefore, it is true.

This of course, would only happen after lots of bloodshed and a system of government being installed anyway.

Milton Friedman himself argued that they couldn't be a free market without a state, which would provide protection. Unfortunately, he pooped in the punchbowl when he stated that we wouldn't need things like, Environmental Protection Laws.

The police and military kill who they are told to. Ours doesn't have the personal loyalty aspect like Rome.

I was still writing a reply when I saw
I'm done, since you are terminally retarded and people keep bumping a bait thread.

They kill foreigners, not their citizens; not without an actual cause, of course.

Hi Ayn Rand.

Ideally i used to look at anarchy as a faster version of eugenics (Survival of the fittest) However even if the strong manage to restore the order they'll probably be weakened in the process which would make it best time for enemy to strike.

No they didn't
They allowed it to happen then installed themselves when it turned out the new regime didn't want to give them their budget requests or new rights

Fuck off commie

My biggest problem is that you're all faggots

Weak chinned man-child who needs to suck on the teat of statism found. Go back to your jobless anime jerking subsistence

(((Oligarchs))) and oligarchs.

try this

weak on national defense and demographic invasion

lel

I CAME HERE FOR THE MEMES

Because the jews can flourish in ancap if it actually works so screw this. It is a pretty warped ideology.

Jesus fucking christ go back to the fucking oven and out of my Holla Forums

Sage thread

user, you are getting into the REAL WORLD with that. It is not an "argument" at that point.

and milton friedman wasn't an ancap

It's autistic and retarded. NS is where it's at.

...

even Holla Forums knows this cancer is bullshit

ancapism is literally the worst

Capitalism IS Globalism

...

That's right, whites must follow an Aryan economic model like socialism

No, an Aryan economic model is a mixed economy or feudalism, you fucking kike. Economic models aren't black and white, capitalism or socialism paradigms.

This image does a pretty good job of showing how deluded statists can be. Do you really think government has the power to stop "giant tsunamis"?

So, because we don't have a nation of perfect people, we need the perfect people in the government to keep the imperfect citizens in line?

This line of thinking is precisely backwards. It's because humans are imperfect that you shouldn't trust the government. The concentrated power of the state attracts psychopaths and other decidedly "imperfect" characters.

it has the power to stop the chaos in the wake of the tsunami

It has the power to absolve people of the consequences of building in floodplains and other unsuitable places through disaster relief, thereby screwing up land use and creating massive inefficiency as usual.

it's paradoxical. moldbug is right. fascism is what happens when you take anarcho-capitalism to its logical conclusion.

And where the fuck will you put 7 billion people?
Deserts? Mountains? Rain forests? It's more efficient to live in floodplains where it can destroy some houses once in a while than in inhospitable terrain that costs way much to sustain.
It's nice and dandy when you say they shouldn't build there but people don't have much choice, especially in the 3rd world.
This is where your utopian theory crumbles in face of reality. People need an order imposed on them to survive. IT has been since prehistory through many venues and it will be into the future.

it isnt national socialism
it sounds fucking gay
anarchy never works
capitalism corrupts
your memes are fucking stale
i saw one of your brainwashed quasi-libtards at a convention with that color scheme on a sweater
it was 105 degrees outside

(((Austrian economics))) is a retarded cult. Read an actual econ book.

Relies entirely on a non-aggression principal, which is literally impossible for shitskins to follow.

Holy shit South Park already created another principal? Who wrote the fucking character?

It doesn't seem so SJWish as Politically Correct Principal, I give them that.

No scum allowed.

Both Capitalism and Marxism-Communism are ideologies defined by the philosopher Marx. Nobody can win playing by the enemy's rules, using his terms. Therefore discard both and go with something else.

Even the stalest shit for NS and Commies make more sense than fucking Anarchism.
And where the fuck do these anarkiddies crawl out of? Did they finally become honest about what they want, the majority of lolbergs?

Sure thing. Medieval Iceland? Turned "statist" without ANY foreign pressure.
Next.

Not even the third world. Floodplains are one of those places where you can make a living why expecting some minor (on a macro scale) disasters, whose pay off in term of agriculture makes everything worth it. Pretty much every country bigger than a city state will have to do this. Fuck, the Egyptians worshiped the annual flooding of the Nile.
But of course, another important aspect of civilization is left out by the spergs, because it interfere with their "arguments".

Not an argument.

...

As always, the anarkiddies ignore every single post made by the more cool headed people here and take nitpick at people who dont want to "argue" with scum who thinks facts dont matter or people who are just tired of your shit.
Maybe you should try to scroll the thread top to bottom first, kid.

This is why the "quality" of the board has gone down. Not because of short posts, but of these disingenuous pieces of shit who lost every argument against the smarter Holla Forumsacks but always come back, despise being in their hugboxes crying about how Holla Forums is shit.
Pathetic.

bump

The thread already got bumplocked you faggot

Go frack yourself, dirtbag.